Skip to content
MiCAR, Articles 70 and 75

Whose coinsthey are isno longera design choice.

Before MiCAR asks a provider to hold capital, it asks something simpler: whose assets are these, where are they, and what happens if they are gone. Articles 70 and 75 answer all three, and Article 75(8) draws the line between a loss the provider answers for and one it does not.
Instrument
Regulation (EU) 2023/1114
Binds
Crypto-asset service providers
Core duties
Art. 70 and Art. 75
Liability
Art. 75(8)
Why this comes before the capital question

Article 67 asks what a provider holds against failure. These two ask what it is holding in the first place.

The prudential safeguard under Article 67, which a provider may meet with own funds, an insurance policy or both, sits on top of an assumption: that client assets are identified, segregated and returnable. Articles 70 and 75 are that assumption written down. A provider that cannot show which coins belong to which client has a problem no amount of capital answers.

What they require

Art. 70

Client assets are safeguarded and kept apart from each other

Ownership rights in clients' crypto-assets and funds are safeguarded, and the assets of different clients are segregated from one another. Clients are told, in clear and non-technical language, what the systems, policies and procedures behind that actually are.

Art. 75

Custody is a written agreement, not a practice

A provider offering custody and administration concludes an agreement with the client setting out the duties and responsibilities of each side, and operates a custody policy. What was an operational habit becomes a document a supervisor can read.

Art. 75

Segregation reaches down to the ledger

Clients' crypto-assets are held separately from the provider's own on the distributed ledger itself, and are segregated from the provider's estate. Segregation stops being an entry in an internal system and becomes a fact about where the assets sit.

Art. 75

The assets, or the means of access, come back

The provider must have procedures in place to return the crypto-assets held on behalf of clients, or the means of access to them, as soon as possible. A key that only one departed engineer could produce is not a procedure.

Art. 75(8)

The line: attributable, or not

The provider is liable to its clients for the loss of crypto-assets attributable to it, and a loss arising from the provision of its services is deemed attributable. It is not liable for an event occurring independently of its operations — the example the Regulation itself reaches for is a problem inherent in the operation of a distributed ledger that the provider does not control.

Why the line matters

A statutory liability is a definable exposure

Article 75(8) does not create insurance. It does something more useful for anyone assessing this risk: it says which losses land on the provider by law, and which do not. An exposure with an edge written into a regulation is an exposure that can be described, evidenced and argued about, instead of one that has to be guessed at.

Source

Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on markets in crypto-assets. Article references and the liability wording are as stated by ESMA and the EBA; the full text is at the link. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and how these duties apply to a given business is a question for counsel and a competent authority, not for a website.
Technology

Underwriting isan informationproblem. We treatit as one.