With the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (“MiCA”)¹, the European Union has introduced comprehensive MiCA white paper obligations for crypto-asset service providers (“CASPs”). This article explores those requirements with a particular focus on crypto-assets other than asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens. We examine in detail which CASPs are required to draw up, submit, and maintain MiCA-compliant white papers.

By the end of the article, readers will have gained a thorough understanding of the current legal framework and ongoing regulatory debate, including our assessment of potential unintended consequences of the Level 1 text, common misinterpretations, and likely developments ahead.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice under German law and should not be construed as a substitute for individualized legal counsel.

MiCA white papers – background and purpose

MiCA-compliant white papers are intended to serve as standardised informational documents – comparable to a prospectus under traditional financial market regulation – ensuring investor protection by disclosing transparent, accurate, and comprehensive information to the public, prospective investors, and users.

Unlike securities prospectuses, crypto-asset white papers under MiCA do not require prior approval by the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”) or national competent authorities (“NCAs”), as per Article 8 of MiCA (“Notification of the crypto-asset white paper and of the marketing communications”).

The regulatory framework for crypto-asset white papers is primarily defined by Article 6 of MiCA (“Content and form of the crypto-asset white paper”), which sets out their content, structure, and format. These requirements are further specified in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2984², which details the layout, information requirements, and technical standards for the documents.

Additional delegated regulations govern specific sections within the white paper, such as Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/421³ (classification and data structures) and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/422⁴ (sustainability disclosures). Further, Article 12 of MiCA (“Modification of published crypto-asset white papers and of published marketing communications”) establishes an ongoing obligation to ensure that published white papers remain accurate, up-to-date, and complete. This is reinforced by Article 15 (“Liability for the information given in a crypto-asset white paper”), which introduces a liability regime for any misleading, inaccurate, or omitted information.

Together, these provisions form the legal foundation of MiCA’s white paper regime, ensuring transparency, accountability, and investor protection across the crypto-asset market. As of today, these documents represent the only regulated and standardised source of comprehensive information on specific crypto-assets.

Scope of application and relevant MiCA articles for CASPs regarding MiCA-compliant white papers

Within the MiCA framework, several provisions govern white papers, albeit in different legal contexts and with varying implications. While certain articles establish fundamental obligations concerning the preparation, publication, and maintenance of white papers, others merely set out ancillary duties related to accessibility, hyperlink provision, or transitional arrangements.

Distinction of affected groups

Who is actually subject to MiCA’s white paper obligations?

MiCA affects two main categories of actors in the crypto-asset market in relation to white paper requirements: offerors of crypto-assets and trading platform operators.

1. Offerors of crypto-assets:

   These include entities that enable the trading or public offering of crypto-assets without being licensed as trading platform operators.

2. Trading platform operators:

   These are entities licensed under MiCA as crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) offering the service “b) operation of a trading platform for crypto-assets” (Article 3(16) of MiCA).

Whether an entity qualifies as an offeror or a trading platform can be determined via the ESMA Interim MiCA Register (see Column L, “Service Code”): https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-12/CASPS.csv.

Common services offered by offerors of crypto-assets include, but are not limited to:

• “(c) exchange of crypto-assets for funds” or
• “(d) exchange of crypto-assets for other crypto-assets”

Overview of MiCA white paper obligations for CASPs

The following overview summarises the key MiCA articles that are most relevant for the interpretation and practical application of white paper compliance obligations.

Connection between obligations

While all of the aforementioned provisions relate to white papers, some are more intrinsically connected than others in how they define the legal obligations applicable to CASPs. Understanding these interrelations is key to a sound legal interpretation of MiCA’s white paper regime.

In the following section, we explain why certain presupposed interdependencies have no factual basis in the MiCA provisions themselves.

Interrelation of Articles 4, 5, and 143 of MiCA

Articles 4 and 5, in conjunction with Article 143, establish the core white paper obligations under MiCA:

• Article 4 governs offers to the public of crypto-assets
• Article 5 applies to admissions to trading on a trading platform

Both provisions trigger the obligation to prepare, submit, and publish a MiCA-compliant white paper prior to engaging in these activities. Accordingly, the accompanying obligations under Articles 12 (updates and ongoing accuracy) and 15 (liability) apply equally. Together, these articles define what may be referred to as MiCA’s “comprehensive white paper requirements”.

These requirements for both categories of actors – offerors and operators of trading platform – are structurally aligned and substantively identical.

