ESMA Clarifies the Perimeter of Advice on Crypto-Assets under MiCA

On 18 June 2026, ESMA published a Q&A clarifying when introductory and referral activities may amount to providing advice on crypto-assets under MiCA.

A broader perimeter than transaction-specific advice

MiCA treats advice on crypto-assets as a regulated crypto-asset service. The concept is not limited to recommending the purchase or sale of a particular crypto-asset. A personalised recommendation concerning the use of a crypto-asset service — such as custody or exchange — may also fall within the regulated perimeter.

When an introduction can become regulated advice

An introductory or referral service should be assessed by substance rather than label. Relevant factors include whether the communication contains a recommendation, whether it concerns a crypto-asset transaction or service, whether it is presented as suitable for the recipient or based on that person’s circumstances, and whether it is communicated privately rather than solely to the public.

A neutral reference to an authorised CASP, made without additional indications and on the same basis for all potential users, is less likely to constitute advice. The risk increases where the customer journey collects individual information, steers the person towards a particular service or presents that service as appropriate for the person.

Implications for non-CASP operating models

Businesses relying on authorised CASPs should review scripts, onboarding flows, marketing language, data collection and contractual responsibilities. The analysis must cover what the unlicensed party actually says and does, not merely how the arrangement is described in contracts.

Where the activity is in substance advice on crypto-assets, the MiCA authorisation perimeter becomes relevant. Non-CASP structures therefore require a documented perimeter assessment and operational safeguards that keep the unlicensed party outside regulated service provision.

 

After the MiCA Transitional Period: Non-CASP Operating Models Require Careful Structuring

The maximum EU transitional period under MiCA ended on 1 July 2026. Previously eligible providers can no longer rely on that transitional basis to continue providing crypto-asset services without authorisation.

No general agency route for unauthorised providers

MiCA does not create a general framework allowing an authorised CASP to appoint an unauthorised agent to provide crypto-asset services on its behalf. Where the appointed party itself performs a regulated crypto-asset service, that party may require its own CASP authorisation.

Non-CASP participation is not automatically prohibited

The end of the transition does not mean that every commercial role connected to crypto-assets is prohibited. Some models may be structured so that an unlicensed company remains outside the regulated service, while an authorised provider performs and remains responsible for the crypto-asset service.

That outcome depends on the actual operating model. The customer journey, communications, contractual allocation, control over the service, handling of instructions and funds, branding, technology and responsibility for regulated decisions all need to be assessed together.

Substance prevails over labels

Calling a party a marketing partner, introducer, technology provider or agent does not determine the regulatory result. The central question is whether that party is in substance providing a crypto-asset service within MiCA.

A non-CASP model may be appropriate as a carefully limited and controlled structure. It should not be used as a substitute for authorisation where the business seeks independence, direct customer control and scalable provision of regulated services. In many cases, CASP authorisation remains the more robust long-term route.