Notification to the supervisor: what the decision maker looks at
A notification to the supervisor tells the regulator that a token issuer intends to offer crypto-assets to the public or seek admission to trading. The decision maker checks completeness, governance, safeguarding arrangements and whether the whitepaper matches the marketing materials before the file moves to substantive review. A clean file moves faster than a file that needs correction.
What changes once the file is submitted
Once the file reaches the reviewer, a formal timetable starts running. Missing information stops that timetable and restarts it after resubmission. This is the point of no return that matters most in practice: after submission, the issuer cannot quietly amend the whitepaper without the supervisor noticing the change. A clean file at the outset avoids repeated exchanges and keeps the target launch date under the issuer's control rather than the reviewer's queue.
The same logic applies to marketing. If promotional material goes out before the notification is filed, the reviewer treats the mismatch as a governance signal, not a formality. Marketing review deserves its own checklist, run in parallel rather than after the fact.
What to do
- Compliance officer assembles the whitepaper, the governance description and the safeguarding evidence into one package before any external date is announced.
- Legal counsel checks that the whitepaper and the marketing materials describe the same product, in the same terms, without a gap a reviewer could flag.
- The issuer appoints one named contact for supervisor queries, so requests do not stall between departments.
- Compliance officer submits the notification through the channel the supervisor designates, not through general correspondence.
- The issuer tracks every request from the supervisor and responds inside the window the supervisor sets, even when the answer is "not yet available".
- Legal counsel keeps a version log of every whitepaper draft submitted, so the final version used for the launch is traceable back to the notification.
Who decides, and on what basis
The national supervisor responsible for crypto-asset markets in the issuer's home jurisdiction receives the notification. The reviewer decides on completeness first: is every required document present, in the required form. Only after the file is complete does substantive assessment start: governance quality, safeguarding of client assets, and consistency between what the whitepaper promises and what the marketing says.
| Focus area | What the reviewer checks | Typical red flag |
|---|---|---|
| Governance | Who takes decisions, how conflicts of interest are handled, who is accountable for the token programme | Decision rights not documented, or resting with one person informally |
| Safeguarding of client assets | Where client funds sit, who controls the account, how the arrangement survives insolvency of the issuer | Client and corporate funds mixed in one account |
| Whitepaper consistency | Whether risk disclosures, rights attached to the token and technical description match across every document | Marketing claims a feature the whitepaper does not describe |
| Marketing materials | Timing of publication relative to the notification, and language used to describe expected returns | Materials published before the notification was filed |
| AML controls | Who is screened, at what point in the token lifecycle, and how findings are escalated | Screening described in policy but absent from the actual workflow |
Forks
If the issuer already holds an authorisation in another EU member state for a comparable activity, the file can reference that authorisation rather than rebuild every governance document from scratch. If the token has features that make its classification unclear, classification should be resolved before the notification is drafted, not during review, because the reviewer will ask for it either way. If marketing has already started, the issuer should pause new materials rather than file a notification against a whitepaper the market has not yet seen.
What this page does not decide
This page does not decide whether a specific token requires a notification at all — that depends on the token's classification, assessed case by case. It does not fix a timetable in days or weeks, because the supervisor's own workload and the completeness of the file both affect it. It does not replace legal advice on how a particular governance structure should be documented.
Sources and limit
This material describes a procedure, not a legal basis, and it does not cite specific statutory provisions. Our internal source hierarchy and update cadence are described in Sources by tier and delivery route in detail.
A notification file rarely stands alone inside a wider commercial relationship. Where a counterparty contract needs renewal around the same timeline, the relevant considerations are set out in Counterparty report before renewing a contract.
Where a register and an internal document disagree on a date, the resolution path is different from a supervisor notification and is covered separately in Document report when dates do not match the register.
Where the notification is a first step into a market rather than a routine filing in an existing one, the broader entry question is addressed in Jurisdiction report before entering a market.
Last checked: this description reflects standard supervisory practice for crypto-asset notifications observed across the region as of the current publication cycle.
Related publications
The marketing side of the same file has its own review logic, described step by step in Marketing review step by step.
FAQ
How long does notification to the supervisor take in practice?
There is no fixed number of days that applies uniformly. A complete file at submission avoids the restart that happens when the supervisor requests missing information, and that restart is usually the largest single cause of delay.
Which documents are needed to start?
At minimum: the whitepaper, a governance description, evidence of how client assets are safeguarded, and a record showing the marketing materials match the whitepaper. Additional documents depend on the token's classification.
What happens if the other side does not respond?
If the supervisor does not respond within its own internal cycle, the issuer's compliance officer should send a written follow-up referencing the submission date and the named contact, rather than resubmitting the whole file.