As the digital asset landscape expands, regulatory clarity becomes essential for firms operating in the EU. Three prominent frameworks—MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation), MAR (Market Abuse Regulation), and MiFID II (Markets in Financial Instruments Directive)—are setting the standards for regulatory compliance across digital and traditional financial markets with regards to market abuse and licensing regime. This article provides a comparative overview of these regulations, focusing on market integrity, helping firms understand how to navigate the EU’s regulatory ecosystem effectively.
What This Article Covers
- Market Abuse and Trade Surveillance: Exploring the scope and importance of ensuring market integrity across traditional assets and crypto markets.
- Applicable Regulations and Key Compliance Areas: Comparing MiFID II, MAR, and MiCA to understand their unique and overlapping requirements, while diving into key compliance areas like market abuse prevention, transparency, and governance mandates.
- Main Elements of Differentiation: Highlighting the distinctions in scope, licensing, consumer protection, and governance between the three frameworks.
- Article 60 Explained: How MiFID-licensed firms can expand into crypto markets under MiCA’s streamlined pathway.
- Key Takeaways and Strategic Insights: Summarizing essential points and interdependencies across MiCA, MAR, and MiFID II.
1. Market Abuse and Trade Surveillance: Scope and Importance
The emergence of digital assets has introduced new risks associated with market manipulation, insider trading, unlawful disclosure of inside information and other abuses. Ensuring market integrity and effective trade surveillance is essential to maintaining investor confidence, market stability, and fair trading practices. Regulations like MAR and MiFID II have long governed these areas in traditional finance, but the recent introduction of MiCA aims to extend similar protections and monitoring to the cryptoasset space.
Market abuse and trade surveillance encompass a range of practices to detect, prevent, and report suspicious transactions, ensuring fair dealing and mitigating risks. These obligations are central to safeguarding both digital and traditional financial markets, reinforcing transparency and protecting investors.
2. Applicable Regulations
MiFID II and MAR: Key Requirements
MiFID II and MAR are foundational components of EU financial regulation, each playing distinct but complementary roles in governing financial markets.
- MiFID II (Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II): As a Directive, MiFID II requires transposition into national law by each EU Member State. It establishes a comprehensive framework for regulating the trade of financial instruments across the EU. MiFID II primarily deals with the licensing regimes for investment firms, market operators, data reporting services providers, and third-country firms providing investment services or performing investment activities through the establishment of a branch in the Union, setting out the requirements for authorization, organizational standards, conduct of business rules, and transparency obligations. Its implementation across Member States ensures a harmonized approach while allowing for certain national specificities.
- MAR (Market Abuse Regulation): Unlike a Directive, MAR is a Regulation, meaning it is directly applicable across all EU Member States without the need for local enactment. MAR imposes uniform rules to prevent market abuse, including insider trading, market manipulation, and unlawful disclosure of inside information. It applies to all financial instruments admitted to trading or for which a request for admission to trading has been made on regulated markets, multilateral trading facilities, or organized trading facilities within the EU. Because MAR does not require national transposition, it ensures consistency in market abuse rules throughout the EU.
Reading MiFID II and MAR Together: MiFID II and MAR are designed to work in tandem. While MiFID II establishes the framework for the operation and licensing of investment firms, market operators, data reporting services providers, and third-country firms providing investment services or performing investment activities through the establishment of a branch in the Union, MAR overlays this framework with rules to preserve market integrity. Firms authorized under MiFID II must comply with MAR's provisions to prevent market abuse, making it essential for these regulations to be read and applied together. It should be noted that MAR scope is much broader than MIFID II.
MiCA: Key Requirements for the Crypto Market
MiCA introduces a specific regulatory framework tailored to cryptoassets, addressing a regulatory gap in the existing EU financial services legislation.
- Scope and Authorization: MiCA applies to Crypto Asset Service Providers (CASPs) and issuers of cryptoassets, particularly asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs). CASPs are required to obtain authorization from national competent authorities (NCAs) in their Member State, focusing on licensing regimes similar to MiFID II but specific to cryptoassets.
