MICASURANCE
- Overview
- Regulatory insurance infrastructure
- What it protects
- The regulated company and its provable breaches of duty, not the crypto-asset itself.
- Written against
- MiCAR, obligations under Art. 67(6) and liability under Art. 75(8)
Cover modules
- Obligation mapping
The operating model is mapped against the obligations that generate insurable exposure, producing a defensible programme rationale.
- Safeguarding layer
Structured around segregation and custody of client assets, with the control evidence maintained continuously rather than annually.
- Governance and liability
Management and professional exposure arising from regulated activity, structured for the entity and its officers.
- Resilience and third party
ICT and dependency exposure addressed alongside continuity obligations, not as a separate purchase.
- Evidence trail
A maintained record designed to be presented, to a supervisor, a counterparty or a board, without reconstruction.
Perils covered
- Unauthorised access, insider theft and compromise of the trading or custody environment
- Critical system failure that produces a financial loss for a client
- Liability to clients arising from the firm's regulated activity
- Management and professional exposure of the entity and its officers
- ICT and third-party dependency failure inside the authorised perimeter
Never covered
- The market value of a client's crypto-asset, and price movement of any kind
- Activity outside the authorisation, or before it was granted
- Loss known to the firm before inception
- Wilful acts and gross negligence of the insured or its officers
- War, terrorism, nuclear energy, pandemic and sovereign acts
Deductible per claim
Five steps, from nil to ten thousand euro. Which one applies is agreed programme by programme and follows the firm's size, control environment and loss history. The steps are indicative and are not an offer.
- no deductible€0
- €2,500
- €6,000
- €7,500
- €10,000
Conditions of inception
These are conditions of inception, not matters of claim. Where the evidence is not in place, cover does not attach.
Written against
- MiCAR, obligations under Art. 67(6) and liability under Art. 75(8)
- MiCAR Art. 111, the supervisory penalty regime the programme is read against
- The European passporting perimeter the authorisation actually covers
Authorisation status
MiCAR authorisation in place, or an application whose scope is documented and current.
Safeguarding evidence
Segregation and custody of client assets evidenced continuously, not reconstructed at renewal.
ICT resilience baseline
A documented resilience and third-party dependency position, maintained as the estate changes.
Incident governance
A defined route from detection to reportable event, with the record kept as it happens.
Built for
- Crypto-asset service providers
- Firms in authorisation
- Exchanges operating in the EU
- Custody and safeguarding providers
Draws on
Capacity, limits, wordings and commercial terms are not published. They are structured per counterparty and shared directly under engagement.