When reserves must be evidenced: what to do first
When a supervisor, an auditor, or a trading venue asks you to evidence reserves behind a tokenised asset, the first move is not disclosure. It is confirming who is asking, under what instrument, and by when. Locate the request, pull the current reserve statement, and route both through whoever owns your compliance file before any reply goes out.
The legal basis for a reserve request
The duty to maintain and evidence a reserve of assets sits in Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA). It applies to issuers of asset-referenced and e-money tokens, and it is the instrument any supervisory or audit request will cite, even where the request itself does not name it.
A second instrument, Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR), governs the information that must travel with a transfer of the underlying funds or crypto-assets. It does not itself create a reserve-evidencing duty, and the two should not be read as interchangeable.
Both instruments have applied since 30 December 2024, so any request referencing an in-force obligation is not speculative — it is already live.
What changes once evidence is requested
Once a reserve request lands, the file stops being a matter of internal record-keeping and becomes something a third party will read. The reserve statement, the custody arrangement, and the segregation record all move from background documentation to evidence that must stand on its own. A gap that was tolerable while nobody was checking becomes a finding the moment someone is.
The practical risk is timing, not content. Requests of this kind rarely announce a long runway. Whoever receives the request needs to know, within hours, whether the underlying reserve statement is current, signed, and reconciled against the tokens in circulation.
What to do first
- Identify the requester and the instrument. The compliance officer confirms whether the request comes from a supervisor, an auditor, a trading venue, or a counterparty, and under what stated basis.
- Pull the current reserve statement. Finance produces the latest reconciliation between tokens in circulation and assets held, dated and signed.
- Confirm segregation. The custody function confirms, in writing, that client assets sit apart from the issuer's own balance sheet.
- Check the stated deadline in the request itself. The compliance officer reads the requester's own letter or notice for its deadline; there is no single statutory countdown that applies to every request.
- Route the package through one person. A single named individual signs off before anything leaves the organisation, so that no two departments answer the same question differently.
- Log the exchange. Whoever manages the compliance file records the date, the requester, and the documents sent, for the next audit cycle.
Who decides, and how
Different requesters look for different things, and the table below sets out the pattern.
| Who is asking | What they examine first | What satisfies them |
|---|---|---|
| Competent authority | Reserve statement against circulating tokens | A reconciled, dated statement plus custody confirmation |
| External auditor | Segregation and control evidence | Signed custody letters and a traceable reconciliation |
| Trading venue | Onboarding conditions already agreed | Whatever the venue's own listing agreement specifies |
None of these forums works to a single universal clock. Each sets its own deadline inside its own request, and that deadline is the one already running.
Common scenarios
If the request comes from a supervisor rather than an auditor, treat it as formal from the first line, and route it through the same compliance owner who handles regulatory correspondence generally.
If the reserve statement is more than a few weeks old, refresh it before responding rather than sending a stale figure with a caveat attached; a caveated old number invites a follow-up request, not closure.
If your own name, rather than the organisation's, appears in the report driving the request — a counterparty check or an audit trail that lists individuals — a related question arises separately: If you are named in a report and who.
What this page does not cover
This page sets out the sequence and the responsible parties. It does not evidence a specific reserve, verify a specific counterparty, or check a specific jurisdiction's registers — those are separate, source-based exercises, each with its own route and its own limits.
For a counterparty behind a reserve or a transfer, the relevant sources and their limits are set out in Counterparty in Estonia: sources, route and limits.
For a specific document underlying a reserve claim, the coverage and its boundaries appear in Document in Estonia and its limits.
For the jurisdiction itself, including which registers respond and which do not, see Jurisdiction report estonia sources, route and limits.
Verified
This page was checked against the sources below at the time of publication.
- Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), in force since 30 December 2024.
- Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR), in force since 30 December 2024.
Related reading
A related situation, on the other side of the same process, is covered in When a listing is refused: what to do first.
Frequently asked questions
What is the first step when reserves must be evidenced?
Identify who is asking and under what instrument, then pull the current, signed reserve statement before drafting any response.
Which deadline is already running?
The one stated in the request itself. There is no single statutory countdown that applies to every reserve request; the requester's own letter or notice sets the clock.
Who decides, and on what evidence?
The requester decides — a supervisor, an auditor, or a trading venue — and each looks for a reconciled reserve statement plus proof of segregation before treating the matter as closed.