A notable differentiation, however, arises from Article 143(2), which introduces transitional arrangements and temporary exemptions applicable to admissions made before MiCA’s full implementation date on 30 December 2024.

This provision modifies the timing and scope of the white paper obligation for specific market participants, without altering its underlying substantive requirements.

Article 143(2) of MiCA states:

“2. By way of derogation from Title II, only the following requirements shall apply in relation to crypto-assets other than asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens that were admitted to trading before 30 December 2024:

(a) Articles 7 and 9 shall apply to marketing communications published after 30 December 2024

(b) operators of trading platforms shall ensure by 31 December 2027 that a crypto-asset white paper, in the cases

required by this Regulation, is drawn up, notified and published in accordance with Articles 6, 8 and 9 and updated in accordance with Article 12.”

From Article 143 of MiCA, a deviation from the general obligations set out in Title II Assets – namely, those governed by Articles 4 through 15 – can be derived.

Specifically, Article 143 introduces a limitation: for crypto-assets admitted to trading before 30 December 2024, certain temporary exemptions apply.

Under these exemptions, entities are only required to ensure that their marketing communications comply with MiCA Articles 7 and 9.

However, Article 143(2) does not extend to crypto-assets that are:

• offered to the public without being admitted to trading – for instance, where assets are made available through offeror-type activities rather than as part of a “seeking admission to trading” process; or
• admitted to trading after 30 December 2024.

Such cases fall outside the explicit scope of Article 143(2) and remain subject to the standard white paper obligations under Article 4.

Furthermore, Article 143(2)(b) makes clear that this transitional clause exclusively applies to trading platform operators. Therefore, there is no general exemption from Article 4 or Article 5, in particular not from Article 4 concerning public offers. The only reference to exemptions for offerers appears in Article 143(1), which states that offers that ended before 30 December 2024 are exempt, meaning they do not trigger a MiCA white paper obligation – but not the ones that are ongoing afterwards.

Separate requirements from Article 66(3)

Article 66(3) introduces an additional obligation concerning the handling of MiCA white papers. However, this provision does not stand in direct relation to the previously discussed Articles 4, 5, or 143. Specifically, Article 66(3) requires that all crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), not just offerors or trading platforms, shall include hyperlinks to any existing and publicly available white papers related to the crypto-asset in question as part of their mandatory disclosures. This obligation aims to enhance transparency and ensure that investors and users across the Union have easy access to relevant information.

Article 66(3) of MiCA states:

“When operating a trading platform for crypto-assets, exchanging crypto-assets for funds or other crypto-assets, providing advice on crypto-assets or providing portfolio management on crypto-assets, crypto-asset service providers shall provide their clients with hyperlinks to any crypto-asset white papers for the crypto-assets in relation to which they are providing those services.”

Importantly, Article 66(3) does not limit, modify, or supersede any of the white paper obligations under Articles 4, 5, 6, 12, or 15.

These provisions remain fully applicable and must be complied with in their own right. Providing hyperlinks under Article 66(3) cannot be construed as fulfilling – or substituting – the obligation to prepare, notify, or update a MiCA-compliant white paper.

Core legal question regarding MiCA white paper obligations for CASPs

This question has gained renewed relevance in light of ESMA Q&A 2654⁵ and ESMA’s “Statement to support the smooth implementation of MiCA standards and format”⁶. The Q&A initially led to diverging interpretations across the market. These uncertainties were subsequently addressed and clarified in the accompanying statement.

Unpacking ESMA QA 2654

On 14 October 2025, ESMA published its response to Question 2652 from 25 September 2025, regarding the implementation of MiCA with respect to white paper obligations for Title II crypto-assets admitted to trading before 30 December 2024.

Debate prior QA 2654

Prior to the publication of the ESMA QA 2654, the question outlined above could be answered clearly and directly based on the MiCA provisions. Under Article 4, offerors of crypto-assets were required to prepare and publish a MiCA-compliant white paper before making an offer to the public.

For trading platforms, Article 5 established an equivalent obligation to prepare and publish a white paper prior to admitting a crypto-asset to trading.

However, Article 143 introduced a transitional period for Article 5 – providing temporary exemptions applicable exclusively to trading platform operators for crypto-assets admitted before 30 December 2024.

In addition, Article 66(3) requires all CASPs, as part of their public disclosures, to provide hyperlinks to any existing and publicly available white papers for the crypto-assets in relation to which they are providing those services.

