Quote from: Poker Player on Today at 05:58:35 AM

After investigating, I see that he is quoting a previous draft that was not approved.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020PC0593

The draft he cites is this one, which is not the one that was voted on last Thursday, nor the one I am referring to or referred to in the articles cited in the OP.

There are two different drafts, mentioning the same thing, one superseding the other
This is the one from 2019 the MICA regulation, the same paragraph that o_e_l_e_o posted
52020PC0595,

Article 3
Definitions

Quote

‘crypto-asset service’ means any of the services and activities listed below relating to any crypto-asset:
(a)the custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of third parties;
(b)the operation of a trading platform for crypto-assets;
(c)the exchange of crypto-assets for fiat currency that is legal tender;
(d)the exchange of crypto-assets for other crypto-assets;
(e)the execution of orders for crypto-assets on behalf of third parties;
(f)placing of crypto-assets;
(g)the reception and transmission of orders for crypto-assets on behalf of third parties
(h)providing advice on crypto-assets;

This is the new one that simply further introduces MICA definitions to ICT directives
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/HIS/?uri=CELEX:52020PC0595&qid=1648917382127

Doesn't matter much.

I wonder where did he got this text from, it's not even in the draft report, because there is one big difference when it comes to a report, he mentioned:

Quote from: franky1 on April 01, 2022, 10:08:39 AM

Crypto-asset service Type of crypto-asset services Minimum capital requirements
providers
Class 1 –reception and transmission of orders EUR50k
   on behalf of third parties; and/or
   –providing advice on crypto-assets; and/or
   –execution of orders on behalf of third
   parties; and/or
   –placing of crypto-assets.

Class 2 Crypto-asset service provider authorised EUR125k
   for any crypto-asset services under class 1
   and:
   –custody and administration of crypto-assets
   on behalf of third parties

Class 3 Crypto-asset service provider authorised for EUR150k
   any crypto-asset services under class 2 and:
   –exchange of crypto-assets for fiat currency
   that is legal tender;
   –exchange of crypto-assets for other
   crypto-assets;
   –operation of a trading platform for crypto-assets.

But of course, he will find a way to weasel out of this, I wonder how pathetic it will be.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 01:05:38 PM

If a merchant is directly accepting bitcoin in exchange for goods or services, then they are simply a merchant who accepts bitcoin, and are not a "crypto-asset service provider". If a merchant, however, uses a payment processor to accept bitcoin in exchange for goods or services, then the payment processor is a "crypto-asset service provider", providing services on behalf of the merchant, and are therefore obligated to collect KYC and information about the coins you are spending.

That's my understanding, at least, but not being from the EU I am hardly an expert on EU law, and if EU politicians are anything like US politicians, they will openly twist and interpret the wording to mean whatever they want it to mean.

True about merchants accepting bitcoin directly, but there is still hope this will not be implemented even for third-party services.
You see, the "crypto-asset service provider" doesn't provide per current definitions those services to the customer, so at least till the current date as we speak, the customer is the merchant, all regulations apply to him, not to the shopper.
"on behalf the third party", this third party is Walmart or whatever Casino.

As long as MICA won't clearly specify through definitions and stick to the originator this definition is currently covered only in electronic money transfers and does not relate to any purchasing of services.

For your previous post about no exemptions:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2022-0081_EN.html

Quote

In order to reflect the special characteristics of national payment systems, and provided that it is always possible to trace the transfer of funds back to the payer , Member States should be able to exempt from the scope of this Regulation certain domestic low-value transfers of funds, including electronic giro payments, used for the purchase of goods or services.

5. A Member State may decide not to apply this Regulation to transfers of funds within its territory to a payee's payment account permitting payment exclusively for the provision of goods or services where all of the following conditions are met:
(c) the amount of the transfer of funds does not exceed EUR 1000