Stockholm, 7th of February, 2025. With Goobit, Crypto Risk Metrics wins another reputable player in the digital asset space. Goobit is strengthening its commitment to transparency and sustainability by integrating ESG data through Crypto Risk Metrics provision.

Christian Ander, CEO of Goobit, states: “After our due diligence process, the decision for Crypto Risk Metrics was very clear, as they were the only ones not raising any red flags in terms of neutrality and certainly excelled when it comes to the measurements itself. We were also impressed by the fact that they are working for the majority of MiCAR-licensed CASPs in Germany, as the German regulator is known to be particularly strict.”

Tim Zölitz, CEO of Crypto Risk Metrics, says: “Adding Goobit as the first Swedish exchange to make their move regarding Crypto ESG data and them choosing us is of course very much welcome. We now do expect others to move in the Nordics as well – and we are ready!”

The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) requires so-called Crypto-Asset Service Providers to report different ESG metrics from December 30th, 2024. As a leading data provider in this area, Crypto Risk Metrics is, for example, the exclusive ESG data provider of the ISO 24165 issuing body for the Digital Token Identifier Foundation and cooperates with leading data providers for easy integration into the systems.

Source: 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:

• AllUnity Stablecoin Chooses Crypto Risk Metrics for ESG Data Compliance
• Crypto Finance (Deutschland) GmbH Relies on ESG Crypto Data from Crypto Risk Metrics
• Bitstamp Trusts Crypto Risk Metrics to Fulfill its ESG Reporting Requirements According to MiCAR
• Talos Partners with Crypto Risk Metrics to Help Clients Meet MiCA ESG Disclosure Requirements

The post Goobit Relies on ESG Crypto Data from Crypto Risk Metrics appeared first on Crypto Risk Metrics | Crypto Risk Management.

This partnership reflects the increasing importance of high-quality ESG data in the crypto industry’s ongoing evolution, as the demand for such data continues to grow. Bitstamp’s decision underscores their steadfast commitment to transparency, compliance, and sustainability – principles that are becoming increasingly critical as global regulatory frameworks take shape.

Why Bitstamp chose Crypto Risk Metrics

Bitstamp selected Crypto Risk Metrics after a rigorous evaluation process, which took into account potential conflicts of interest, technical capabilities, and the overall setup. This thorough assessment illuminated key distinctions among providers, with Crypto Risk Metrics emerging as the clear leader in delivering the comprehensive, reliable, and actionable ESG data required under MiCAR. Furthermore, Bitstamp’s choice reflects their proactive approach to avoiding any conflicts of interest by sourcing data from independent third parties, ensuring the integrity and credibility of their ESG initiatives.

Setting the standard for ESG data in crypto

At Crypto Risk Metrics, we have invested heavily in building a platform that meets the highest standards of quality and reliability. This milestone is a testamony to the effort and innovation we’ve put into our approach and the trust leading industry players place in our solutions.

We at Crypto Risk Metrics believe that ESG considerations are not just a regulatory requirement but also a cornerstone of responsible innovation in the crypto space. By working closely with forward-thinking companies like Bitstamp, we are helping to set new benchmarks for transparency and accountability in this rapidly evolving industry.

As MiCAR and other regulations continue to redefine the landscape, we remain dedicated to providing the tools and insights our clients need to lead with integrity and innovation.

We’re honored to partner with Bitstamp on this journey and look forward to supporting their ongoing efforts to meet and exceed global regulatory standards.

Stay tuned for more updates as we continue to drive progress in the ESG and crypto space!

Source: 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:

• Talos Partners with Crypto Risk Metrics to Help Clients Meet MiCA ESG Disclosure Requirements
• LCX Implements Conflict of Interest Free Crypto-ESG Data from Crypto Risk Metrics
• SMARTBROKER+ Enhances ESG Reporting with Crypto Data from Crypto Risk Metrics
• MiCAR Listing and Delisting Compliance for Crypto-Assets – Crypto Risk Metrics Extends Product Range

The post Bitstamp Trusts Crypto Risk Metrics to Fulfill its ESG Reporting Requirements According to MiCAR appeared first on Crypto Risk Metrics | Crypto Risk Management.

