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

On 18 June 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published a Q&A clarifying when introductory and referral activities may constitute providing advice on crypto-assets under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA).

A broader concept than MiFID II investment advice

ESMA considers the perimeter of advice under MiCA to be broader than that of investment advice under Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II).

This follows from MiCA’s definition of “providing advice on crypto-assets”, which is a regulated crypto-asset service and covers personalised recommendations concerning:

• transactions relating to crypto-assets (e.g., purchasing or selling a specific crypto-asset);

  or

• the use of crypto-asset services (e.g., custody and administration of crypto-assets, or exchange of crypto-assets for funds or other crypto-assets).

  
  

A recommendation does not therefore need to concern a transaction in a particular crypto-asset. A personalised recommendation to use a crypto-asset service may constitute advice on crypto-assets under MiCA, depending on the circumstances.

Introductory services may constitute MiCA-regulated advice

According to ESMA, an introductory service recommending a crypto-asset service to a potential investor may constitute MiCA-regulated advice, whether or not a specific crypto-asset service provider (CASP) is also recommended.

However, ESMA expressly qualifies this conclusion: the classification depends on the circumstances surrounding the recommendation. According to ESMA, the following tests should be applied when determining whether a communication constitutes advice on crypto-assets:

• the communication constitutes a recommendation;

• the recommendation concerns one or more transactions relating to crypto-assets or the use of crypto-asset services;

• the recommendation is presented as suitable for the person or is based on that person’s circumstances;

• the recommendation is issued otherwise than exclusively to the public; and

• the recipient is acting in their capacity as an investor or potential investor, or as an agent for an investor or potential investor.

  
  

By contrast, ESMA states that solely providing a reference to a CASP, without further indications and on a basis equally accessible to all potential investors, should not constitute advice under MiCA.

Implications for non-CASP models

The Q&A is relevant to non-CASP operating models involving introductions or referrals to authorised CASPs.

It does not mean that every introduction to a CASP constitutes regulated advice. However, the assessment should not be limited to whether a specific transaction in a particular crypto-asset is recommended. It should consider the substance of the customer interaction, including whether the use of a crypto-asset service is recommended or presented as suitable for the customer, as well as the wording used, the information collected and the design of the customer journey.

Where the activity amounts to providing advice on crypto-assets, which is a regulated crypto-asset service under MiCA, the MiCA authorisation perimeter becomes relevant. MiCA generally prohibits a person from providing crypto-asset services in the EU unless that person is authorised as a CASP or is an eligible financial entity permitted to provide the relevant service in accordance with MiCA.

Conclusion

ESMA’s answer further supports the view that non-CASP operating models require careful structuring. An arrangement limited to the type of reference described by ESMA should not fall within MiCA’s advice perimeter in respect of that activity. By contrast, a personalised recommendation concerning the use of a crypto-asset service may fall within that perimeter, depending on the circumstances.

ESMA Q&As are non-binding, and only the Court of Justice of the European Union can definitively interpret EU law. Nevertheless, the Q&A is likely to be relevant when assessing how competent authorities may approach such models in practice.

This publication is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.