arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.26932

Asset-Class Specific Sustainability Disclosure: Lessons Learned from the EU MiCA Regulation

Ulrich Gallersdörfer·Lena Klaaßen·Christoph Kreiterling·Christian Stoll
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Sustainability disclosure in the European Union has so far focused on corporate reporting and sustainability information attached to traditional financial products. Crypto-assets, with consensus-mechanism-driven environmental externalities and fragmented issuer structures, largely fell through this disclosure architecture. The EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) introduces the first EU-wide, asset-class-specific sustainability disclosure regime for crypto-assets by mandating standardised sustainability indicators for both issuers and crypto-asset service providers. Drawing on a policy and legal analysis of MiCA and its Level 2 measures, and on early implementation evidence from public registers and market practice, this paper shows how the policy approach shifted from debates about restricting energy-intensive consensus mechanisms to a transparency regime built on quantitative metrics, machine-readable reporting, and methodological alignment with the broader EU sustainable-finance framework. The paper also highlights practical frictions in implementation, including data gaps, responsibility allocation between issuers and intermediaries, and cross-border supervisory fragmentation. The overview and quantitative summary of the ESMA Interim MiCA Register in this paper may also provide valuable information to regulators and market participants in the context of the European Commission's 2026 targeted consultation on the review of MiCA, including its specific question on environmental and sustainability reporting.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ulrich Gallersdörfer, Lena Klaaßen, Christoph Kreiterling, Christian Stoll. 2026-09-22. Asset-Class Specific Sustainability Disclosure: Lessons Learned from the EU MiCA Regulation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.26932

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Developing Competency in AI Ethics: A training framework

We present a training framework for developing core competencies in the practical operationalisation of AI ethics: (1) identifying ethical concerns; (2) determining which standard ethics requirements they implicate; (3) selecting and prioritising concrete technical and organisational measures to address them; and (4) recognising ethics tensions and reasoning about trade-offs where such tensions cannot be fully resolved. The framework is intended for researchers and engineers in AI, Research Ethics Committee members, policymakers, and students, providing them with practical tools for translating abstract ethical requirements into concrete actions. The framework provides a step-by-step approach organised around four interconnected tasks: issue identification, requirement mapping, measure selection, and tension identification. These tasks are supported by a suite of training materials, including an Ethics Checklist and a Portfolio of Measures. Here, we complement them with a set of practical exercises of three different types as well as trainer guides. We also discuss lessons learned in pilot training sessions and offer recommendations for trainers.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Who Can Say No? Control, Accountability and the Pace of Frontier AI

In September 2026, the leaders of the largest frontier AI laboratories said in public that the pace of capability improvement is too fast and that none of them can slow down alone, and agents under evaluation at OpenAI broke out of their test environment and reached a third party's live systems, which a UN-mandated panel called an early warning of one route to loss of human control. This paper examines the institutional side of that risk: not the machine, but the person who must control it. We argue that control is not taken by AI but given away, one delegation at a time, by organisations arranged so that nobody is positioned to say no, and we define control as a person who can detect a serious problem, challenge the decision, stop the system and reverse it, and who has something to lose by not doing so. Three questions follow, which any builder, funder, regulator or deployer can answer in public: (1) who inside the organisation can say no, and who answers for saying yes; (2) who outside the organisation checks the decision, and what can they do when they disagree; (3) what happens when AI builds AI faster than anyone can check it. A checkable answer needs a named person, a date, a number, and a stop that has been used or tested. Three measures meet that test: a named person on every consequential decision, including the standing instructions AI agents carry out; a supervisor with a stop authority; and two published clocks, time to build against time to check. We show that governance theory arrives at the same conditions, and code fifty older mechanisms against the questions, finding that almost every one began as one rule at one point, taken by one party without waiting for the rest. That is the paper's design: a start, not a solution. Publication is the first step and one laboratory can take it alone; the contract, the independent body and the law come after.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Adversarial Attacks Reveal Divergent Deception Competence in Humans and Generative Language Models

Machine learning models typically outperform humans in deception detection. A threat to machine learning models is their vulnerability to adversarial attacks: subtle yet targeted perturbations of input data that trick a model into misclassification. Yet, this also provides an opportunity: understanding how humans versus machines construct attacks offers new insights into second-order beliefs about deception. In a preregistered experiment (n = 501), we compare the effectiveness, efficiency, and nature of a paraphrasing attack by humans and generative language models on an automated deception classifier. We find that humans were more effective attackers when rewriting truthful statements to be deceptive, while the generative language model was more effective and efficient at making lies sound like truths. Computational text analysis suggests that this is because humans make targeted use of deception cues, while generative language models, instead, apply generic changes that signal truth. The failure to mimic deception is two-sided: while it exposes a blind spot in the machines increasingly used to detect lies, it also means that language models might facilitate successful lying.

cs.CY↗