AFM Supervision Report: Improvement Points for CASP Information Disclosure

SUPERVISION REPORT
Improvement Points for CASP Information Disclosure

In Brief – The AFM observes that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) are taking steps to improve their advertising and cost information, but shortcomings remain. In particular, the balanced identification of risks, the prevention of misleading information, and the clear presentation of costs are still lacking. Based on the research, the AFM is taking appropriate measures towards the involved CASPs. To help the market move forward, the regulator presents five concrete improvement points, supplemented with good and bad practice examples. All CASPs active in the Netherlands are urged to improve their information disclosure. The AFM will monitor this on a risk-based basis and may enforce compliance if necessary.

APRIL | 2026

Management Summary
The crypto market is growing rapidly and attracting a broad and diverse group of consumers. Since the end of 2024, clear requirements under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) have applied to advertising and information disclosure by crypto-asset service providers (CASPs). Correct, clear, and non-misleading information is essential to enable consumers to make well-informed choices.

In 2025, the AFM published an initial investigation into CASP advertising and cost information. Since then, part of the sector has taken steps, but follow-up research shows that several CASPs still need to make substantial improvements. The AFM considers it important to provide general insight into the findings and points of attention from this investigation. This report presents the results thereof.

Objective of the Investigation
The AFM takes information disclosure in advertising and transparency regarding costs extremely seriously. This investigation contributes to a level playing field within the EU and protects consumers against misleading, incomplete, or difficult-to-find information and unnecessary risks. Where improvement is possible, the AFM shares concrete examples to further support the sector. The AFM takes this into account when assessing CASP license applications and applies risk-based supervision, both in ongoing supervision and in thematic investigations.

What Did the AFM Do?
In the investigation, the AFM assessed whether CASP advertising and cost information comply with Article 66 of MiCAR. In doing so, the AFM looks at, among other things, the quality of the information disclosure. For example, the AFM expects that for correct, clear, and non-misleading information disclosure, the information is at least factually correct, findable, understandable, and balanced for the target audience. The AFM also assesses whether the information misleads the client. Additionally, the AFM looks at the findability and completeness of cost information. Where relevant, the AFM incorporates previously published guidelines and additional Level 3 guidance (guidelines, Q&As, statements, etc.) into its assessment.

The Level 1 provisions of MiCAR bear similarities to those in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II), but do not contain all the detailed Level 2 rules applicable under MiFID II. Although these are separate legal frameworks, the AFM will look at similarities where relevant and appropriate.

Key Results
The AFM observes that CASPs are using the previously provided guidelines for advertising and information disclosure, but shortcomings remain. The AFM notes, among other things:

Misleading or unclear advertising, for example, terms such as 'safe trading' without clarification, or advertising 'commission-free' or 'free' trading in crypto-assets without being clear about possible additional costs and/or restrictions.
Insufficiently balanced risk identification, while volatility and complex products specifically call for clear warnings.
Cost information that is not findable or difficult to find, for example, hidden in general terms and conditions or only findable via external search engines.
No clear and complete presentation of costs, including the absence of usual cost items, such as deposit and withdrawal fees and ongoing costs, and the failure to mention specific rates.
Risk of confusion regarding services within and outside supervision, for example, when staking or lending is offered alongside regulated services.

The investigation focused on crypto advertising published between August and October 2025 and publicly accessible cost information from 33 CASPs that obtained a MiCAR license in 2024 or 2025. This selection includes both CASPs with a license in the Netherlands and CASPs with a license in another EU member state.

The AFM notes that both Dutch and international CASPs still need to take significant steps to meet MiCAR standards for information disclosure. The AFM identified shortcomings regarding advertising standards for fourteen parties. Regarding cost information, shortcomings were identified for nineteen parties. The involved Dutch CASPs will soon receive a supervisory letter, and for international CASPs, the relevant national supervisors will be informed. For completeness, the AFM notes that not all CASPs had advertising in the period under investigation. There were several CASPs that were cautious with marketing activities due to the necessary mitigating measures after the expiry of the transition period on June 30, 2025.