Debate after QA 2654

Following the release of Q&A 2654, misinterpretations began circulating in the market – in particular, some market participants took the view that offerors were generally exempt from the obligation to prepare and publish a white paper under Article 4 of MiCA. However, a closer reading of ESMA’s response to Question 2654 reveals no basis for such a conclusion.

The answer merely contains a cross-reference to Article 143(2) – a provision which, as outlined above, applies exclusively to operators of trading platforms and does not extend any exemptions to offerors.

Accordingly, no plausible reading of Article 143(2) supports the claim that offerors are excluded from the white paper obligation set out in Article 4 MiCA.

“Statement to support the smooth implementation of MiCA data standards and format requirements” brings final clarity

Definitive clarification regarding the scope of MiCA white paper obligations for crypto-asset service providers was provided by ESMA’s “Statement to support the smooth implementation of MiCA data standards and format requirements”. In this statement, ESMA reiterated the types of entities required to publish white papers under MiCA and the associated technical requirements:

ESMA further emphasised:

The “above-mentioned requirements” refer to the Level 2 rules introduced by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2984 of 29 November 2024. This regulation sets out the mandatory technical standards regarding the format, templates and filing standards for MiCA white papers. In particular, it mandates that white papers must be submitted in accordance with XBRL/XHTML-standards.

It is explicitly stated that:

Do white papers submitted before 23 December 2025 need to be updated?

We argue that they do in order to adhere to the standard – for two reasons:

• Wording: The phrase “as of” indicates that the obligation applies to all white papers effective from that date, not just to white papers submitted after 23 December 2025. If the intention were to limit the requirement to newly submitted white papers, the regulation would likely have used “from” or “starting on”.
• Purpose: Allowing white papers submitted prior to the application date to remain non-standardised would undermine the core regulatory aims of MiCA. As ESMA highlighted, the XBRL-based standard is designed to ensure comparability, transparency, and effective market supervision. Exempting early filings would fragment the data landscape and create regulatory blind spots.

The smooth way out: How to offer crypto-assets without being deemed an offeror

As the white paper requirements impose a regulatory burden on companies, it is understandable that market participants seek ways to avoid falling within their scope. One such strategy is to argue that a given activity does not constitute an “offer” of crypto-assets. This line of argument has already been used in the context of stablecoins, notably in relation to the “Tether” issue.

In its Public Statement “On the provision of certain crypto-asset services in relation to non-MiCA compliant ARTs and EMTs”⁷, ESMA clarifies that

“other crypto-asset services may also constitute an offer to the public of non-MiCA compliant ARTs and EMTs in violation of Titles III or IV of MiCA. In particular, CASPs offering in the EU services such as:

• Reception and transmission of orders
• Execution of orders for crypto-assets on behalf of clients
• Exchange of crypto-assets for funds or other crypto-assets

are also expected to cease providing the relevant crypto-asset services and activities in relation to these non-compliant ARTs or EMTs in the EU when their services constitute an offer to the public.”

This implies that companies engaging in the reception and transmission of orders, execution of client orders, or exchange of crypto-assets for funds or other crypto-assets may, under certain circumstances, be deemed offerors – thereby triggering white paper obligations under MiCA.

Additional support for this interpretation can be found in the Level 1 definition of an “offer to the public” in Article 3(12) MiCA, which states:

“‘offer to the public’ means a communication to persons in any form, and by any means, presenting sufficient information on the terms of the offer and the crypto-assets to be offered so as to enable prospective holders to decide whether to purchase those crypto-assets;”.

As Peter Zickgraf explains in the “Rechtshandbuch Kryptowerte”, the term “offer” must be interpreted broadly. He refers to established case law supporting this view, including EuGH 17.9.2014 – C-441/12 Rn. 28 – Almer Beheer u. Daedalus Holding („[weite) Definition”)⁸; as well as EFTA-Gerichtshof 18.6.2021 – E-10/20 Rn. 29,32 – AD-CADA Immobilien; Bauerschmidt BKR 2019, 324 (325)⁹.

