Legal research ppt on the legal qualification of cryptocurrencies, initial coin offerings and tokens under EU law. Covers the (securities) regulation of crypto and digital assets in the EU. Are tokens securities? A comparative overview is given of different member states, including France, Estonia, malta and the United Kingdom.

1. On the legal qualification of digital assets and
cryptocurrencies across European jurisdictions
Digital assets in the EU
data up-to-date as of 19-10-2018 (at minimum)

2. DISCLAIMER
The creation of this report’s content has been approached from a best effort initiative. It is made available by Law & Blockchain
Consultancy for general education and information purposes only and is not intended, and should not be used as, professional
or legal advice of any kind.
Law & Blockchain Consultancy does not assume any responsibility for errors or omissions in the contents of this report. In no
event shall these parties be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage,
or any loss or damage arising from, or in connection with, the use of this report.
Every effort is made to keep this report consistent and as accurate as possible. Any critique, errors or miscalculations is
welcomed for re-evaluation and modifications.
For further inquiries contact thijsmaas@lawandblockchain.eu

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
• EU legislation of digital currencies and crypto-assets is in an early stage.
• A number of key regulators and policy makers have undertaken efforts to provide a degree of regulatory certainty while
mapping out risks related to digital currencies and crypto-assets.
• Digital currencies do not currently classify under key legal definitions of EU financial law, with the sole exception being the
field of Anti-Money-Laundering.
• While there is a degree of harmonization across European Member States, there are still substantial differences between
Member State regulations, especially with regards to the regulation of crypto-assets under securities laws.
• Smaller Member States tend to participate in jurisdictional competition by providing legal certainty to crypto
businesses

4. WHY HAVE WE CREATED THIS REPORT?
● Understand the legal qualification of digital currencies and crypto-assets in the EU
● Identify the main regulators on the EU & Member State level
● Provide insights into differing legal interpretations across EU Member States
● Identify which EU Member States best facilitate the crypto industry
● Define the key areas of regulatory uncertainty
4

5. CONTENTS
5
6 Regulation on the EU-level
An overview of the key EU regulators, regulations and legal definitions
14 Regulatory approaches on the Member State level
The spotlight on the three main regulatory approaches taken by Member States
18 In-depth overview of regulations per Member State
Mapping available guidance and applicable regulations on digital currencies and crypto assets per Member State

6. There are a number of key regulators and policy makers on the supra-national level
6
Proposes Legislation
Co-adopt Legislation

7. EU regulators and policy makers have extensively researched the applicability of EU law to
virtual currencies and crypto-assets
YEAR INSTITUTION TITLE CONTENT
2018
Crypto-Assets: Implications for financial stability, monetary policy, and payments
and market infrastructures
Provides market overview and contains a risk assessment, a gap analysis and a description of
regulatory challenges
2018 Virtual currencies and central banks monetary policy: challenges ahead
Describes prospects for digital currencies, concludes they are unlikely to pose a threat to central
banks, but a challenge for financial regulators
2018
Cryptocurrencies and blockchain: Legal context and implications for financial
crime, money laundering and tax evasion
Describes crypto industry, main players involved and risks relating to AML & the regulatory
framework.
2018 Virtual Currencies, monetary dialogue
Describes money and virtual currencies, and derives implications for financial market regulations
and monetary policy
2018 Warning for consumers on the risks of virtual currencies Warning about scams, volatility and the risks involved in buying virtual currencies
2018 Own Initiative Report on Initial Coin Offerings and Crypto-Assets
Analyzes types of tokens and the applicability of EU financial law, and provides normative
overview of required response in the field of securities laws.
2019 Advice on ICO's and Crypto-assets
Analyzes token offerings from the perspective of EU securities regulation. Annex 1 gives insight
into high-level differences between Member States
2019 Report on Crypto Assets
Advice to the European Commission, which describes basics taxonomy of crypto-assets (payment
tokens, investment tokens, utility tokens), observes applicability current financial regulations and
gives advice on AML
7

