Activities of Michiel HOOGEVEEN related to 2020/0265(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCa) - Information accompanying transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets (recast) (debate)
Amendments (16)
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) A dedicated and harmonised framework is therefore necessary at Union level to provide specific rules for crypto- assets and related activities and services and to clarify the applicable legal framework. Such dedicated harmonised framework should also cover services related to crypto-assets where these services are not yet covered by Union legislation on financial services. Such a framework should support innovation and fair competition, while ensuring a high level of consumer protection and market integrity in crypto-asset markets. A clear framework should enable crypto-asset service providers to scale up their business on a cross-border basis and should facilitate their access to banking services to run their activities smoothly. It should ensure proportionate treatment of crypto-asset issuers and service providers, allowing equal opportunities for new market entry and development in the Member States. It should also ensure financial stability and address monetary policy risks that could arise from crypto- assets that aim at stabilising their price by referencing a currency, an asset or a basket of such. While increasing consumer protection, market integrity and financial stability through the regulation of offers to the public of crypto-assets or services related to such crypto-assets, a Union framework on markets in crypto-assets should not regulate the underlying technology and should allow for the use of both permissionless and permission-based distributed ledgers. At the same time, it shall be recognised that some tokens do not represent payment means or investment assets and as such, shall be allowed to be issued and offered freely in the Union in so far as they are not offered as an investment or payment. Union legislation shall not set unnecessary and disproportionate regulatory burden on all use cases of the technology, if the Union and the Member States aim to remain competitive in a market which is naturally global. Sound regulation would preserve Member States’ competitiveness in the global financial and technology markets, and provide considerable benefits to their customers accessing cheaper, faster, and safer financial and asset-management services.
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Any legislation adopted in the field of crypto-assets should be specific, future- proof and, be able to keep pace with innovation and technological developments, and to be founded on an incentive-based approach to secure continued legal adequacy of Member States alongside the rapid innovation of the industry. ‘Crypto-assets’ and ‘distributed ledger technology’ should therefore be defined as widely as possible to capture all types of crypto-assets which currently fall outside the scope of Union legislation on financial services. Such legislation should also contribute to the objective of combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Any definition of ‘crypto-assets’ should therefore correspond to the definition of ‘virtual assets’ set out in the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)34 . For the same reason, any list of crypto-asset services should also encompass virtual asset services that are likely to raise money- laundering concerns and that are identified as such by the FATFrm the monetary policies of Member States. _________________ 34FATF (2012-2019), International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, FATF, Paris, France (www.fatf- gafi.org/recommendations.html).
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Despite their similarities, electronic money and crypto-assets referencing a single fiat currency differ in some important aspects. Holders of electronic money as defined in Article 2, point 2, of Directive 2009/110/EC are always provided with a claim on the electronic money institution and have a contractual right to redeem their electronic money at any moment against fiat currency that is legal tender at par value with that currency. By contrast, some of the crypto-assets referencing one fiat currency which is legal tender do not provide their holders with such a claim on the issuers of such assets and could fall outside the scope of Directive 2009/110/EC. Other crypto-asset referencing one fiat currency do not provide a claim at par with the currency they are referencing or limit the redemption period. The fact that holders of such crypto-assets do not have a claim on the issuers of such assets, or that such claim is not at par with the currency those crypto-assets are referencing, could undermine the confidence of users of those crypto-assets. To avoid circumvention of the rules laid down in Directive 2009/110/EC, any definition of ‘e-money tokens’ should be as wide as possible to capture all the types of crypto-assets referencing one single fiat currency that is legal tender. To avoid regulatory arbitrage, strict conditions on the issuance of e- money tokens should be laid down, including the obligation for such e-money tokens to be issued either by a credit institution as defined in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council36 , or by an electronic money institution authorised under Directive 2009/110/EC. For the same reason, issuers of such e-money tokens should also grant the users of such tokens with a claim to redeem their tokens at any moment and at par value against the currency referencing those tokens. E- money tokens can be referenced to any global fiat currency that is a legal tender. Because e-money tokens are also crypto- assets and can also raise new challenges in terms of consumer protection and market integrity specific to crypto-assets, they should also be subject to rules laid down in this Regulation to address these challenges to consumer protection and market integrity. However, as different crypto- assets raise different risks and challenges, stabilising crypto-assets to a fiat currency allows for safer uses for both consumers and investors. _________________ 36Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 1).
