MiCA Article 72 requires crypto-asset service providers to maintain effective policies for identifying, preventing, managing and disclosing conflicts of interest. The rule addresses conflicts involving the provider, shareholders or members, managers and employees, connected persons, clients and conflicts between clients. Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets
Follow the evidence
Trace how the event could reach markets, then inspect a competing explanation.
Compare explanations
Switch lenses to see what each account explains—and what remains uncertain.
Controls can include independent listing committees, restricted lists, personal-account dealing rules, information barriers, remuneration review, surveillance and documented recusals. The appropriate design depends on the service. A provider that executes orders and operates a platform faces different incentives from a custodian that does not set a trading venue’s admission rules. Disclosure is not automatically a cure. Some conflicts may need prevention or structural separation because the risk cannot be managed adequately through notice alone. Compliance teams should record why a control is suitable, who owns it, what data are monitored and how breaches are escalated. Boilerplate copied across unrelated services weakens that evidence.
Controls can include independent listing committees, restricted lists, personal-account dealing rules, information barriers, remuneration review, surveillance and documented recusals. The appropriate design depends on the service. A provider that executes orders and operates a platform faces different incentives from a custodian that does not set a trading venue’s admission rules. Disclosure is not automatically a cure. Some conflicts may need prevention or structural separation because the risk cannot be managed adequately through notice alone. Compliance teams should record why a control is suitable, who owns it, what data are monitored and how breaches are escalated. Boilerplate copied across unrelated services weakens that evidence.
Before using a service, identify who issued the token, who selected it for listing, who provides liquidity, who holds client assets and whether the platform or affiliates have an economic interest. Read fee and incentive disclosures alongside the conflicts policy. A statement that an asset passed an internal review is not the same as independent due diligence or regulatory approval. For ongoing monitoring, watch for unexplained changes to listing status, spreads, execution priority or withdrawal conditions. Preserve dated disclosures if a dispute arises. MiCA creates a governance and transparency framework, but it does not eliminate commercial incentives. The useful question is whether the provider has identified the specific conflict and shown a credible control. A practical conflicts register should connect each incentive to an owner, affected service, customer harm, preventive measure, monitoring metric and escalation route. Generic statements that conflicts ‘may exist’ are difficult to test. More useful disclosure explains whether the provider issues a token, receives listing payments, trades for its own account, routes orders to an affiliate or rewards staff for particular outcomes. Controls may include information barriers, independent approval, execution monitoring or refusal to offer a service where the conflict cannot be managed. None is automatically sufficient in every case. Evidence should show that the chosen measure operates in practice and that material changes reach clients before they affect a decision.
Policies must match the provider’s scale and range of services
The regulation requires written conflicts policies that account for the scale, nature and range of crypto services. Disclosures must be made prominently on the provider’s website and contain enough detail for a client to make an informed decision. Providers must assess and periodically review the policy, taking reasonable measures to address deficiencies. Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets
Potential conflicts are wider than employee trading. A group may issue a token, advise its issuer, list the asset, provide custody, route orders and trade for its own account. Listing fees, liquidity arrangements, token holdings, affiliate relationships and remuneration can influence decisions. A disclosure should explain the relevant relationship and control, not merely state that conflicts may exist.
Separation, approvals and monitoring turn policy into practice
Controls can include independent listing committees, restricted lists, personal-account dealing rules, information barriers, remuneration review, surveillance and documented recusals. The appropriate design depends on the service. A provider that executes orders and operates a platform faces different incentives from a custodian that does not set a trading venue’s admission rules.
Disclosure is not automatically a cure. Some conflicts may need prevention or structural separation because the risk cannot be managed adequately through notice alone. Compliance teams should record why a control is suitable, who owns it, what data are monitored and how breaches are escalated. Boilerplate copied across unrelated services weakens that evidence.
Follow the economic relationship behind the product screen
Before using a service, identify who issued the token, who selected it for listing, who provides liquidity, who holds client assets and whether the platform or affiliates have an economic interest. Read fee and incentive disclosures alongside the conflicts policy. A statement that an asset passed an internal review is not the same as independent due diligence or regulatory approval.
For ongoing monitoring, watch for unexplained changes to listing status, spreads, execution priority or withdrawal conditions. Preserve dated disclosures if a dispute arises. MiCA creates a governance and transparency framework, but it does not eliminate commercial incentives. The useful question is whether the provider has identified the specific conflict and shown a credible control.
A practical conflicts register should connect each incentive to an owner, affected service, customer harm, preventive measure, monitoring metric and escalation route. Generic statements that conflicts ‘may exist’ are difficult to test. More useful disclosure explains whether the provider issues a token, receives listing payments, trades for its own account, routes orders to an affiliate or rewards staff for particular outcomes. Controls may include information barriers, independent approval, execution monitoring or refusal to offer a service where the conflict cannot be managed. None is automatically sufficient in every case. Evidence should show that the chosen measure operates in practice and that material changes reach clients before they affect a decision.