ESMA QA 2552

On February 18th, 2026, the European Commission replied on a question that was handed in roughly eight months before and that addresses the question of how to deal with white papers if there is no identifiable issuer10¹⁰. The answer of the European Commission stated that Article 5(2) MiCA is not conceptualized to cover cases where crypto-assets have no identifiable issuer and are therefore not subject to Title II of MiCA. The Article requires CASPs operating a trading platform to comply with the requirements set out in Article 5(1) MiCA, where they initiate the admission of crypto-assets to trading and no white paper has been published ‘in the cases required by this Regulation’. Hence, this provision is 5 specifically and exclusively limited to cases, where a white paper is required by MiCA. However, as clarified by recital 22, crypto-assets without an identifiable issuer do not fall within the scope of Title II. It follows that no white paper is required for these crypto-assets under MiCA and that, consequently, Article 5(2) MiCA does not apply to them. Nevertheless, in accordance with the wording in recital 22 that CASPs ‘providing services in respect of such crypto-assets should be covered by this Regulation’, CASPs operating a trading platform are not relieved from obtaining authorisation and complying with their general obligations, including a suitability assessment of any admitted crypto-assets and determination of whether an identifiable issuer exists, i.e. whether a white paper is required. Similarly, and in line with the above, Articles 76(1)(2) and 143(2)(b) MiCA impose requirements on CASPs operating a trading platform and specifically reference to ‘cases required by this Regulation’. Finally, Article 66(3) shall be interpreted as meaning that operators of trading platforms must provide clients with hyperlinks to any white papers for the crypto-assets in relation to which they are providing services, provided that a white paper is required under MiCA.

From a regulatory compliance perspective, we would argue that “having” no identifiable issuer should be a very rare occasion – as in most of the cases, there will be one (who, at the point of time of admitting the asset to trading might simply not have been identified yet – but could so one day after that admission had taken place). On top of that, the requirement to conduct a suitability assessment is still given, which would need to cover this aspect as well. Lastly, the surveillance must be done, if no issuer is to be found.

MiCA white paper obligations for CASPs – the summary

As a CASP, you are subject to obligations to draw up, notify and publish MiCA-compliant white papers. These requirements apply equally to offerors and operators of trading platforms. We expect regulators to tighten enforcement once the dust has settled and tooling for market surveillance and supervisory capcity mature over time. Furthermore, we expect that NCAs will use a strict approach when it comes to the “identifiability” of an issuer – as otherwise, QA 2552 could be seen as an invitation for crypto-assets such as meme-coins, to which the stance usually was rather reserved.

Crypto Risk Metrics supports offerors and trading platforms in navigating these requirements. If you are affected, get in touch – we’re here to help.

To gain a deeper understanding of the ESG disclosure requirements under the MiCAR regulation, explore our article on ESG Disclosure Requirements for Crypto-Asset Service Providers in Europe – Everything You Need to Know.

Explore Crypto Risk Metrics’ latest projects and partnerships in MiCA white paper compliance:

• Crypto Risk Metrics Has Onboarded Coinbase for MiCAR White Paper Compliance
• First Insured Bitcoin White Paper to Comply with MiCAR: Blockrise Chooses Crypto Risk Metrics
• Finoa Partners with Crypto Risk Metrics to Simplify MiCAR White Paper Compliance

Footnotes

1. Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on markets in crypto-assets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 and Directives 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/1937 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1114/oj/eng). ↩︎
2. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2984 of 29 November 2024 laying down implementing technical standards for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to forms, formats and templates for the crypto-asset white papers. Applies as of 23 December 2025 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2984/oj/eng).
   ↩︎
3. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/421 of 16 December 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the data necessary for the classification of crypto-asset white papers and the practical arrangements to ensure that such data is machine-readable (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2025/421/oj/eng). ↩︎
4. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/422 of 17 December 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the content, methodologies and presentation of information in respect of sustainability indicators in relation to adverse impacts on the climate and other environment-related adverse impacts (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2025/422/oj/eng). ↩︎
5. ESMA Q&A 2654: Offerors and CASPs’ responsibilities with regard to white papers for Title II tokens admitted to trading prior to 30 December 2024 (https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/2654). ↩︎
6. Statement to support the smooth implementation of MiCA data standards and format requirements (https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-11/ESMA75-1303207761-6284_Statement_to_support_the_smooth_implementation_of_MiCA_standards_and_format.pdf). ↩︎
7. ESMA Public Statement “On the provision of certain crypto-asset services in relation to non-MiCA compliant ARTs and EMTs” (https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-01/ESMA75-223375936-6099_Statement_on_stablecoins.pdf). ↩︎
8. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2014 in Case C‑441/12, Almer Beheer BV and Daedalus Holding BV v Stichting Bedrijfstakpensioenfonds voor de Glazenwassers- en Schoonmaakbedrijf, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2226. Obligation to publish a prospectus when securities are offered for sale to the public – Enforced sale of securities in Case C‑441/12, (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=157805&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10763614). ↩︎
9. Official Journal of the European Union, C417, Volume 64, 14 October 2021 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2021:417:FULL&utm). ↩︎
10. ESMA Q&A 2552: Application of Title II requirements to CASPs operating a trading platform for crypto-assets (https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/2552) ↩︎

The post MiCA White Paper Obligations for CASPs appeared first on Crypto Risk Metrics | Crypto Risk Management.