8. 8
Defines Virtual Currency as:
“a digital representation of value that is neither issued by a central bank or public authority
nor necessarily attached to a fiat (conventional) currency, but is accepted by natural or legal
persons as a means of exchange and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically”
Defines Crypto Asset as an asset that:
a) “depends primarily on cryptography and distributed ledger technology (DLT) or similar
technology as part of its perceived or inherent value,
b) is neither issued nor guaranteed by a central bank or public authority,27 and
c) can be used as a means of exchange and/or for investment purposes and/or to access
a good or service. “
Distinguishes between payment tokens, utility tokens and investment tokens.
Defines Virtual Currency as:
“a type of unregulated, digital money, which is
issued and usually controlled by its developers,
and used and accepted among the members of a
specific virtual community”
Defines a Crypto Asset as:
“a new type of asset recorded in digital form and
enabled by the use of cryptography that is not
and does not represent a financial claim on, or a
liability of, any identifiable entity”
Does not define Virtual Currency as such,
but includes them into the term ‘crypto
assets’
Defines a Crypto Asset as:
“a type of private asset that depends primarily on
cryptography and Distributed Ledger Technology
(DLT)”
Distinguishes between Payment-type, Utility-
type & Investment-type tokens. See next
slide.
There is no uniform understanding of ‘Virtual Currency’ among regulators
Each regulator maintains slightly different (non-binding) definitions in their policy guidance/research reports.

9. 9
The ESMA uses the Swiss regulator’s (FINMA) system of token taxonomy
These three token classifications are not mutually exclusive. Hybrid tokens have characteristics of multiple categories.
Payment tokens “are a means of payment for acquiring goods or
services. The holder has no claim on the issuer. These tokens are
virtual currencies in the true sense of the word. The most prominent
example is Bitcoin.”
Utility tokens “are intended to provide access to a specific application or
service but are not accepted as a means of payment for other
applications.”
Asset tokens “represent assets such as a debt or equity claim on the
issuer. Asset tokens promise, for example, a share in future company
earnings or future capital flows. In terms of their economic function,
therefore, these tokens are analogous to equities, bonds or derivatives.
Tokens which enable physical assets to be traded on the blockchain
also fall into this category.”

10. 10
Virtual currencies are not defined in key EU financial legislation
However, we do know what virtual currencies are not.
● Virtual currencies are not equivalent to cash or scriptural money
● Virtual currencies are not a form of legal tender
● Virtual currencies generally don’t qualify as ‘electronic money’ under the E-Money Directive as they don’t give a monetary claim on any
issuer(s). Some stable coin designs are a notable exception.
Art. 2 (2) E-Money Directive:
‘electronic money’ means electronically, including magnetically, stored monetary value as represented by a claim on the issuer which is issued on receipt of funds for the purpose of making payment transactions as defined in point 5 of
Article 4 of Directive 2007/64/EC, and which is accepted by a natural or legal person other than the electronic money issuer
Stable coins and digital currencies as Facebook’s proposed Libra might qualify as electronic money as there is a claim on the issuer.
● Virtual currencies generally don’t qualify as ‘transferable securities’ under MiFID II, as they fall under the ‘instruments of payments’
exemption
Art. 4 (1) (44) of MIFiD II:
‘transferable securities’ means those classes of securities which are negotiable on the capital market, with the exception of instruments of payment, such as: (a) shares in companies and other securities equivalent to shares in companies,
partnerships or other entities, and depositary receipts in respect of shares; (b) bonds or other forms of securitised debt, including depositary receipts in respect of such securities; (c) any other securities giving the right to acquire or sell any
such transferable securities or giving rise to a cash settlement determined by reference to transferable securities, currencies, interest rates or yields, commodities or other indices or measures;
● Crypto-assets might be ‘transferable securities’, depending on the design of the asset and regulations at the Member State level.