Bank Frick relies on high standards for ESG data

Frankfurt am Main, November 21st, 2024. With Bank Frick AG, Crypto Risk Metrics has closed another reputable client for the provision of ESG data for cryptocurrencies. The Liechtenstein-based institution was one of the first banks to offer a comprehensive range of digital assets and is considered a pioneer in the traditional financial world in this area.

Neutral, well-founded data against greenwashing in the crypto sector

With regard to the decision to use data from Crypto Risk Metrics, Jonas Gantenbein, Head of Digital Assets at Bank Frick, explains: “We have deliberately chosen to source ESG data for cryptocurrencies from Crypto Risk Metrics, a provider certified under IDW PS 951 standards. Their robust compliance frameworks and proven technical expertise were key factors in our decision. Engaging an independent, highly specialized third party underscores our commitment to regulatory compliance.”

Tim Zölitz, CEO of Crypto Risk Metrics, adds: “We are pleased that Bank Frick is extending its cooperation with us to the area of crypto ESG data following an intensive technical due diligence process. We also feel vindicated in our strategy of never having accepted payments from blockchain protocols for the calculation of ESG metrics: The potential conflicts of interests are simply too high for regulated financial market participants, as under MiCAR they are ultimately responsible for the content of the data they report.”

MiCAR regulation: ESG reporting becomes mandatory

The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) obliges so-called crypto-asset service providers to report various ESG key figures from December 30, 2024. As a leading data provider in this area, Crypto Risk Metrics is, for example, the exclusive ESG data provider of the ISO 24165 issuing body for the Digital Token Identifier Foundation and cooperates with data providers such as Infront and the Stuttgart Stock Exchange for easy integration into the systems.

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:

• MiCAR Listing and Delisting Compliance for Crypto-Assets – Crypto Risk Metrics Extends Product Range
• Coinmerce Chooses Crypto Risk Metrics for Reliable Crypto ESG Data to Ensure MiCAR Compliance
• Notabene and Crypto Risk Metrics Join Forces in a Strategic Partnership on Crypto ESG Data

The post Focus on Sustainability & MiCAR Compliance: Bank Frick Uses Crypto ESG Data from Crypto Risk Metrics appeared first on Crypto Risk Metrics | Crypto Risk Management.

MiCAR requirements for listing and delisting criteria for crypto assets

Frankfurt am Main, November 12th, 2024. With Title V of MiCAR coming into force December 30^th, 2024, Crypto Asset Service Providers are obliged to publish their listing- and delisting criteria on their website. Due to the absence of a common standard, Crypto Risk Metrics in cooperation with HTW Berlin conducted the worlds most comprehensive study on listing- and delisting criteria of crypto assets so far.

Crypto Risk Metrics relies on continuous compliance monitoring

Tim Zölitz, CEO of Crypto Risk Metrics, states: “We are already the leading provider of crypto esg data for exchanges to comply with the applicable regulation. Therefore, enhancing our product to comply with the required criteria for listing and delisting was a logical next step for us. One crucial part is that we also make sure the assets are constantly monitored against the criteria once laid out – one of the very prominent shortcomings in the approaches we have seen in the industry so far.”

Increased risk without constant monitoring of crypto assets

In fact, some of the exchanges do have listing criteria in place, but don’t follow up on material developments – such as decreasing liquidity, that bears the risk of higher spreads.

Findings from the world’s largest study on listing and delisting criteria for crypto assets

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Katarina Krüger from HTW Berlin adds: “We conducted the world’s largest study for listing and delisting criteria to date and gained valuable insights. Out of the 100 exchanges surveyed, only 14 had criteria for listing and delisting displayed on their website. When asked specifically about the criteria, only 20 out of 86 responded to our outreach, and only 7 provided criteria – occasionally lacking detail.”