Key Highlights

• MiCAR Compliance Needs: As trading platforms and offerors face the challenges of MiCA compliance, Coinbase will have access to our comprehensive full-service solution to ensure adherence to regulatory requirements, especially when it comes to white papers – especially regarding white papers.

• Expert Insights: Tim Zölitz, CEO of Crypto Risk Metrics, shares: “After ESMA’s statement on the provision of certain crypto-asset services in relation to non-MiCA compliant ARTs and EMTs, we conducted a thorough investigation of the legal requirements together with the law firm DLA Piper. This resulted in us building a specialized product for white paper compliance for the industry, which is backed by insurance from a leading German insurer with a Standard & Poor’s rating of A+. By relying on our services, we help CASPs to stay compliant, contribute to investor protection, and help avoid friction in the market.”

• Regulatory Context: ESMA’s public statement clarified the expectations for companies regarding non-compliant assets under MiCA. It emphasized that entities involved in the reception and transmission of orders, execution of orders for crypto-assets on behalf of clients, and exchange of crypto-assets for funds or other crypto assets must cease offering non-compliant assets to the public.

Source: Press release Crypto Risk Metrics

Explore Crypto Risk Metrics’ latest projects and partnerships in MiCA white paper compliance:

• First Insured Bitcoin White Paper to Comply with MiCA: Blockrise Chooses Crypto Risk Metrics
• Finoa Partners with Crypto Risk Metrics to Simplify MiCA White Paper Compliance

The post Crypto Risk Metrics Has Onboarded Coinbase for MiCA White Paper Compliance appeared first on Crypto Risk Metrics | Crypto Risk Management.

Jos Lazet, CEO of Blockrise, explains: “We are positioning ourselves as the gold standard for Bitcoin asset management – which of course comes with the duty to adhere to the respective rules and regulations at all times. With the arrival of these new regulations, we needed MiCA-compliant white papers as we offer crypto-asset services to our clients. We are happy that Crypto Risk Metrics is able to provide them for us.”

By relying on the white papers from Crypto Risk Metrics, Blockrise chose the only supplier who offers insurable white papers, enhancing consumer protection even further. 

Tim Zölitz, CEO of Crypto Risk Metrics, adds: “After the ESMA statement came out, we conducted a thorough investigation of the legal requirements with legal firm DLA Piper, both on the CASP and on our side. This resulted in us building a specialized product for white paper compliance for the industry, which is insurable by a leading German insurer with a Standard & Poor’s rating of A+, as this seems very much needed in order to avoid friction in the market. By relying on our services, we contribute to investor protection, while at the same time helping the CASPs to stay compliant and minimize liability risks.” 

ESMA’s public statement addressed the expectation from the regulator when it comes to non-compliant assets under MiCA and the interpretation of “offering” a crypto asset. It was made clear that companies providing reception and transmission of orders, execution of orders for crypto-assets on behalf of clients, and exchange of crypto-assets for funds or other crypto-assets would also be expected to ceise offering non-compliant assets to the public.

Source: Press release Crypto Risk Metrics

To gain a deeper understanding of the ESG disclosure requirements under the MiCAR regulation, explore our article on ESG Disclosure Requirements for Crypto-Asset Service Providers in Europe – Everything You Need to Know.

For further reading on our recent developments and partnerships, check out the following articles:

• Finoa Partners with Crypto Risk Metrics to Simplify MiCA White Paper Compliance
• flatexDEGIRO BANK AG Chooses Crypto Risk Metrics for Crypto ESG Data
• Clearstream Selects Crypto Risk Metrics as ESG Data Provider for Crypto-Assets
• Goobit Relies on ESG Crypto Data from Crypto Risk Metrics
• AllUnity Stablecoin Chooses Crypto Risk Metrics for ESG Data Compliance

The post First Insured Bitcoin White Paper to Comply with MiCA: Blockrise Chooses Crypto Risk Metrics  appeared first on Crypto Risk Metrics | Crypto Risk Management.