11. Sources: Centre of Social and Economic Research Warsaw 2012 report.
The only definition of Virtual Currency in EU law is in the field of Anti-Money Laundering
The only definition of Virtual Currencies is found in the 5th AML Directive
The recently amended 5th AML Directive has included custodial wallets and crypto-exchanges in its scope, and therefore defined Virtual
Currencies as a “a digital representation of value that is not issued or guaranteed by a central bank or a public authority, is not necessarily
attached to a legally established currency and does not possess a legal status of currency or money, but is accepted by natural or legal
persons as a means of exchange and which can be transferred, stored and traded electronically”
The only interpretation of Bitcoin by the European Court of Justice was in Hedqvist
In its judgement, the ECJ stated that Bitcoin, as a direct (contractual) means of payment, cannot be regarded as a “current account or deposit
account, a payment or a transfer”, nor as “debt, cheques and other negotiable instruments” referred to in article 135 (1)(d) VAT
Directive. However, according to the ECJ, an exchange of services for Bitcoin does fall under the exemption for transactions involving
“currency, bank notes and coins used as legal tender” as laid out in article 135(1)(e) VAT Directive.
11

12. These are the key EU Regulations and Directives that are potentially applicable to crypto businesses
REGULATION/DIRECTIVE POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TO
Prospectus Directive & Prospectus Regulation Token Issuers, investment funds
Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II)
Exchanges, token issuers, wallet providers, brokers, custodians, investment funds, other
issuers of financial instruments, other service providers
Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5th AMLD)
Exchanges and custodial crypto wallets specifically, as well as all ‘regular’ AMLD-
regulated parties.
Transparency Directive Token issuers
Electronic Money Directive Token issuers (stable coins)
Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD 2) Stable coin issuers, payment networks
Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR) Token issuers, CSDs, CCPs
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) All parties that process personal data
Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive (UCITSD) Investment funds, custodians
Alternative Investment Fund Directive (AIFMD) Investment funds, custodians
VAT Directive All parties that sell goods or provide services in the EU. Potentially also token issuers
Unfair Commercial Practices Directive Token issuers, all parties that sell goods or provide services to consumers
12

13. While EU Directives and Regulations harmonize legislation across the EU, the regulation of
digital currencies is not fully harmonized
● While EU Regulations are (upon entry into force) fully applicable across the entire EU, this is not the case for EU Directives
● EU Directives state the legal results to be achieved by Member States, without dictating the means to do so. Member States are therefore free
to transpose EU Directives into national law as they see fit, leading to differences between Member States’ regulation
● Moreover, EU legislation is often ‘minimum-harmonization’, meaning Member States are often free to enact more strict legislation as an addition
to EU Regulations or Directives
● As key financial law is enacted in the form of Directives (e.g. MiFID II), EU financial law is not fully harmonized, especially when it comes to hard
to classify instruments such as digital currencies and crypto-assets.
● Notably, the important MiFID definition of ‘transferable securities’ has been implemented in varying ways across EU Member States, leading to
a fragmented securities regime for token issuers.
13

14. On the Member State level, there are large differences in terms of regulatory approaches to digital
currencies and crypto-assets
Pro-active approach
Undefined approach
Wait-and-see approach / careful
consideration
14

15. A small number of Member States have taken a proactive approach towards the legislation of digital
currencies and crypto-assets
List of countries:
❖ Estonia
❖ Malta
❖ Switzerland
❖ Lichtenstein
❖ Lithuania
❖ Gibraltar
❖ Jersey
❖ France
❖ Isle of Man
The proactive approach:
These countries have expressly legislated
or specifically developed methodologies,
criteria or guidelines for assessing how and
to what extent ICOs could be considered as
financial instruments, thus falling under their
respective framework of financial services
legislation. Current rules on securities
business, prospectus, anti-money
laundering, financing of terrorism and/or
market abuse continue to apply to such
offerings, as applicable.
15

16. Many big EU Member States have taken a wait-and-see approach towards the legislation of digital
currencies and crypto-assets
List of countries:
❖ Austria
❖ Belgium
❖ Bulgaria
❖ Denmark
❖ Estonia
❖ Finland
❖ Germany
❖ Ireland
❖ Luxembourg
❖ Netherlands
❖ Portugal
❖ Spain
❖ United Kingdom
❖ Guernsey
The wait-and-see approach:
These countries appear to take a “wait-and-see” or
“guarded” approach. They do not specifically restrict
or prohibit ICO’s or crypto assets initiatives but
would take a measured approach to related
proposals on a case by case basis and in full
consideration of, and conformity to, legislative
instruments already in force within their territory
and, where applicable, in the EU (such as those on
securities business, prospectus, anti-money
laundering, financing of terrorism and/or market
abuse). Initiatives would not be allowed to bypass
rules simply because of the manner in which such
assets are created or offered (mainly DLT
technology).
16

17. Especially eastern European Member States have so-far taken an undefined approach towards regulating
digital currencies and crypto-assets
List of countries:
❖ Croatia
❖ Czech Republic
❖ Greece
❖ Hungary
❖ Italy
❖ Latvia
❖ Poland
❖ Republic of Cyprus
❖ Romania
❖ Slovakia
❖ Slovenia
❖ Sweden
❖ Norway
❖ Iceland
The undefined approach:
The websites of the securities authorities in
Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Latvia, Poland, Republic of Cyprus,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden,
Norway and Iceland do not appear to provide
clear information as to their stance in these
areas. The fact that information was lacking or
not easily traceable at the time of this
research does not necessarily imply that ICOs
and crypto assets initiatives are being
completely restricted or ruled out, nor that
they are always unconditionally allowed.
17

18. MEMBER STATE
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
REGULATION OF ICOs
REGULATION OF DIGITAL
CURRENCIES
CONSUMER-RELATED
INITIATIVES
Austria Austrian
Financial
Market
Authority (FMA)
Not specific. However, FMA states that as the
design of ICOs varies in terms of technical,
functional and economic terms, an assessment
would need to be done in accordance with
prevailing supervisory rules on a case-by-case
basis. Coins or tokens may constitute financial
instruments if their respective underlying rights are
comparable to mainstream categories of
investments.
The FMA claims that as there is no issuer
behind “bitcoin”, it is not the subject to
supervision. However, the operation of
various business models based on bitcoin
would require an FMA licence .
Information/ Warning: Focus on
Initial Coin Offerings (November
2017) and bitcoins and Virtual
Currencies (2016)
Belgium Financial Services and Markets
Authority (FSMA)
Not specific. The FSMA identified a number of
national laws which, in addition to European laws,
apply depending on how ICOs are structured
(November 2017). Each case is examined on a
case-bycase basis.
Warning: ICOs (November 2017)32
and Cryptocurrency trading
platforms: Beware of fraud (February
2018)33
Bulgaria Financial Services Commission
(FSC)
The FSC will monitor the market for
cryptocurrencies and ICOs on the Bulgarian market
with a view to undertaking specific measures
related to money laundering and abuse stemming
from their trade (July 2018)
See Regulation of ICOs Relay of ESMA’s warning
(November 2017)
Croatia Croatian Financial Services
Supervisory Agency (HANFA)
No information appears to be available No information appears to be available Information on virtual currency and
risk of investing in virtual currency
(February 2018) and Information on
investment risks in crypto and ICO
(December 2017)
An overview of the regulation of digital currencies and crypto-assets within EU Member States
18

19. MEMBER STATE
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
REGULATION OF ICOs
REGULATION OF DIGITAL
CURRENCIES
CONSUMER-RELATED
INITIATIVES
Czech Republic Czech National Bank (CNB) No information appears to be available A January 2017 anti-money laundering law
requires virtual currency exchanges to
determine the identity of customers. The law
appears also to restrict Bitcoin use.
Denmark Danish Financial Supervisory
Authority (Finanstilsynet )
No specific rules but current laws remain applicable
subject to design of ICO. Tokens that resemble
financial instruments could potentially fall under one
or more EU laws, and therefore within scope of
relevant regulations (November 2017)
Cryptocurrencies remain unregulated in
terms of Danish financial legislation
(November 2017)
Risks when investing in ICOs
(November 2017) and EU authorities
warn consumers about
cryptocurrency (February 2018)
Estonia Estonian Financial Supervision
Authority (Finantsinspektsioon)
EFSA issued (non-binding) guidance. Tokens might
be considered securities, depending on their design
and scope of issue. ICO may also be governed by
the Credit Institutions Act if they are akin to loans.
Mining cryptocurrencies falls outside scope of
EFSA but AML and other legislative
requirements apply. Regarding trading
cryptocurrencies, it is important to mark that
according to the judgement of the Estonian
Supreme Court (RKHKo 3-3-1-75-15), trading
Bitcoins as business activity corresponds to
the provision of services of alternative means
of payment. Virtual money providers are not
subject to supervision (June 2015)
Finland Financial Supervisory Authority
(Finanssivalvont a)
Different current national rules may apply
depending on the ICO design (November 2017)
No information appears to be available Warning: cryptocurrencies and ICOs
(Initial Coin Offering) are high-risk
investments (November 2017)
An overview of the regulation of digital currencies and crypto-assets within EU Member States
19