With Crypto Risk Metrics listing and delisting tool, CASPs will be able to assess and monitor the crypto-assets they provide services for on a continuous basis, therefore fulfilling the requirements of the MiCA Regulation.

Contact us to find out more about how you can benefit from better control of your crypto asset listings.

Source: Press release Crypto Risk Metrics

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

• Coinmerce Chooses Crypto Risk Metrics for Reliable Crypto ESG Data to Ensure MiCAR Compliance
• ESG Disclosure Requirements for Crypto-Asset Service Providers in Europe – Everything You Need to Know
• Risk Management for Direct and Indirect Investments in Cryptocurrencies

The post MiCAR Listing and Delisting Compliance for Crypto-Assets – Crypto Risk Metrics Extends Product Range appeared first on Crypto Risk Metrics | Crypto Risk Management.

Who Needs to Disclose ESG Data?

When new regulatory requirements arise, the first question that needs to be answered is which entities need to obey the novel rules, and which don’t. And although it is stated that all CASPs, which are further defined in Article 3 of the MiCA Regulation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1114/oj), are in scope of the regulation, we believe there was room for interpretation opened up, stemming from the table provided on page 13 of the RTS (https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-07/ESMA75-453128700-1229_Final_Report_MiCA_CP2.pdf). In that table, the different entities in scope as well as their obligations are laid out.

The following entities are mentioned in the table

• Person drafting crypto-asset white paper
• CASPs providing one or more of the following services: Operating a trading platform, exchanging crypto-assets for funds or exchanging crypto-assets for other crypto-assets
• CASPs only providing services other than those listed above

Commission agents will most likely need to disclose ESG data

As financial commission agents were not specifically mentioned, some players try to interpret this aspect in their “favor” of not falling under the entities in scope, as they are not “operating a trading platform”, which – technically – is correct. Nevertheless, one can clearly derive the intention of the lawmakers by looking at page 84 of the RTS:

“There may also be cases where a crypto-asset service provider legitimately provides services in relation to a crypto-asset for which no crypto-asset white paper has been produced or is required. Article 4(5) provides some exceptions for which Article 66(5) may not apply, however ESMA has considered that where Article 66(5) does apply, more considerable requirements would be justified for crypto-asset service providers that are client facing and/or that directly provide opportunities for transactions, namely those operating trading platforms, those offering the exchange of crypto-assets for funds and those offering the exchange of crypto-assets for other crypto-assets, than for other types of crypto-asset service providers.“

The “will” of the lawmaker is clear: Potential investors shall be able to base their investment decision on the ESG data provided. Wording such as “crypto-asset service providers that are client facing and/or that directly provide opportunities for transactions, namely those operating trading platforms,” emphasizes that the intend of the regulation was to catch the point where the investors make their decision, regardless of that entity qualifies as a “trading platform” or a “commission agent”.

The 500.000 kWh threshold does not ease the burden significantly

As stated in the above-mentioned table, different entities need to report different numbers – we call this the 1+5 approach, as 1 figure (the total electricity consumption) must be disclosed by every CASP, whereas the disclosure of the five numbers on top are related to the type of CASP and the amount of electricity consumption. ESMA emphasizes to have significantly reduced the burden for the companies by introducing a 500.000 kWh threshold, under which only electricity consumption needs to be displayed. Although this was meant to relieve the CASPs from some of the reporting burden, one still must measure if the threshold is met, and if material changes in the consumption were to be detected. Therefore, the newly introduced threshold does not ease the efforts too much in our point of view.

CASPs Will Most Likely Buy External ESG Data

The next question circles around the best way of obtaining the data. Theoretically, CASPs are free to either buy the data from third parties or come up with their own data-sets. Furthermore, “estimates” are deemed sufficient. Seems pretty easy, right? Well, lets dive in.

