One Firm, Two Regimes: How a MiFID Investment Firm Can Extend Into Crypto Under Article 60 MiCA

The entry into application of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) raised a practical question for many investment firms already authorised under MiFID II: do they need a separate crypto-asset service provider (CASP) licence to offer crypto services, or can their existing authorisation be stretched to cover them? Article 60 MiCA answers this directly — and the answer, in the right circumstances, allows a single firm to operate under both regimes without obtaining two full authorisations.

The core mechanism of Article 60 MiCA

Article 60(3) MiCA permits an investment firm authorised under Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II) to provide crypto-asset services that are equivalent to the investment services and activities for which it is already specifically authorised. Crucially, this is achieved through prior notification to the competent authority rather than a fresh, full CASP authorisation under Article 59 MiCA.

In practice, this means one legal entity can hold a MiFID licence and lawfully provide the corresponding crypto-asset services on top of it. There are not two separate authorisations in the traditional sense; rather, the MiFID authorisation is the foundation, and the crypto services ride on it via the equivalence mechanism — a far lighter and faster route to market than building a standalone CASP from scratch.

The equivalence mapping

Article 60(3) does not leave equivalence to guesswork. It sets out an explicit statutory mapping between crypto-asset services and MiFID II investment services (Annex I, Section A):

• Execution of orders for crypto-assets on behalf of clients is deemed equivalent to execution of orders on behalf of clients (Section A(2)).
• Reception and transmission of orders (RTO) for crypto-assets is deemed equivalent to reception and transmission of orders (Section A(1)).
• Advice on crypto-assets is deemed equivalent to investment advice (Section A(5)).
• Portfolio management of crypto-assets is deemed equivalent to portfolio management (Section A(4)).

A firm can only rely on the crypto services that correspond to the MiFID services it is specifically authorised to provide. The scope of the existing MiFID licence therefore determines the reach of the crypto extension.

Substance over labels: getting the classification right

Before equivalence can even be assessed, each service must be correctly classified under MiCA. ESMA has been clear that classification follows the operational reality of the activity and the actual order-fulfilment flow — not the label chosen by the provider or the language used in marketing or contractual documents. The decisive questions are: who receives the order, who ultimately concludes the transaction, whose capital is used, and whether the order is transmitted to a third party.

This distinction matters because MiCA treats exchange services differently. Under Article 3(1) MiCA, an exchange service exists where the provider acts as counterparty to the client, trading against the client using its own proprietary capital on a non-discriminatory commercial basis. MiCA deems exchange services equivalent to MiFID dealing on own account — a different MiFID permission altogether.

So the same commercial offering can fall on either side of the line depending on how it is structured:

• A firm acting as principal — committing its own capital and assuming market risk — is providing an exchange service, mapped to MiFID dealing on own account.
• A firm acting strictly as agent — not committing proprietary capital, not assuming market risk, routing or concluding orders through liquidity providers — is providing execution of orders or reception and transmission of orders, mapped to MiFID Section A(2) and A(1) respectively.

The difference between execution and RTO turns on whether the firm itself concludes the transaction on behalf of the client (execution) or merely receives the order and passes it to a third party for execution (RTO).

A worked example: agency-based onramp/offramp and crypto swaps

Consider a firm offering OTC fiat-to-crypto onramp/offramp and crypto-to-crypto swap services, both structured on an agency basis. The firm does not act as counterparty, commits no proprietary capital, assumes no market risk, and relies on affiliated or third-party liquidity providers for execution.

Because none of these services display the defining feature of an exchange service — acting as counterparty with own capital — they do not align with MiFID dealing on own account. Instead, their economic and operational substance aligns with MiFID agency execution and/or RTO. Each service therefore falls, as its primary classification, within either execution of orders or reception and transmission of orders, depending on whether the firm itself concludes the transaction or simply forwards the order.

Once classified this way, the equivalence to MiFID Section A(1) and A(2) services follows directly from the express mapping in Article 60(3). Where a service is characterised as execution, best execution obligations apply — and ESMA’s guidance is that, where classification is genuinely in doubt, a conservative approach should treat the service as execution on behalf of the client, with the corresponding best execution duties.

Practical takeaways for investment firms

• A MiFID II investment firm can extend into crypto-asset services under Article 60 MiCA without a separate full CASP authorisation, relying on prior notification to the competent authority.
• The available crypto services are bounded by the specific MiFID permissions the firm already holds, via the statutory equivalence mapping.
• How a service is structured — principal versus agent — is decisive. Agency-based models naturally map to execution and RTO; principal trading maps to exchange / dealing on own account.
• Classification must reflect the real order flow, not contractual labels.
• The final determination of equivalence remains subject to the competent authority’s supervisory interpretation in the context of the Article 60 notification — so structuring decisions should be documented and defensible.

Conclusion

Article 60 MiCA offers investment firms a genuinely efficient bridge into the crypto-asset market: one entity, one foundational MiFID authorisation, and a notification-based extension into the equivalent crypto services. The opportunity is real, but it depends on rigorous, substance-based classification of each service and a clear-eyed view of the principal-versus-agent distinction. Firms considering this route should map their intended crypto activities against their existing MiFID permissions early, and prepare for supervisory dialogue rather than assume the outcome.

How ECOVIS ProventusLaw can assist you:

Navigating the intersection of MiFID II and MiCA requires both deep regulatory insight and practical experience with competent authorities. ECOVIS ProventusLaw assists investment firms in conducting comprehensive equivalence mapping, structuring compliant operational models, and managing the entire Article 60 notification process.

Its lawyers have been consistently ranked by leading international legal directories, including Chambers and Partners, IFLR1000, and The Legal 500. The firm has advised on more than 80 licensing projects across the Baltic states and EU.