Response to consultation on draft RTS on the requirements, templates and procedures for handling complaints under MiCAR
Go back
At the same time, two notes are to be added.
First, the cost-benefit analysis seems to neglect the costs incurred to national competent authorities (NCAs) (see page 27). While theoretically, it is possible that added responsibilities would not result in higher costs; in this particular case it might very well be possible that practically, NCAs will have to hire personnel with specific crypto expertise to be able to supervise the implementation of the rules. This might lead to cost increases.
Second, within the limits of the act, it may be reasonable to create separate regimes for professional and retail investors. In line with the values of proportionality and fair competition, we believe that it would create a fairer distribution of customer protections and issuer duties.
Besides these smaller observations, however, Flowdesk sees an appropriately balanced approach and supports the current proposal.
Question 1: Do you consider that the approach proposed in the RTS strikes an appropriate balance between the various competing demands described? If not, please suggest an alternative approach and the underlying reasoning and evidence.
Yes, Flowdesk submits that the regulatory approach is appropriately balanced and it is in line with our company’s principles for regulatory actions (see it attached to this submission): proportionality, incrementality, fair competition, transparency and accountability, and especially the fundamental values of democracy, rule of law, and due process.At the same time, two notes are to be added.
First, the cost-benefit analysis seems to neglect the costs incurred to national competent authorities (NCAs) (see page 27). While theoretically, it is possible that added responsibilities would not result in higher costs; in this particular case it might very well be possible that practically, NCAs will have to hire personnel with specific crypto expertise to be able to supervise the implementation of the rules. This might lead to cost increases.
Second, within the limits of the act, it may be reasonable to create separate regimes for professional and retail investors. In line with the values of proportionality and fair competition, we believe that it would create a fairer distribution of customer protections and issuer duties.
Besides these smaller observations, however, Flowdesk sees an appropriately balanced approach and supports the current proposal.