What Will the AFM Do?
The AFM acts actively, on a risk-based basis, and where necessary, enforces compliance. The involved parties receive individual feedback and must remedy shortcomings. The AFM:

continues to strictly monitor compliance with MiCAR;
enforces when violations persist;
informs ESMA and national supervisors about the findings;
continues thematic supervision and continues to publish good practices;
tackles persons offering crypto-asset services without a license and prevents market abuse.

Guidelines for Improvement
The AFM expects all CASPs active in the Netherlands to align their information disclosure with MiCAR immediately. To support the sector in this, the AFM identifies five concrete improvement points, supplemented with good and bad practices:

Avoid misleading statements and ensure information is clearly substantiated
Identify risks in a balanced manner
Ensure cost information is easily findable
Be clear and transparent about costs towards consumers
Pay attention to clear information disclosure regarding services within and outside supervision

With these improvement points, the AFM provides insight into how it handles open norms in its supervision. The AFM expects CASPs to use this document as a reference framework for their information disclosure. In practice, the AFM always makes a case-specific assessment. Whether information is correct, clear, and non-misleading depends on the context (both substantive and presentation) and can vary per case.

Table of Contents
Introduction 5
Key Improvement Points for CASPs 6

Avoid misleading statements and ensure information is clearly substantiated 7
Identify risks in a balanced manner 8
Ensure cost information is easily findable 10
Be clear and transparent about costs towards consumers 11
Pay attention to clear information disclosure regarding services within and outside supervision 13
Conclusion 15

Introduction
More and more consumers and companies are using crypto-asset services, but the growth usually outpaces the understanding of the associated risks. Products are often complex, providers operate internationally, and information for users is not always complete or understandable. This makes it difficult to see who is responsible for what and what protection applies.

With the arrival of European rules for CASPs, more clarity is emerging. The rules in MiCAR form an important step, but they do not solve everything. The quality of service varies greatly per provider, as does the way risks are managed and information is shared. This makes the market vulnerable to misleading practices, just as consumer participation increases further.

In this report, the AFM maps the key risks for CASPs regarding information disclosure and what is needed to make the market safer and more transparent.
The following chapters contain guidelines for improvement and provide insight into the AFM's deployment in the coming period.

Key Improvement Points for CASPs
The popularity of trading in crypto and the significant risks associated with it mean that the AFM critically examines the correct compliance with information disclosure requirements. According to European rules in MiCAR, CASPs must ensure that their information is correct, clear, and non-misleading. This applies to all forms of communication, such as advertising and information on their website. They must also warn customers well about the risks associated with trading in crypto.

Furthermore, MiCAR stipulates that information about rates and costs must have a prominent place on the website. Clear information about risks and costs helps consumers better understand what they are doing and what consequences this may have. Thus, they can make well-considered choices.

The AFM's follow-up investigation shows that improvements are still needed at several CASPs. Therefore, the AFM identifies five points where CASPs can sharpen their information disclosure, supported by good and bad practices1.

The five key improvement points are:

Avoid misleading statements and ensure information is clearly substantiated
Identify risks in a balanced manner
Ensure cost information is easily findable
Be clear and transparent about costs towards consumers
Pay attention to clear information disclosure regarding services within and outside supervision

1 The examples are inspired by statements from the investigation and are aggregated and anonymized. In practice, the AFM always makes a case-specific assessment.

Avoid misleading statements and ensure information is clearly substantiated
Advertising and information disclosure on the website usually give a consumer a first impression of the CASP and its services. It is therefore essential that statements made by CASPs are correct, clear, and non-misleading, so that clients are not misled regarding the real or perceived benefits of crypto-assets. Misleading statements or unsubstantiated information can mislead a client.