- Market Integrity and Surveillance: MiCA’s Title VI, relating to market abuse, applies not only to CASPs but to any person that professionally arranges or executes transactions on crypto assets (PPAETs), imposing obligations to detect, prevent, and report insider dealing, unlawful disclosure of inside information, and market manipulation specific to crypto markets. These requirements are analogous to MAR but are adapted to the unique characteristics of cryptoassets and distributed ledger technology.
- Consumer Protection and Transparency: MiCA prioritizes consumer protection by enforcing detailed, transparent disclosures tailored to the specific roles of different crypto market participants. Each type of service provider—whether trading venues, custodians, issuers, advisors, or wallet providers—must provide clear information on aspects such as operational processes, security measures, risk factors, and consumer rights. Market communications must follow strict rules of communication and MiCA provides clear rules on mandatory communication and information to be published on websites. This tailored approach ensures that clients receive comprehensive information suited to the particular services they use, mirroring MiFID II’s high standards for transparency and client protection.
Recital 85 of MiCA underscores the intention to create bespoke rules for cryptoassets: "As issuers of crypto-assets and crypto-asset service providers are very often SMEs, it would be disproportionate to apply all of the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (MAR) to them. It is therefore necessary to lay down specific rules prohibiting certain behaviors that are likely to undermine user confidence in markets in crypto-assets and the integrity of those markets..."
Reading MiCA, MAR, and MiFID II Together
While MiCA introduces regulations specific to cryptoassets, MAR and MiFID II remain relevant:
- Overlap in Market Abuse Provisions: Market manipulation, unlawful disclosure of inside information or insider dealing involving crypto derivatives (which most likely would qualify as financial instruments under MiFID II) could trigger both MAR and MiCA provisions. Firms must be vigilant in monitoring activities that may fall under both regimes.
- Licensing and Authorization: MiFID II's licensing regime applies to financial instruments, and firms dealing with crypto derivatives must obtain MiFID II authorization. MiCA's licensing regime applies to CASPs dealing with cryptoassets that are not financial instruments. Understanding the classification of assets is crucial for compliance.
- Extraterritorial Reach: Both MiCA and MAR have extraterritorial implications, capturing certain activities outside the EU if they affect EU markets. Firms operating internationally must consider the global impact of their activities.
3. Main Elements of Differentiation
Here’s a comparison highlighting the main distinctions between MiCA, MAR, and MiFID II across critical compliance areas:
4. Key Compliance Areas in Depth
Market Integrity and Abuse Prevention
- MiCA: Title VI, relating to market abuse, applies not only to CASPs but to any person that professionally arranges or executes transactions on crypto assets (PPAETs), who are required to establish arrangements, systems, and procedures to detect, prevent, and report market abuse specific to crypto markets. MiCA mandates that these systems enable effective and continuous monitoring to prevent and detect market abuse. In addition to on- and off-chain monitoring, MiCA also refers to pre-chain risks in order to ensure that abusive behaviors are identified before they impact the distributed ledger. MiCA’s requirements extend to “reasonable suspicion regarding an order or transaction, including any cancellation or modification thereof, as well as other aspects of the functioning of the distributed ledger technology, such as the consensus mechanism, where there might exist circumstances indicating that market abuse has been committed, is being committed, or is likely to be committed” (MiCA, Article 92(1)).
- MAR: Imposes uniform rules to prevent market abuse across all financial instruments. Firms must monitor internal communications, maintain insider lists, have in place personal dealing accounts (PDA) policies and procedures (requirements not mandated by MiCA) and publicly disclose inside information (Public Disclosure of Inside Information). MAR includes certain exemptions that are not present in MiCA, such as "legitimate behavior" or "accepted market practices."
- MiFID II: While primarily a licensing framework, MiFID II requires investment firms and other obliged entities to comply with MAR's market abuse provisions. Firms must implement systems and controls to prevent and detect market abuse, integrating MAR's requirements into their operational procedures.