In Article 6(5) on page 186 of the RTS, the lawmaker states “Where the information relating to the climate and other environment-related indicators is not readily available, the persons referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 4 and crypto-asset service providers shall provide estimates, together with details of the best efforts carried out to obtain the information by conducting additional research, cooperating with third party data providers or external experts or making reasonable assumptions.“ Although coming up with estimates and the details of the best efforts carried out to obtain the data seems challenging and cumbersome at the first place, we would argue that there are data-providers out there one can rely on, therefore weakening the argument that these data-sets are not available.

But even if the relevant NCA would accept the justification that this data is not available, every CASP would have to ask itself what method of obtaining the data seems better suited and more cost effective. We believe the way CASPs will go is to buy the data from a trusted third party with strong internal compliance procedures (as a provider of this data, we are of course slightly biased here).

Reasons for external data provision

First, CASPs must spend time coming up with the numbers and the respective monitoring systems, as they are required to update their numbers when material changes arise, and the 500.000 kWh threshold is met. This takes valuable time of the developers, that could have been invested in listing new tokens or coming up with better solutions for clients.

Second, CASPs remain “exclusively responsible for the content of the white paper.”, if they were to use content from other whitepapers (which we will dig deeper into below) (see Page 179, (4)). We believe that no regulated financial institution will risk the accusation of potential greenwashing, as this is explicitly stated in (9) on page 180. Imagine a regulated financial institution copying content from a source that contains false or greenwashing information. The risk for the top management is simply too high.

Third, the “safest” way for a CASP to be compliant is always to show the “best effort”, which in this case will be searching for a third party. And given all the effort, this solution is also the best alternative when it comes to cost.

Centralization will be the most likely outcome

Although we are talking about distributed systems, centralization of the data will be the most likely outcome. The first reason for this is economies of scale – as a lot of CASPs need the same data, prices for single CASPs go down when more CASPs are buying from the same supplier.

Second, the European Commission also sees the challenge of investor confusion, if the numbers for the same crypto-asset differ when looking at various platforms. This even led to the phrase that ESMA calls for a “coordination” between market participants. As ESMA can clearly not call for a cartel, the most likely scenario will be the formation around a common denominator that every industry player will implement anyway, which we believe will most likely be the ISO 24165-1:2021 token identifier, provided by the Digital Token Identifier Foundation. That is also the reason why we entered into an exclusive ESG data delivery contract with the foundation, as we are setting the market standard.

Providers & closing words

When looking at different providers, potential buyers of the data need to assess credibility of the data-vendor, experience in the field and potential conflicts of interest as well. Some providers do also accept payments from Layer-1-protocols, whereas other providers explicitly refrain from that to avoid conflicts of interests. Furthermore, there are fundamental differences in the quality of the technical measurement set-ups.

Although the industry is still very young and there are uncertainties on the way, it was always clear that ESG-reporting would someday be required. Looking further down the road we suspect the regulator widening the disclosure requirements to the providers of securities as well – as nobody would be able to explain, why crypto-asset service providers need to disclose these numbers, and Delta-1-Certificate-Issuers don’t. That’s simply doesn’t make sense, as it is either nobody or everybody. Furthermore, we do expect taxes on the horizon, as we have seen with the airline industry, for example.

If you found this helpful (or if not): We are always happy for feedback. We also developed a decision-making matrix which you can use as an inspiration when looking for a provider. Please reach out to b.becker@crypto-risk-metrics.com if you need the matrix/want to share something with us.

For more information on the latest developments and partnerships of Crypto Risk Metrics, please refer to the following articles:

• Bitpanda Strengthens ESG Compliance in the Crypto Sector with Data from Crypto Risk Metrics
• Crypto Risk Metrics and DTI Foundation Partner to Enhance ESG Data for Crypto-Assets
• Risk Management for Direct and Indirect Investments in Cryptocurrencies

The post ESG Disclosure Requirements for Crypto-Asset Service Providers in Europe – Everything You Need to Know appeared first on Crypto Risk Metrics | Crypto Risk Management.