On Monday 5 November, the members of the committee on economic and monetary affairs (ECON) of the European Parliament will take position on the draft report by Ashley Fox (ECR, UK) on the proposed regulation to facilitate grant funding.
An agreement was already clearly visible from the first discussions (see EUROPE 12084), on the rapporteur's proposal to increase the threshold for crowdfunding offers to €8 million, as against the Commission's proposal on a limit of €1 million.
However, three stumbling blocks clearly emerged from the parliamentary committee's examination of the amendments (see EUROPE 12113). Compromises have been able to take shape between the political groups on all of these points, a European source told us on Tuesday 30 October.
Firstly, the compromise text finally adopts the rapporteur's proposal to entrust the authorisation and supervision of crowdfunding service providers to the national competent authorities, with just a mediation role for the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
On the controversial matter of governing certain initial coin offerings (ICO), namely the raising of funds in crypto-currencies, through this proposal (see EUROPE 12084), a compromise is indeed reported to have been hit upon between certain political groups, despite the rapporteur's pessimism. However, the compromise may not be enough to be adopted, the same source added.
In any event, there seems to be consensus in favour of a revision clause inviting the Commission to return to the subject at a later date, according to the same source. The EPP, Greens/EFA and some of the S&D group consider that the text was not the right legislative vehicle for this and that a separate Commission proposal would be preferable.
The same option is reported to be taking shape on the rapporteur's proposal to authorise certain accredited crowdfunding service providers from third countries to offer their services throughout the EU, which does not seem to have won over the EPP, S&D or Greens/EFA groups. Here again, the answer may be a revision clause. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)