Additional AFM Clarification on this Expectation

Clients can be misled when risks in advertising are trivialized or when the information is unbalanced. This is the case if an advertising statement speaks of 'safe trading' or 'saving in crypto' without providing further explanation or context regarding what is meant by this. This makes an advertising statement unbalanced and therefore not clear and/or misleading. Given the volatility of crypto-assets, the AFM expects that risks are clearly identified and not downplayed. Terms such as 'safe', 'very trusted', or 'saving' in combination with crypto can therefore quickly be seen as not clear and/or misleading. The use of the term 'saving' requires extra care, as this term in the Netherlands is strongly associated with bank deposits covered by the deposit guarantee scheme. It is important to avoid suggesting a comparable level of protection.
The AFM also encountered some advertising statements where costs were presented in an unclear and/or misleading manner. The norm of Article 66(2) of MiCAR implies that information, including in advertising, must be correct, clear, and non-misleading. There is unclear and/or misleading information if terms such as 'commission-free', 'free', or 'no costs apply' are used without being clear about possible other additional costs and/or restrictions. When using such terms, it must be made clear whether and how other costs, including implicit costs such as spreads or risk margins built into the price, may still apply. Any restrictions on such actions must also be stated. When temporary promotions are mentioned, a clear explanation of the conditions, such as limited durations or required trading volumes, belongs there, so that the client understands under which circumstances costs may still arise. In addition, the AFM considers it important that promotions are based on a realistic perspective, so that clients are not misled into certain actions while it is not or hardly feasible for them to take advantage of the promotion (e.g., unrealistically high trading volumes or rewards that must be achieved).
In several statements, high or exceptional returns are pointed out. In line with Article 66(2) of MiCAR, the AFM expects that such mentions are correct, clear, and non-misleading. This means, for example, that the chosen period must be representative and that selective time periods are not used that present a more favorable image.
In cases where certain comparisons are made between different CASPs and the services they offer, the AFM expects that such a comparison is presented correctly, clearly, and non-misleadingly. This means, for example, that it is made clear on what the comparison is based and that not only elements are presented that benefit the CASP drawing up the comparison, which can mislead the consumer. It is also important here to make clear why certain CASPs were selected for the comparison and others were not, and why these CASPs form a balanced and representative comparison group. Finally, the information presented from the comparison must always be correct, i.e., current and accurate, so not outdated or missing elements.

Identify risks in a balanced manner
When not all necessary information is presented, a client can get an unbalanced view of the CASP or the offered crypto-assets or crypto-asset services. Claims that only highlight the benefits of the CASP, a crypto-asset, or a crypto-asset service can be unclear and/or misleading. The AFM expects CASPs to, in line with Article 66 of MiCAR2, identify the risks associated with transactions in crypto-assets in a correct, clear, and non-misleading manner, and that they do not mislead their clients, intentionally or through carelessness, regarding the real or perceived benefits of crypto-assets. The AFM assesses, among other things, that the information is balanced and does not mislead the client. For correct, clear, and non-misleading information disclosure, the AFM expects that at least warnings are given for these risks when pointing out (possible) benefits of a crypto-asset and/or crypto-asset service.

Additional AFM Clarification on this Expectation

The given risk warning must give a correct, clear, and non-misleading indication of the risks associated with transactions in crypto-assets. The AFM finds a passage such as 'investing/trading in crypto-assets involves/entails risks' too general to clarify the risks associated with transactions in crypto-assets. A way to meet the standard3, according to the AFM, could be to clearly explain what the respective risk is, for example, that you can lose your investment.
The requirements in Article 66 of MiCAR apply to all types of information disclosure, including advertising. The AFM notes that many of the identified shortcomings in the investigation relate to internet banners and Google Ads. If such statements point out (possible) benefits of a crypto-asset and/or crypto-asset service, CASPs must also identify the risks in a correct, clear, and non-misleading manner. These requirements also apply when a specific service or feature is promoted to existing clients (e.g., via in-app or email communication). When promoting additional risky crypto-assets or services that are in principle outside the scope of MiCAR (e.g., staking, lending, or Decentralized Finance), the AFM expects CASPs, by virtue of their regulated status, to handle warnings regarding associated risks with extra care. In this context, the AFM expects CASPs to clearly state what is and is not under supervision and to adhere to the set requirements in this published ESMA statement on this matter (see further explanation under improvement point 5).
For completeness, the AFM emphasizes that it is important that the warning is proportional to the context of the advertising statement. Whether a warning is correct, clear, and non-misleading depends on the context (both substantive and presentation) and can vary per advertising statement. The AFM expects that the warning is accurate and always gives a correct and clear indication of the respective risks. To communicate risks in a correct, clear, and non-misleading manner, it is important to use a layout that ensures the clarity of the indication of the respective risks in question. It is appropriate to use a font size that is at least equal to the font size predominantly used in the provided information or advertising statement.

