BaFin informs supervised service providers via MaComp about the minimum requirements it places on the implementation of compliance obligations. But is MaComp also applicable to regulated crypto service providers?
Service providers that only provide technical services within a crypto business model, may be able to provide their services without prior BaFin authorization in specific cases. Nevertheless, in some scenarios technical service providers may be subject to supervisory obligations anyways.
The German legislator intends to introduce the new financial service of crypto security registry management to the German Banking Act. But which activities shall be covered, who will need an authorization and what will be the requirements will have to be fulfilled by applicants?
Numerous established financial service providers consider the expansion of their business models to the crypto market or the usage of blockchain technology for internal procedures. But which of these changes and amendments must be coordinated with BaFin?
Business models with regards to crypto assets often trigger authorization obligations in accordance with German supervisory law for the providers. But at what point are foreign providers obligated to obtain authorization?
The provision of trading signals that are based on algorithmically analyzed trends offering buy or sell recommendations is typical for the crypto market. But what are the regulatory pitfalls that these signal providers have to consider?
Crypto custody business does not only include the custody, but also the administration of crypto assets. What exactly are the requirements that BaFin places on this variation of the crypto custody business which is subject to authorization and can it be fulfilled by delegating DPoS-coins?
BaFin just published its “Guidelines on application for authorization for crypto custody business” shortly after the deadline for the so-called grandfathering option for crypto custodians expired. A summary: