Response to consultation on draft RTS on requirements for policies and procedures on conflicts of interest for issuers of ARTs under MiCAR
Q2: Do you think that other types of specific circumstances should be covered by Articles 2 and 3?
We consider the following problematic:
Identifying Business Activities of ART Holders (Article 2(c)): Article 2(c) of the RTS requires ART issuers to consider if any connected person is engaged in the same business as any holder of ARTs. We consider this requirement unnecessarily challenging, as issuers generally lack the means to discern the diverse business activities of ART holders. Furthermore, the obligation extends without limitation to particular ART holders, raising concerns over the feasibility and potential invasiveness of such measures, which go way beyond and even contradict MiCA’s requirements for protecting ART holders.
Tracking Connected Persons Holding ARTs (Article 3(c)): Building on the same premise, Article 3(c) demands ART issuers to consider scenarios where a connected person is generally a holder of ARTs. However, our main concerns, as also stated above, are that it would be incredibly hard for issuers to have comprehensive knowledge of all token holders and their connections, and also invasive for ART holders and even contradictory to their fundamental rights, such as the right to financial privacy.
Q7: Do you have any comments on the provisions proposed in Article 9 related to the Adequate resources? If so, please explain your reasoning.
Mandatory Appointment of a Conflict of Interest Manager (Article 9(1)): The requirement to designate a person solely responsible for managing conflicts of interest might be overly burdensome, especially for smaller and newly established ART issuers, as this structural requirement will inevitably add to operational costs and complexity. Notably, these costs are not reflected in the cost-benefit analysis of the RTS (as presented on pages 23-24), leading to potential underestimation of the regulatory impact.