Consumer Protection and Transparency
- MiCA: Emphasizes consumer protection through strict marketing and disclosure rules including transparent whitepapers, best execution policies, disclosure of insider information and conflict of interests as well as managing conflicts of interest. CASPs must provide fair, clear and not misleading information to enable investors to make informed decisions.
- MAR: Does not focus directly on consumer protection but supports it indirectly by enforcing fair and transparent market practices.
- MiFID II: Demands high standards of consumer protection, including mandatory suitability and appropriateness assessments, best execution obligations, and comprehensive disclosures about risks and costs associated with financial instruments.
Governance and Risk Management
- MiCA: CASPs must implement governance structures and risk management frameworks appropriate to the scale and complexity of their business. This includes managing operational risks, ensuring cybersecurity, and establishing procedures to prevent market abuse.
- MAR: Does not specify governance requirements but expects firms to have internal controls to prevent and detect market abuse effectively.
- MiFID II: Requires investment firms to have robust governance arrangements, including clear organizational structures, effective processes for identifying, managing, and monitoring risks, and adequate internal control mechanisms.
5. Article 60: Enabling MiFID-Licensed Firms to Expand into Crypto Markets Under MiCA
Article 60 of MiCA offers a streamlined pathway for MiFID-licensed firms looking to extend their services into the cryptoasset market without needing a separate MiCA authorization. To benefit from this provision, a MiFID-licensed entity must ensure that its activities within the crypto space align with the scope of services already covered by its MiFID license. For example, a MiFID firm authorized to provide investment advice can expand this service to include cryptoassets under MiCA’s framework. However, the firm must adhere to MiCA’s specific conduct standards, transparent disclosures, and crypto-specific anti market abuse obligations.
To fully leverage Article 60, MiFID firms should also align their governance, risk management, and trade monitoring systems with MiCA’s crypto-focused standards. Additionally, to operate under MiCA, the firm is required to notify its National Competent Authority (NCA) and submit specific documentation as outlined in Article 60 and relevant Commission Delegated Regulations. These documents typically include details of the firm’s intended activities in the crypto market, internal controls mechanisms, governance structure, and compliance protocols, a description of information and communication technology and security systems demonstrating that the firm meets MiCA’s standards.
This alignment is essential, as MiCA introduces tailored requirements for crypto assets that differ from traditional financial instruments. By fulfilling these requirements and submitting the necessary documentation to the NCA, MiFID-licensed firms can take advantage of MiCA’s EU-wide passporting rights, allowing them to engage in the expanding crypto asset market across the EU while maintaining compliance with both MiFID and MiCA standards.
6. Key Takeaways and Conclusion
Understanding and navigating MiCA, MAR, and MiFID II is essential for firms operating within the EU's financial and crypto markets. Each regulation serves a specific purpose but is interconnected in promoting market integrity, consumer protection, and transparency.
MiCA: Introduces a comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptoassets, focusing on licensing, market abuse prevention, consumer protection, and transparency. It fills a regulatory gap by addressing the unique characteristics of crypto markets.
MAR: Ensures market integrity across all financial instruments in the EU by prohibiting insider trading, market manipulation, and unlawful disclosures. As a Regulation, it is directly applicable across the EU without the need for local transposition. MAR has a broader scope than MiFID II, applying to all financial instruments traded within the EU. Therefore, MiFID should be read in conjunction with MAR to fully address market abuse and integrity requirements in the EU financial markets.
MiFID II: Establishes the licensing regime for investment firms and other obliged entities dealing with financial instruments, including certain crypto derivatives. It requires national transposition, allowing for harmonization while accommodating specific national legal contexts. MiFID II mandates robust governance, consumer protection, and risk management practices.
Final Thoughts: Firms must consider the combined impact of these regulations. For instance, a firm dealing with crypto derivatives may need a MiFID II license, comply with MAR's market abuse provisions, and adhere to MiCA's requirements if dealing with cryptoassets not classified as financial instruments.
By aligning compliance programs with these standards, firms can foster a trusted, resilient digital asset ecosystem within the EU's evolving regulatory landscape. Understanding the nuances of each regulation and how they interrelate is crucial for compliance and strategic positioning in the market.
.png)