20. MEMBER STATE
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
REGULATION OF ICOs
REGULATION OF DIGITAL
CURRENCIES
CONSUMER-RELATED
INITIATIVES
France Autorité des Marchés
Financiers (AMF)
Following a public consultation on ICOs , the AMF took on
board respondents’ suggestions that a specific legal
framework for ICOs should be developed. A licence may be
issued to companies applying for an ICO as long as consumer
protection criteria are adhered to. Licensing would not be
mandatory. This voluntary regulatory framework for crypto-
firms would be experimental.
Currently no specific regulation Warning: Buying bitcoin (December
2017)
Germany Federal Financial Supervisory
Authority (BaFin)
Not specific. The regulator issued an Advisory Letter (March
2018) on the classification of tokens or cryptocurrencies
underlying “initial coin offerings” (ICOs) as financial
instruments in the field of securities supervision. Potential
market participants are to give careful consideration as to
whether tokens constitute a regulated instrument in terms of
applicable rules59. Caseby-case determination is required to
determine a token’s legal classification within German and EU
law.
Warning for consumers on ICOs
(November 2017)
Greece Hellenic Capital Markets
Commission (HCMC)
No information appears to be available No information appears to be
available
Relay of ESMA’s warning on ICO
investing (November 2017)
Hungary National Bank of Hungary
(MNB)
No information appears to be available No information appears to be
available
Caution on the use of Bitcoin
(September 2014)and (December
2016) and relay of ESAs warnings
(February 2018) Relay of ESMA’s
warning on ICO investing (November
2017)
An overview of the regulation of digital currencies and crypto-assets within EU Member States
20

21. MEMBER STATE
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
REGULATION OF ICOs
REGULATION OF DIGITAL
CURRENCIES
OTHER INITIATIVES
Ireland Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) No official position but in a recent policy speech,
CBI has asked about the difference between an
unregulated ICO and the issuance of a financial
instrument and when that difference may not be
there (January 2018)
Alert on use of virtual currencies
(2013/2014)71 and Initial Coin
Offerings (December 20172.
Discussion paper on virtual
currencies and blockchain
technology issued by the
Department of Finance (March 2018)
Italy Banca d’Italia Commissione
Nazionale per le Società e la
Borsa (CONSOB)
No definite statement appears to have been made
so far.
Banca d’Italia discourages the purchase,
retention and sale of cryptocurrencies by
banks and financial intermediaries (January
2015)
Warning on use of virtual currencies
(January 2015) and ICOs
(December 2017), relaying ESMA’s
statement
Latvia Financial Stability and Capital
Market Commission (FKTK)
No definite statement has been made so far Virtual currency providers, including
conversion of fiat currency to crypto, will be
registered and supervised by the State
Revenue Service.
Investor alert on bitcoin (February
2014) and ICOs (November 2017)
Lithuania Bank of Lithuania The national regulatory and legal regime may apply
to specific ICO models. Entities are required to
observe parameters and restrictions outlined in
such position (October 2017)
Banks, payment institutions and other
financial market participants are specifically
prohibited from providing services to virtual
currencies or participate in them (November
2017)
Warnings may have been issued but
links appear to be unavailable.
Blockchain sandbox platform
service, LBChain (January 2018)
An overview of the regulation of digital currencies and crypto-assets within EU Member States
21

