When a token is airdropped to existing users: what to do first
An airdrop to existing users is not neutral marketing. It can qualify as an offer of crypto-assets under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA). Any transfer routed through a crypto-asset service provider also triggers the transfer-information duties of Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR). Freeze the distribution list, log wallet identifiers, and route the transfer only through an authorised provider before tokens move.
Legal basis
Two Regulations frame this situation. Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) has applied since 30 December 2024 and sets out when a distribution of crypto-assets counts as an offer to the public. It introduced a single regime across the European Union in place of the separate national rules that issuers previously had to compare one by one. Whether a token falls inside that regime depends on the token's own features and on how the distribution is presented, not on the label the issuer chooses for it. Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) has applied from the same date and requires the crypto-asset service provider executing the transfer to attach originator and beneficiary information to that transfer. TFR extends the travel-rule logic that already governed wire transfers to almost every transfer of crypto-assets a provider carries out on a customer's behalf, and an airdrop batch is no exception. Neither Regulation is optional for a transfer that carries an airdropped token into a wallet a provider controls.
What changes in practice
An airdrop that reaches existing users is rarely a gift with no obligations attached. Once tokens move through a provider's rails, the provider must screen the transfer under the TFR regime and may reject or delay it if counterparty information is missing. That delay affects the whole batch, not only the wallets that triggered it. On the issuer's side, the same distribution can turn into an offer of crypto-assets under MiCA, which brings pre-distribution disclosure duties that a genuinely free hand-out is meant to avoid. The wording used to announce the airdrop and the timing of the transfer therefore stop being separate marketing and operational questions. They become one legal question, and the order in which you handle them now decides whether the airdrop stays outside the offer regime or falls inside it.
What to do, in order
- Freeze the eligibility list before broadcasting the transaction. The compliance officer records the exact snapshot block and its timestamp, and that record becomes the reference point for every later question about who was eligible.
- Route every transfer through an authorised crypto-asset service provider, never through a direct wallet-to-wallet script. The engineering lead confirms the provider's authorisation status before the batch runs, and holds the batch if that status cannot be confirmed.
- Collect and retain originator and beneficiary identifiers for each recipient wallet, as the provider will request under Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR). The compliance officer stores this file apart from marketing records, since the two serve different purposes.
- Check whether the distribution message describes the token's rights or expected value. If it does, treat the airdrop as an offer under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) and hold distribution until the classification is settled. External counsel confirms the reading before the message goes out again.
- Log every decision and its date in one file, not in scattered correspondence. The compliance officer owns this file from the first snapshot to the final transfer, and produces it on request.
What decides the outcome
| Signal in the airdrop | Effect on the analysis |
|---|---|
| Message promotes the token's price or future value | Pushes the distribution towards an offer under MiCA |
| Transfer executed only through an authorised provider | Keeps the operation inside the TFR information regime |
| No consideration requested from recipients | Supports a free-distribution reading, but does not remove the TFR duty |
| Snapshot list overlaps a public marketing campaign | Strengthens the case for offer treatment |
| Eligibility depends on holding another asset | Adds a conditional element that weighs against a pure gift |
Who decides, and by when
The crypto-asset service provider decides first, and it decides fast. Its compliance function screens each transfer before execution and can suspend a batch that lacks the required transfer information, sometimes within the same business day. The issuer's own compliance function decides second, on the marketing text and the snapshot record, whether the distribution reads as a public offer. That review has no fixed statutory clock, which is exactly why it needs to start before the broadcast, not after it. If a classification dispute reaches a supervisor, the competent national authority for crypto-asset markets makes the final call, based on the distribution message and the transfer records that already exist by that point. A file built after the fact is weaker than a file built as the decisions were made.
Cost drivers and response times
Three factors move the scope of this work: the number of registries that must be checked for each recipient wallet, the number of jurisdictions the recipient list touches, and whether a deadline is already running because tokens have started to move. A fourth factor is whether a counterparty — a provider, an exchange, or a marketing partner — is already disputing the classification. A file covering a single jurisdiction and a paused distribution is materially smaller than a file covering recipients across several Member States with a batch already broadcast and a counterparty pressing for an answer.
A partner replies to your first message within minutes during business hours. A firm quote for the file follows within one business day, once the scope above is confirmed.
If your situation differs
If the airdrop has already been broadcast without a provider in the chain, stop marketing the token immediately and preserve the wallet list as it stood at broadcast time. The analysis then starts from a completed transfer, not a planned one, and the questions shift from prevention to containment.
If recipients must complete an action to qualify — following an account, holding a minimum balance, referring another user — treat the distribution as conditional and assume offer treatment from the outset, rather than waiting for a supervisor to make that call.
If the same token is airdropped to users in more than one Member State, keep a single consistent version of the marketing text. A national supervisor reads whichever version reached its own market, and inconsistent versions are harder to defend than a single cautious one.
Sources and limit
This page does not establish who controls a specific recipient wallet, verify a counterparty's registration, or confirm which jurisdiction a distribution list actually touches. Those are evidentiary questions, and they sit in a separate file from the classification question addressed above.
A Counterparty in Finland and its limits report sets out what a counterparty check can confirm and where it stops.
A Document in Finland: what can be established report does the same for a document trail.
A Jurisdiction report finland report does the same for a jurisdiction question.
Each report runs against a fixed turnaround, tracked in our Delivery statistics, published automatically step by step.
Checked on 20 May 2025. Sources: Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA); Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR).
Related situations
A related situation looks at custody rather than distribution: What to do first in this situation in practice.
Next step
If the airdrop is already scheduled, resolve the classification question first and the transfer mechanics second — reversing the order is the most common source of delay. Send the distribution message and the snapshot date to a partner before the batch runs.
Frequently asked questions
What is the first step when a token is airdropped to existing users?
Freeze the eligibility snapshot and the exact wording of the distribution message before any token moves. Both feed directly into the offer analysis under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), and both are far harder to reconstruct once the batch has run.
Which deadline is already running?
The transfer-information duty under Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) starts the moment a crypto-asset service provider begins executing the batch, not when the tokens land in wallets. Treat the broadcast, not the receipt, as the trigger date.
Who decides, and on what evidence?
The provider decides first, on the transfer data it holds. The issuer's own compliance function decides second, on the snapshot record and the marketing text used for the distribution, and that second decision is the one most often left undocumented.