ESMA Q&A 2551 on Overlap between offers of crypto-assets and placing.
Authority
ESMA
Q&A ID
ESMA_QA_2551
Status
Published Answer Updated
Published
18 February 2026
Legal basis
Source
Can persons who are authorized in writing by the issuer to offer crypto-assets to the public conduct this activity on a commercial basis, continuously, repeatedly, and possibly for different issuers (whether concurrently or consecutively) without having a MiCA CASP license for the crypto-asset service 'placing of crypto-assets'?
Answer provided by the European Commission
Yes, where a person offers to the public crypto assets upon the written consent of the issuer, for instance, under the conditions set out in Article 16(1) MiCA, second sub paragraph, that person acts on behalf of the issuer and no CASP license is to be required, where that activity is not exercised in the context of the provision of the crypto-services. However, where the person offering crypto-assets to the public engages in the placing of crypto assets or in any other crypto-asset service covered by MiCA carried out on a 7 professional basis, it is to be considered as a crypto-service provider as defined under Article 3(22) MiCA, and that person must obtain a CASP license for the relevant services. In cases where a person is offering crypto-assets to the public on behalf of the issuer, that person must comply with provisions relating to the offer and marketing of the crypto-assets as specified under MiCA (for instance, for ARTs, the person is to comply with Articles 27, 29 and 40, - without prejudice to the provisions relating to CASPs if that person provides crypto-asset services on a professional basis).
** Disclaimer: **
The answers clarify provisions already contained in the applicable legislation. They do not extend in any way the rights and obligations deriving from such legislation nor do they introduce any additional requirements for the concerned operators and competent authorities. The answers are merely intended to assist natural or legal persons, including competent authorities and Union institutions and bodies in clarifying the application or implementation of the relevant legal provisions. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union is competent to authoritatively interpret Union law. The views expressed in the internal Commission Decision cannot prejudge the position that the European Commission might take before the Union and national courts.
Source: ESMA original document
Last updated