Public disclosure
The policy referred to in Article 67 must be disclosed publicly on the CASP website.
What Article 67 says
Article 67 requires CASPs to maintain prudential safeguards equal to at least the higher of the permanent minimum capital requirement in Annex IV or one quarter of the fixed overheads of the preceding year. For new CASPs, the calculation uses projected fixed overheads submitted with the authorization application.
Those safeguards can take the form of own funds, an insurance policy covering the Union territories where crypto-asset services are provided, a comparable guarantee, or a combination.
If insurance is used
Policy term
The policy must have an initial term of not less than one year.
Cancellation notice
The cancellation notice period must be at least 90 days.
Third-party insurer
The policy must be taken from an undertaking authorized to provide insurance under Union or national law and provided by a third-party entity.
Risk areas named in Article 67
Article 67 lists risk categories that the relevant insurance policy must include, including loss of documents, misrepresentations or misleading statements, errors or omissions that breach legal/regulatory duties, duties to act honestly/fairly/professionally, confidentiality obligations, conflicts-of-interest procedures, business disruption or system failures, gross negligence in safeguarding client crypto-assets or funds where applicable, and CASP liability to clients under Article 75(8).
Fixed-overheads Q&A
What did ESMA clarify about the Article 67 fixed-overheads calculation?
An ESMA Q&A published in February 2026 says CASPs should calculate the one-quarter fixed-overheads safeguard from the total of all overhead expenses, fixed and variable, using the applicable accounting framework. It also says only the items listed in Article 67(3)(a)–(d) may be subtracted.
Why does this matter for insurance conversations?
If the overhead base is larger than a team expected, the own-funds, insurance, comparable guarantee, or mixed-path conversation changes. Before asking for policy terms, prepare the overhead calculation, assumptions, deductions, and supervisor-facing support so brokers, counsel, and internal finance owners are working from the same evidence.
Source: ESMA Q&A 2349 on MiCA Article 67 fixed overheads. This summary is informational only and does not replace legal, regulatory, accounting, brokerage, underwriting, or insurance advice.
Why own funds vs insurance is a strategy question
Specialist market commentary, including Elmore’s Article 67 writing, frames insurance as more than a compliance substitute for capital. Own funds can satisfy the buffer logic but leave the firm absorbing losses directly. Insurance or comparable guarantees can transfer defined risks, preserve balance-sheet flexibility, and force a more rigorous underwriting review of governance, cyber, operational, custody, and business-continuity controls.
That is where preparation matters. A CASP that arrives with clean evidence can usually have a sharper conversation than a CASP asking a market to reconstruct the risk from scattered documents.
If your team is deciding between own funds, insurance, or a mixed path, start by assembling the Article 67 evidence pack before asking for terms.
Article 67 evidence pack
Fixed overhead basis
Audited or supervisor-validated financials, projected fixed overheads for new firms, and deductions used in the calculation.
Service scope
Which crypto-asset services are provided, where, to whom, and under which authorization or application path.
Risk-control map
Controls for legal/regulatory obligations, client treatment, confidentiality, conflicts, systems resilience, and business continuity.
Safeguarding exposure
Whether the model includes client assets, client funds, private-key access, custody providers, outsourcing, or wallet-control workflows.