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) A competent authority should refuse authorisation where the prospective issuer of asset-referenced tokens’ business model may pose a serious threat to financial stability, monetary policy transmission and monetary sovereignty. Refusal should be based on comprehensive and clear criteria established in any secondary legislation. The competent authority shouldall consult the EBA and ESMA and, where the asset- referenced tokens is referencing Union currencies, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central bank of issue of such currencies before granting an authorisation or refusing an authorisation. The EBA, ESMA, and, where applicable, the ECB and the national central banks should provide the competent authority with a non-binding opinion on the prospective issuer’s application. Any opinions of the ECB should be non- binding. Where authorising a prospective issuer of asset- referenced tokens, the competent authority should also approve the crypto-asset white paper produced by that entity. The authorisation by the competent authority should be valid throughout the Union and should allow the issuer of asset-referenced tokens to offer such crypto-assets in the Single Market and to seek anapply for admission to trading on a trading platform for crypto- assets. In the same way, the crypto-asset white paper should also be valid for the entire Union, without possibility for Member States to impose additional requirements.
Amendment 288 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) over a period of 12 months, the total consideration of an offer to the public of crypto-assets in the Union does not exceed EUR 15 000 000, or the equivalent amount in any other currency or in crypto- assets;
Amendment 398 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 7 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Concerning asset-referenced tokens issues as decentralised crypto- assets or where the issuer(s) are located in third countries, a crypto-asset service provider operating a trading platform may also be authorised as offeror when it admits such asset-referenced tokens to trading on its own initiative. The authorisation of such offeror shall not be limited by to trading on the trading platform in question and shall not be limit other entities from applying for authorisation to offer the crypto-assets.
Amendment 446 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the applicant issuer’s business model may pose a serious threat to financial stability, monetary policy transmission or monetary sovereignty of Member States, based on criteria as shall be specified in a delegated or implementing act issued in accordance with article 121.
Amendment 488 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 30 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) the required auditable documentation and the audits referred to in paragraph 11;
Amendment 679 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 43 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. An e-money token offered to the communities in the Union or admitted to trading on a trading platform may reference any global currency that is legal tender.
Amendment 925 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 8
Article 68 – paragraph 8
8. Crypto-asset service providers that are authorised for the operation of a trading platform for crypto-assets shall compleinitiate the final settlement of a crypto-asset transaction on the DLT on the same date as thewithin 24 hours after transactions has been executed on the trading platform.
Amendment 968 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 1
Article 77 – paragraph 1
1. Issuers and offerers of crypto- assets shall inform the public as soon as possible of inside information which concerns them, in a manner that enables the public to access that information in an easy manner and to assess that information in a complete, correct and timely manner. Publication of such information on the blockchain shall be considered sufficient.
Amendment 977 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 77 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Issuers and offerors of crypto- assets may, on their own responsibility, delay disclosure to the public of inside information provided that all of the following conditions are met:
Amendment 983 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 77 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) immediate disclosure is likely to prejudice the legitimate interests of the issuers or offerors, as applicable;
Amendment 987 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 77 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the issuers or offerors, as applicable are able to ensure the confidentiality of that information.
Amendment 1038 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 100 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Article 100 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Where the ECB is a member of the college pursuant to Article 99(2), point (i), it shall have two votesonly a consultative, and not a binding vote on the opinion of the college. Where national banks of Member States are members of the college pursuant to Article 99(2), point (j), they shall only have a consultative, and not a binding vote on the opinion of the college.
Amendment 1052 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 102 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Article 102 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Where the ECB is a member of the college pursuant to point (h) of Article 101(2), it shall have 2 votesonly a consultative, and not a binding vote on the opinion of the college. Where national banks of Member States of the college pursuant to Article 101(2), point (I), they shall have only a consultative, and not a binding vote on the opinion of the college.