Reference health
The European Crowdfunding Service Providers Regulation and the Future of Marketplace Lending and Investing in Europe: the ‘Crowdfunding Nature’ Dilemma (UPDATED JULY 2020)
5/5 checkable references clean · checked 2026-08-03
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
14 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 5 checked references that resolve
resolves10.2139/ssrn.3332485
Speak, If You Can: What Are You? An Alternative Approach to the Qualification of Tokens and Initial Coin Offerings
resolves10.4337/9781786438935.00026
Financial Stability Board (FSB), Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and Financial Market Regulation Bodies
resolves10.2139/ssrn.2959925
From FinTech to TechFin: The Regulatory Challenges of Data-Driven Finance
The 14 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedref2
no DOI — not checkedref3
no DOI — not checkedsize and complexity of the activity and the operator can be found in many parts of the new version, with reference to: the regime in general (recitals 22 and 24), prudential safeguards (Art. 5(2)) and, among the requirements for authorization, the description of continuity arrangements (Art. 10(2) g), NCA's assessment of prospective ECSP application (Art. 10(6)) and exercise of their supervisory powers (Art. 27b(2))as well as Commission delegated acts as regards complaint handling (Art. 6(4)), conflicts of interests
no DOI — not checkedref6
no DOI — not checkedref7
no DOI — not checkedAbout disintermediation and re-intermediation in the financial sectors through platforms: Iris H. Chiu, Fintech and Disruptive Business Models in Financial Products, Intermediation and Markets-Policy Implications for Financial Regulators
no DOI — not checkedRegulation proposal "on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services
no DOI — not checkedref10
no DOI — not checked45% in 2016 to 12% in P2P consumer lending and from 29% to 24% in P2P business lending): see Ziegler at al., Shifting Paradigms, supra n. 10, 17, 41. In 2018, the 55% of P2P Business Lending platforms and 38% of P2P Property Lending platforms had more than one-third of their volumes funded through institutional investors (versus only 10% of P2P Consumer lending platforms), especially in Benelux
no DOI — not checked123 or the menace coming for both incumbents and FinTechs from Tech-Fin (Big-tech companies entering the financial sector) 124 cannot be ignored either. In conclusion, I agree with the choice of the EU institutions of creating a special regulation for FR-crowdfunding and, in particular, a regime inspired to MiFID II (also for LBC) but lighter (and therefore less protective for investors and more based on a self-responsibility principle and technology-based protections), restricted in terms of permissible activities, offer and investment size and products, for the reasons explained above ( � � 3-5) and in other contributions. 125 Furthermore, for the same reasons, the regime should be reserved to providers channelling funds (in a certain percentage, in order to allow diversification) to SMEs or sustainable/socially responsible firms (for the objective of financial inclusion), while banks and investment firms willing to offer also crowdfunding services (without creating separate entities) should at least respect also their own regime (in terms of conduct, prudential and organizational requirements, with some adaptations) to preserve trust and stability ( � 5). The regime should be expanded to cover consumer loans, with the extension of most CCD protections (and consequent adaptations, e.g. in terms of the crowdlending (14% and ? 466.60 million) and equity-based crowdfunding (6% and ? 210.93 million): see footnote 10 and Ziegler et al., Shifting Paradigms, supra n. 10, 31. About the challenge in regulating invoice trading in Italy, see Eugenia Macchiavello, La regolazione del FinTech tra innovazione
no DOI — not checkedConsidering the current debate about tokens qualification and the applicability of existing EU financial regulation, the exclusion is legitimate but it should have been explicit since mixing crowdfunding and ICOs is becoming more common and some regulators are addressing the problem. In Italy, Consob is considering incentivising the use of crowdfunding platforms for conducting ICOs of tokens (if not qualified as financial instruments or as other investment products already covered by EU law (Consob, Le offerte iniziali e gli scambi di cripto-attivit�-Rapporto finale
no DOI — not checkedCryptosecurities Regulation: ICOs, Token Sales and Cryptocurrencies Under EU Financial Law
no DOI — not checkedThe ICO gold rush-a challenge for regulators
no DOI — not checkedref18
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-08-03 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.3668590"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.3668590/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.3668590)