2 Article 66, paragraphs 2 and 3, MiCAR
3 Article 66, paragraph 2, MiCAR

Good practice: Clients are informed balanced throughout the entire client journey by identifying risks The AFM saw several cases where CASPs warned clients about the risks associated with transactions in crypto-assets in all relevant phases of the client journey. In this way, a consumer can make a well-considered decision to take a certain product or service. This reduces the risk of misleading.

Bad practice: Clients are not clearly warned about the risks, for example because the risk warning is too general or inconspicuous In several statements, CASPs gave a too general risk warning, without a clear indication of the respective risk. For balanced information disclosure, it is important to clarify the respective risk, so that clients become aware of the risks they are taking. Additionally, the AFM saw several cases where an inconspicuous color or a very small font size was used for the risk warning. This increases the chance that clients do not notice the risk warning, which increases the risk of unbalanced information disclosure.

Ensure cost information is easily findable
Article 66(4) of MiCAR requires CASPs to make their fee, cost, and remuneration policy publicly available in a prominent place on their website. The AFM understands this to mean that such information is easily findable on the website. It is important here that a consumer can easily find their way to the relevant information and that information is not hidden in a place on the website where a consumer is not expected to look for the information.

Additional AFM Clarification on this Expectation

The AFM sees in some cases that information about costs is not displayed on one page, but spread across the website. This can result in unfindable information. For a prominent place, it is important that all relevant information is easily findable. This is less likely to be the case when information belonging together is not directly on the same page and is also not linked to each other, for example, by a clear reference.
The AFM is also of the opinion that knowledge academies, 'frequently asked questions', support centers, and General Terms and Conditions are not prominent places for making a fee, cost, and remuneration policy publicly available. Information located in these places is difficult for clients to find, as these descriptions do not indicate that cost information can be found there.
When information about costs is only findable by using external search engines, the AFM considers this not to be available in a prominent place on the website. The AFM expects that clients can consult such information from the homepage. This means that this information is available with one click from the homepage, or two clicks if a drop-down menu is used. Here, the AFM expects that after the first click, the client is redirected to one (collective) page where cost information can be found.

Good practice: Hyperlink on homepage to cost schedule on one page The client sees, after one click from the homepage, or two clicks if a drop-down menu is used, all relevant information about costs clearly in one place. Because a client does not have to click through to another cost page again, the information is easily findable.

Good practice: Conspicuous link to cost section prominently visible on homepage The client sees the link on the homepage immediately that allows clicking through to the cost section on the website. For example, by placing the link directly at the top of the page and not at the bottom in the footer.

Bad practice: Cost information is spread across multiple pages The AFM saw several cases where information about costs was displayed spread across the website. This makes this information more difficult for consumers to find, especially when a clear reference is missing. For a prominent place, it is preferable to display information belonging together on the same page.

Bad practice: Cost information is far from the homepage Sometimes cost information was difficult to find because the information could not be consulted directly from the homepage. The AFM also saw some cases where the information was in difficult-to-find places, such as knowledge academies, 'frequently asked questions', support centers, and General Terms and Conditions. For a prominent place, the AFM expects that cost information can be consulted from the homepage.

Be clear and transparent about costs towards consumers