22. MEMBER STATE
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
REGULATION OF ICOs
REGULATION OF DIGITAL
CURRENCIES
OTHER INITIATIVES
Luxembourg Financial Sector
Supervisory Commission
(CSSF)
Despite the lack of specific regulations that applies to
ICOs, the activities related thereto or implied through the
creation of tokens, the collection and raising of funds
may, depending on their characteristics, be subject to
certain legal provisions in Luxembourg and thus to
certain supervisory requirements (March 2018)
No specific regulation. CSSF encourages a
European/International approach especially
as regards the legal qualification of virtual
currency (March 2018)
Warning on Initial Coin Offerings
(“ICOs”) and tokens (March 2018)
Malta Malta Financial Services
Authority (MFSA)
On July 4, 2018 the Maltese Parliament has officially
passed 3 bills into law: • The Virtual Financial Assets Act
(VFA Act), • The Malta Digital Innovation Authority Act, •
The Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services
Act. The VFA Act regulates ICOs.
The Malta Digital Innovation Authority Act
formalizes regulatory procedures for the
cryptocurrency and the blockchain industry.
New regulatory authority tasked with
promoting and regulating distributed
or decentralised technology (among
other aspects) (July 2018)
Netherlands Dutch Authority for the
Financial Markets (AFM)
Potential issuers need to properly analyse the extent of
any overlap with financial regulation and supervision
before launching their ICO. If a token qualifies as a
security, a prospectus is compulsory
In a recent judgement, a Dutch District Court
declared that bitcoins are stand-alone value
files, which are delivered directly to the payee
by the payer in the event of a payment. In
the court's view, this bears characteristics of
a property right.
AFM warns investors on risks
associated with ICOs
Poland Polish Financial
Supervisory Authority
(KNF)
Does not seem to be regulated The Polish Financial Ombudsman,
Aleksandra Viktorow, appealed to the
government to regulate the activities of
financial companies, such as online
exchange offices or virtual currency
exchanges (February 2017)
Statement by Narodowy Bank Polski
(NBP) and the Polish Financial
Supervision Authority (KNF) on
"virtual currencies" (July 2017)
KNF’s statement on selling so-called
coins or tokens (Initial Token
Offerings – ITOs or Initial Coin
Offerings – ICOs) (November 2017)
An overview of the regulation of digital currencies and crypto-assets within EU Member States
22

23. MEMBER STATE
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
REGULATION OF ICOs
REGULATION OF DIGITAL
CURRENCIES
OTHER INITIATIVES
Portugal Portuguese Securities Market
Commission (CMVM)
FinTech business models (which include ICOs) are
varied and may be subject to legislation and
CMVM's supervision
Alerts consumers to the risks of
using "virtual currencies" (October
2014) CMVM warns investors on
Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs)
(November 2017)
Republic of Cyprus Cyprus Securities and
Exchange Commission
(CySEC)
No information appears to be available No information appears to be available Warning to investors on trading In
Virtual Currencies (March 2014 and
October 2017); Risks Emanating
from Initial Coin Offerings for
Investors and Firms (November
2017)
Romania Financial Supervision Authority
(ASF)
No information appears to be available No information appears to be available No warnings have been issued
Slovakia National Bank of Slovakia No information appears to be available No information appears to be available Warning to the public on Bitcoin
(November 2013)
An overview of the regulation of digital currencies and crypto-assets within EU Member States
23

24. MEMBER STATE
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
REGULATION OF ICOs
REGULATION OF DIGITAL
CURRENCIES
OTHER INITIATIVES
Slovenia Securities Market Agency
(ATVP)
No specific guidelines/rules. Guidance in report of June
2018.
No information appears to be
available
ATVP held a public consultation on
ICO and crypto assets open in
January to April 2018 and a report
was published in June 2018.
Warning regarding buying, storage
and investment in virtual currency
Spain Banco de Espana National
Securities Market Commission
(CNMV)
Not specific. CNMV considers that a good number of
operations structured as ICOs should be treated as issues
or public offerings of transferable securities in terms of
Spanish law . Current rules apply. This was also confirmed
(May 2018) by a high CNMV official who stated that
existing securities rules will continue to apply until
international/European reference standards are made
applicable .
No information appears to be
available
Joint press statement by the CNMV
and the Banco de España on
“cryptocurrencies” and “initial coin
offerings” (ICOs). See also CNMV
considerations on crypto currencies
and ICOs addressed to market
professionals (February 2018)
Sweden Financial Supervisory Authority
(FI)
No specific guidelines/rules. Report: “FI’s role regarding
innovation “ (December 2017)
No information appears to be
available
Warning: Risks connected with Initial
Coin Offerings (ICO) (November
2017) and cryptocurrencies
(February 2018)
United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority
(FCA)
Not specific. Determined on a case by case basis,
depending on ICO design. Regulatory considerations as
applicable under Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
(FSMA). A recent FCA Consultation Paper provides some
additional (non-binding) guidance for token issuers.
(January 2019)
Not currently regulated Warning: risks relating to ICOs
(September 2017) Warning: risks of
investing in cryptocurrency CFDs
(November 2017) FS17/4:
Distributed Ledger Technology
Feedback Statement (December
2017)
An overview of the regulation of digital currencies and crypto-assets within EU Member States
24

