For a crypto-asset service provider, compliance with MiCA's white paper requirements and compliance with white paper hyperlink requirements are closely connected, but are not the same thing.

This distinction matters because a trading platform can comply with Article 5 without necessarily complying with Article 66(3), and vice versa.

How can a trading platform satisfy Article 5?

Where a crypto-asset is admitted to trading, the applicable white paper requirements can effectively be satisfied through different routes.

A trading platform may:

1. draw up and notify the white paper itself, where it assumes the relevant responsibilities under Article 5.
2. rely on a white paper drawn up and notified by the project team or another person responsible for the admission to trading, specifically to that trading platform. 
3. rely on an existing white paper under Article 5(4) meant for another trading platform, provided that the person who drew up that white paper gives written consent to its use (responsibility allocation in this scenario remains unclear).

All 3 routes can result in a MiCA-compliant white paper being available for the crypto-asset.

However, they do not necessarily produce the same result for Article 66(3).

Why Article 5 Compliance is Not Automatically Article 66(3) Compliance

Article 66(3) imposes a separate obligation on CASPs. When operating a number of crypto-asset services, a CASP must provide its clients with hyperlinks to any crypto-asset white papers for the crypto-assets in relation to which it provides the service.

Consider the different Article 5 scenarios.

Scenario 1: The trading platform publishes the white paper itself.

If the trading platform is responsible for the white paper, Article 9 requires the white paper to be published on its publicly accessible website.

In this scenario, conformance with Article 5 and Article 66(3) naturally converge.

The white paper already sits on the CASP's website. Provided that the webpage is internally hyperlinked within the website, it can also satisfy the Article 66(3) hyperlink requirement.

Scenario 2: Another person publishes the white paper.

The position is different where the project team, issuer or another responsible person has drawn up, notified and published the white paper. 

In this scenario, the trading platform may be able to admit the asset without producing another white paper, meeting Article 5 requirements. However, the white paper would sit exclusively on the other person's website. Article 66(3) remains to be met. Therefore, the CASP still needs to provide its clients with a hyperlink to that white paper.

Scenario 3: The platform relies on another white paper under Article 5(4).

As established, Article 5(4) permits a person seeking admission to trading to refrain from drawing up a new white paper where the crypto-asset is already admitted to trading on another trading platform in the EU, provided the conditions in Article 5(4) are met, including written consent from the person who drew up the existing white paper. The reader should note that liability allocation in this circumstance may be debated.

Again, this can resolve the Article 5 question: no new white paper needs to be drawn up. However, it does not resolve the Article 66(3) question.

Therefore, and once again, if the white paper is hosted elsewhere, the CASP must still ensure that its clients are provided with a hyperlink to it.

Scenario 4: Services beyond admission to trading

Article 66(3) applies more broadly than Article 5. Its hyperlink requirement applies when a CASP is:

• operating a trading platform for crypto-assets;
• exchanging crypto-assets for funds;
• exchanging crypto-assets for other crypto-assets;
• providing advice on crypto-assets; or
• providing portfolio management on crypto-assets.

‍

A CASP can therefore provide a service falling within Article 66(3) without admitting the relevant crypto-asset to trading.

This is particularly relevant to exchange services. A CASP may exchange a crypto-asset against funds or another crypto-asset as principal without operating a trading platform on which that asset has been admitted to trading.

In that situation, Article 5 need not be complied with, but the white paper hyperlink obligation remains. In practice, this means that ticking the Article 5 box does not automatically mean compliance with 66(3).

Scenario 5: Offers beyond admission to trading

Furthermore, some of the services above may constitute an offer to the public, notably exchange of crypto-assets for funds or for other crypto assets. In those cases, while there may be no Article 5 obligation, a white paper requirement under Article 4 persists.

As we explained in our article “Which MiCA Obligations Apply to Your Service? A Reference for CASPs”, a reading from ESMA’s Q&A 2404 suggests that custody, advice, portfolio management, and transfer services are unlikely to constitute an offer on their own, but services of exchange and reception, transmission or execution of orders may constitute them and, naturally, the service of placing implies an offer.

The assessment of when a crypto-asset service constitutes an offer to the public must be conducted on a case-by-case basis. In practice, it may depend on the supervisor’s concept of offering to the public. Some authorities place considerable weight on whether the CASP is actively promoting the acquisition of the crypto-asset, rather than merely making an exchange service available. However, this varies across jurisdictions.

Accessibility

Same as sustainability disclosures under Article 66(5), hyperlinks under Article 66(3) may not be simply scattered around individual listing announcements. Obfuscation through complex website structures is regarded as violating MiCA’s accessibility requirements. For instance, MFSA has circulated letters specifically warning CASPs’ CEOs and compliance officers about multiple layers of navigation and information spread across numerous pages, potentially making them difficult for users to navigate. It consequently expects CASPs to simplify website structures where necessary and ensure that relevant information is clearly presented and easily accessible.

This is relevant to Article 66(3). A CASP should not assume that the existence of a white paper somewhere within a large legal or regulatory section of its website is necessarily equivalent to providing clients with a meaningful hyperlink to it. A clearer approach is to make the white paper directly accessible from the relevant crypto-asset page, or through a clearly identifiable white paper repository that clients can readily navigate.

In Summary

Article 5 asks whether the admission to trading is supported by the required MiCA white paper. Article 66(3) asks whether the CASP's clients are actually provided with a hyperlink to that white paper, and applies also to other services beyond multilateral trading. Therefore, the first does not necessarily achieve the second.

The practical result is that CASPs should not use admission-to-trading compliance as a proxy for Article 66(3) compliance. For each crypto-asset, the analysis should instead ask 4 separate questions:

• Is the asset admitted to trading?
  If yes, determine how the Article 5 white paper requirements are satisfied.
• Is the CASP making an offer to the public?

If yes, determine whether Article 4 requires a white paper and who bears that responsibility.

• Does the CASP provide one of the services listed in Article 66(3)?
  If yes, ensure that clients are provided with the required hyperlink to the applicable MiCA white paper.
• Is there a dedicated page for white paper hyperlinks and sustainability data?
  If not, the creation of a webpage, ideally holding a structured table — or sourcing this from a professional provider like the MiCA Crypto ALliance.

These obligations overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

A platform that publishes its own Article 5 white paper can relatively easily build Article 66(3) compliance around that publication. A platform relying on a third-party white paper, including through Article 5(4), needs an additional step: it must make the relevant hyperlink available to its own clients. And a CASP providing exchange, advice or portfolio management services may encounter Article 66(3) even where Article 5 has no application at all.

_________________________________________________________________

Given how easily these two obligations get conflated in practice, organizations like MiCA Crypto Alliance help CASPs map out, asset by asset, which obligations apply and where the gaps sit. Get started, contact our regulatory specialists today.

‍