Response to consultation on draft RTS on the procedure for the approval of white papers of ARTs issued by credit institutions
Go back
INATBA members would like to stress that the completeness statement goes further than a plain checklist of the presence of elements, but includes a qualitative aspect that is not to be neglected. If the qualitative aspect becomes a hurdle to getting the approval of the white paper, the good intentions behind the announced short deadline of 20 business days can disappear and hurt European competitiveness in this crucial and emerging industry.
INATBA members would therefore recommend that qualitative standards be issued to both national regulators and to the issuers of ART’s to guide them in the qualitative aspect of the production of a white paper. These guidelines should, based on non-exhaustive examples, illustrate what is and what is not qualitatively acceptable in a white paper.
INATBA members believe that providing a maximum of 20 business days to submit a revised version is fair based on the fact that the revised version should, in most cases, consist of clarifications, additions and rewordings. However, INATBA members do not find clarity in what the process may be if the modification requests go beyond this, and impacts the core of the product.
INATBA members would like to stress that the comments of the national competent authority (NCA) should be duly justified and that excessive qualitative criteria must ensure the quality of the information provided.
INATBA members would like to stress that technical jargon should not be used throughout a whitepaper if not previously defined. As an example, the duration of a product is a common concept in the financial industry. Few people outside of this industry understand the difference between duration and maturity. The comments of the competent authority should focus on these elements, which increase consumer protections and informational clarity.
The way the article is phrased leaves the door open for delayed negative opinion that can be detrimental for both the ART itself and to the industry as a whole. INATBA members, however, are conscious of the fact that requesting numerous positive confirmations would stress the operational capabilities of the related Central Banks and/or could lead to longer time delays for the approval of a whitepaper.
INATBA members wonder if NCAs, especially in the Eurozone, could holistically support the ECB in the issuance of a positive confirmation.
In addition, INATBA members would recommend including information about the settlement of divergent opinions in the case of the involvement of several central banks. This would provide more clarity to the promoters/issuers of ART’s, and the industry as a whole.
Question 1. Do you agree with the 20-working day period for the assessment of completeness of the crypto-asset white paper, as regulated under Article 3?
INATBA members welcome the short deadlines for the completeness check of a whitepaper. Its members think that swiftness is indeed key in the effective deployment of crypto-assets across the single market.INATBA members would like to stress that the completeness statement goes further than a plain checklist of the presence of elements, but includes a qualitative aspect that is not to be neglected. If the qualitative aspect becomes a hurdle to getting the approval of the white paper, the good intentions behind the announced short deadline of 20 business days can disappear and hurt European competitiveness in this crucial and emerging industry.
INATBA members would therefore recommend that qualitative standards be issued to both national regulators and to the issuers of ART’s to guide them in the qualitative aspect of the production of a white paper. These guidelines should, based on non-exhaustive examples, illustrate what is and what is not qualitatively acceptable in a white paper.
Question 2. Do you agree with the rules, as regulated under Article 4, on the request of missing information to a crypto-asset white paper, including on the 20-working day period for the deadline to provide missing information?
INATBA members believe that the procedure to submit corrections is in line with the expectations of our members and general market practices.INATBA members believe that providing a maximum of 20 business days to submit a revised version is fair based on the fact that the revised version should, in most cases, consist of clarifications, additions and rewordings. However, INATBA members do not find clarity in what the process may be if the modification requests go beyond this, and impacts the core of the product.
INATBA members would like to stress that the comments of the national competent authority (NCA) should be duly justified and that excessive qualitative criteria must ensure the quality of the information provided.
INATBA members would like to stress that technical jargon should not be used throughout a whitepaper if not previously defined. As an example, the duration of a product is a common concept in the financial industry. Few people outside of this industry understand the difference between duration and maturity. The comments of the competent authority should focus on these elements, which increase consumer protections and informational clarity.
Question 3. Do you agree with the rule, as regulated under Article 6, that where the ECB and, where applicable, another central bank do not transmit an opinion to the relevant competent authority within the set deadline, the latter may consider this as an indication that there is no negative opinion on the grounds of a risk posed to the smooth operation of payment systems, monetary policy transmission, or monetary sovereignty?
INATBA members believe that a positive confirmation of the position of the relevant central banks would bring more clarity to the process, but delays would affect business continuity and have an adverse effect on the industry.The way the article is phrased leaves the door open for delayed negative opinion that can be detrimental for both the ART itself and to the industry as a whole. INATBA members, however, are conscious of the fact that requesting numerous positive confirmations would stress the operational capabilities of the related Central Banks and/or could lead to longer time delays for the approval of a whitepaper.
INATBA members wonder if NCAs, especially in the Eurozone, could holistically support the ECB in the issuance of a positive confirmation.
In addition, INATBA members would recommend including information about the settlement of divergent opinions in the case of the involvement of several central banks. This would provide more clarity to the promoters/issuers of ART’s, and the industry as a whole.