25. JURISDICTION
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
REGULATION OF ICOs
REGULATION OF DIGITAL
CURRENCIES
OTHER INITIATIVES
Norway Financial Supervisory Authority
of Norway (Finanstilsynet)
No specific guidelines/rules. Finanstilsynet's
supervisory activities will be based on ESMA's
assessments (November 2017)
No information appears to be available Warning to consumers on ICOs
(November 2017) and
cryptocurrency (February 2018)
Iceland Financial Supervisory Authority No specific guidelines/rules No information appears to be available
Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority Depending on their specification, tokens may
constitute financial instruments subject to financial
market Law (September 2017). On May 7, 2019 the
Liechtenstein government reported that it passed a
motion to implement a new law on Tokens and VT
Service Providers (generally referred to as the
“Blockchain Act”). The Blockchain Act allows every
possible asset, including real estate, bonds and
securities, to be tokenised, digitalized and listed on
a cryptocurrency exchange, and regulates ICOs,
STOs and TGEs.
As of now, neither the production nor the use
of virtual currencies as means of payment are
subject to any licensing requirement governed
by specialized legislation. In individual cases,
however, there may be a licensing requirement
depending on the specific design of the
business model.
An overview of the regulation of digital currencies and crypto-assets within the European Economic
Area (EEA)
25

26. An overview of the regulation of digital currencies and crypto-assets within other European jurisdictions
JURISDICTION
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
REGULATION OF ICOs
REGULATION OF DIGITAL
CURRENCIES
OTHER INITIATIVES
Gibraltar Gibraltar Financial Services
Commission (GFSC)
As of 1 January 2018, any firm carrying out by way of
business, in or from Gibraltar, the use of distributed
ledger technology (DLT) for storing or transmitting
value belonging to others (DLT activities), needs to be
authorised by the GFSC as a DLT Provider. Nine
principles are applied to DLT Providers so as ensure
that the GFSC’s regulatory outcomes are achieved.
No information appears to be available Innovate and create Team created.
Statement on Initial Coin Offerings
(September 2017)
Switzerland Swiss Financial Market
Supervisory Authority (FINMA)
Publication of ICO Guidelines which define the
information FINMA requires to deal with ICO
enquiries and the principles upon which it will base its
responses (February 2018)
FINMA closes down coin providers
and issues warning about fake
cryptocurrencies (September 2017)
Jersey Jersey Financial Services
Commission (JFSC)
Publication of ICO Guidelines (July 2018). The JSFC
does not regulate ICOs and will impose minimum
standards. ICO issuers will be required to be
administered by a trust and company service provider
licensed by the JFSC
No conduct rules for virtual currencies but
still subject to AML and counterterrorism
financing legislation in Jersey (September
2016).
Warning on ICOs (November 2017)
Guernsey Financial Conduct Authority
(FCA)
Cautious approach if approached with applications
involving ICOs that could be traded on secondary
market (February 2018)
Cautious approach if approached in regard
to setting up of a digital currency exchange
(February 2018)
Advisory notice concerning ICOs
(September 2017)
Isle of Man Isle of Man Financial Services
Authority (FSA)
The tokens issued through an ICO do not fall within
the definition of “investments”, and therefore the
tokens are not regulated investments and the
protections afforded to investors of traditional
investment products regulated under the Financial
Services Act 2008 do not apply
In April 2015 the Proceeds of Crime
(Business in the Regulated Sector) Order
2015 amended the law to bring certain
businesses involved in virtual currencies
under the oversight of, but not regulation
by, the FSA
Q&As on ICOs
26

27. Estonia France Gibraltar
Liechtenstein Malta Switzerland
The most crypto-friendly states provide regulatory certainty.
Population: 1,316,000
# of ICOs: 65
Funds raised: $570,576,457.-
Other remarks: ❖ Low-wage but digitally advanced nation
❖ High amount of tech talent
❖ banks provide bank accounts to ICO issuers
(unlike many other in the EU)
❖ Relatively high legal certainty due to EFSA
guidance
Especially smaller states practice jurisdictional competition to attract the crypto industry.
Population: 66,999,000
# of ICOs: 14
Funds raised: $143,240,286.-
Other remarks: ❖ Largest EU state to participate in jurisdictional
competition for ICOs
❖ However, legislation not enacted yet
❖ Considering France’s # of ICOs and the state
of the market, France might have missed the
boat
Population 37,810
# of ICOs 3
Funds raised $27,700,000.-
Other remarks ● High legal certainty due to new Blockchain
Act (Adopted May 2019)
● New legislation focusses on use of DLT for
tokenized assets
● First STO prospectus’ approved by FMA
Population 460,297
# of ICOs 13
Funds raised $132,013,038.-
Other remarks ❖ Very high legal certainty:
➢ ICO regulation
➢ special regulatory body
➢ DLT regulation
❖ Attractive corporate income tax regime
❖ Legal certainty and tax regime led to Binance
and Okex to move to Malta
Population 8,420,000
# of ICOs 78
Funds raised $1,572,271,605.-
Other remarks ❖ Crypto Valley: Zug is a hub for the crypto
industry, talent and access to financial
services
❖ High legal certainty, due to very pro active
regulator (guidance & ability to obtain no-
objection letters)
Population: 34,571
# of ICOs: 22
Funds raised: $370,008,571.-
Other remarks: ❖ provides regulatory certainty through a
licensing regime and regulatory framework for
DLT providers
❖ Pro-active regulator and a new trade
association for the industry
❖ Attracting exchanges to incorporate in
Gibraltar
27

28. FURTHER RESEARCH
28
Issues still to tackle:
● Further regulatory certainty has to be provided by the EU or individual Member States in order to incentivize innovation in the use of DLT for a variety of
use-cases
● The applicability of securities laws to crypto-assets should be further harmonized across the EU in order to provide token issuers with a single EU-wide
securities regime
● A single EU-wide regime should be established to regulate the use of DLT as technical infrastructure for tokenized assets, in order to establish the EU as a fertile
ground for innovation in this area
Further research to be done:
● Comparative research into the applicability of KYC/AML requirements on businesses working with digital currencies and crypto-assets and the KYC/AML compliance
industry
● Comparative research into the applicability of legal regimes to payment networks and stable coin issuers (incl. Libra)
● Research on worldwide jurisdictional competition between ‘crypto-friendly’ states
● In-depth comparative research on the worldwide applicability of securities laws to token offerings (i.e. ‘When is a token a security?’)

29. METHODOLOGY
29
Sources have been provided in-line as hyperlinks.
EU-level regulation and policy:
● Information on EU regulations and their applicability to crypto derive from primary and secondary legal sources, as well as in-house analysis
Member State level regulation:
● Information on Member State Regulation has been derived from analysis performed by the European Securities Market Authority and its Securities and
Market Stakeholder Group, as well as the websites from all financial regulatory authorities of individual Member States. At minimum, this information is
up-to-date until 19-10-2018
Data on crypto-friendly Member States:
● Information on crypto-friendly Member States has been derived from the sources listed under Member State Regulation above, as well as secondary
sources
● Data on the number of ICOs and the amount of funding per Member State originate from a proprietary data set on ICO issuers

30. About Law & Blockchain Consultancy
Through Law & Blockchain Consultancy, I do legal research on the challenges faced by companies working with
blockchain technologies. I further advise companies in the blockchain sector on a broad range of subjects from
contract law to securities issuances. Currently engaged with the publication of a book on the regulation of ICOs, the
creation of a program on the regulation of innovative technologies for Open University of the Netherlands and acting
as legal advisor to a decentralized cryptocurrency exchange.
I have created and distributed this report for informative purposes, in order to help the space mature. For business
inquiries, I am reachable on thijsmaas@lawandblockchain.eu
- Thijs Maas