ECSP, MiFID II or an SRO: Reading a Platform Licence

Regulation EU 2020/1503 entered into force in November 2021, creating the European Crowdfunding Service Provider licence and making P2P lending a regulated activity across the EU for the first time. Before that date, platforms chose between MiFID II authorisation, payment-institution status, or operating unlicensed in jurisdictions where consumer-credit intermediation sat outside the investment-services perimeter. Understanding what each framework does, and what it leaves uncovered, is the difference between knowing your actual protection and believing a headline claim.

What an ECSP licence obligates the platform to do

An ECSP licence under Regulation 2020/1503 grants the holder a single European passport, allowing it to offer crowdfunding services in any member state without additional authorisation. The competent authority in the platform's home state supervises compliance with the regulation's conduct, disclosure and prudential requirements.

The platform must publish a key investment-information sheet for each project, disclosing the borrower's identity, the purpose of the loan, the risk profile, the default rate on comparable past loans, and the fee schedule. That sheet follows a standardised format, making it possible to compare offers across platforms without translating local jargon. The regulation also caps fees at 3 per cent of the amount invested for non-sophisticated investors and obliges the platform to assess each investor's knowledge and experience before admitting them to the service.

Prudential rules require the platform to hold professional-indemnity insurance or capital equivalent to at least EUR 25,000 or 10 per cent of fixed overheads, whichever is higher. The competent authority can demand additional capital if it judges the platform's risk profile to justify it. The regulation also mandates business-continuity and disaster-recovery plans, ensuring that loan records survive a platform failure and that investors can recover their positions even if the platform itself becomes insolvent.

Those obligations are real, enforceable and routinely checked. ECSP authorisation means that the platform operates within a regulatory perimeter, that the supervisor can inspect its books, and that investors have a formal complaint route if the platform breaches the rules. What it does not mean is that your capital is protected, that defaults are covered, that the platform will stay solvent, or that the supervisor will make you whole if the platform fails. The regulation sets conduct standards; it does not guarantee outcomes.

MiFID II and the EUR 20,000 compensation scheme

MiFID II is the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, covering investment firms that provide services such as reception and transmission of orders, portfolio management, or dealing on own account. Some P2P platforms hold MiFID II licences because they trade loan notes as transferable securities or offer auto-invest portfolios that qualify as discretionary management.

The key difference between MiFID II and ECSP for the retail investor is access to a compensation scheme. Under the Investor Compensation Schemes Directive, eligible clients of a MiFID II firm can claim up to EUR 20,000 if the firm becomes insolvent or commits fraud and cannot return client money or securities. In Latvia, that scheme is administered by the Investor Compensation Fund and covers claims against Latvijas Banka-supervised firms. The EUR 20,000 cap applies per person per firm across all claims, not per loan or per account.

The scheme covers situations where the firm holds client money in its name, mixes client funds with its own, or fails to segregate securities properly. It does not cover investment losses, borrower defaults, market risk, or poor performance. If you lend EUR 10,000 through a MiFID II platform and the borrower defaults, you lose that EUR 10,000 and the compensation scheme pays nothing. If the platform itself becomes insolvent and cannot return the EUR 500 sitting in your account awaiting reinvestment, the scheme pays that EUR 500 in full. The distinction is absolute and frequently misunderstood.

Platforms holding MiFID II licences include Mintos, Nectaro, Indemo, Twino and Debitum. Each operates under Latvijas Banka supervision and participates in the Latvian Investor Compensation Fund. That participation is a regulatory obligation, not a marketing choice, and the EUR 20,000 cap is set by EU law, not by the platform. When you read that a platform is MiFID II authorised, you know that up to EUR 20,000 of your claim against the firm is covered if the firm fails, and you also know that nothing is covered if the borrower fails.

Swiss SRO supervision and the Maclear position

Switzerland sits outside the EU and has no direct equivalent of the ECSP regime. Financial intermediaries in Switzerland join a self-regulatory organisation recognised by FINMA, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority. SRO membership covers anti-money-laundering obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, requiring the platform to verify client identity, report suspicious transactions, and maintain records for ten years.

SRO supervision does not extend to prudential capital, conduct rules, or client-money protection. There is no compensation fund, no requirement to segregate client assets, and no regulatory complaint mechanism comparable to an EU competent authority. The SRO checks that the platform follows AML procedures; it does not oversee how the platform structures loans, sets fees, or manages defaults.

Maclear operates under SRO membership in Switzerland, which means AML supervision only. The trade-off is explicit: no EU passport, no compensation scheme, no prudential capital rules enforced by a financial regulator. The platform discloses that position in its terms, and this site states it plainly on every page that discusses Maclear's authorisation. SRO membership is not a weakness in execution or a sign of poor governance; it is the result of operating from a Swiss base outside the EU regulatory perimeter. Investors choosing Maclear accept that trade-off in exchange for the platform's execution record, the CEO's full coverage of the single default to date, and the 14.5 to 14.9 per cent realised returns.

Platforms operating without an EU licence

Eight of the 19 platforms in our comparison hold no ECSP licence and no MiFID II authorisation. They operate as agents for originating lenders, assign claims without taking deposits, or structure loans as commercial contracts outside the investment-services perimeter. The absence of a licence is not proof of illegality; it means that the platform's business model falls outside the definitions in Regulation 2020/1503 and MiFID II, or that the platform chooses to operate in a jurisdiction where crowdfunding remains unregulated.

The risk for the investor is straightforward. You have no regulatory complaint route, no conduct rules enforced by a supervisor, no mandatory disclosure standards, and no clarity on what happens if the platform fails. If the platform mixes your money with its own, delays withdrawals, or changes its fee structure without notice, you have no regulator to escalate the complaint to. You rely entirely on the platform's commercial incentive to stay in business and on the enforceability of its terms under general contract law.

Platforms in this category include Robocash, Lendermarket, Hive5, Scramble, Loanch and Reinvest24. Some have operated successfully for years without major incident; others have frozen withdrawals or faced regulator warnings. The absence of a licence does not predict the outcome, but it does shift the entire regulatory risk onto the investor, and that risk should weigh in your allocation decision.

Platform-by-platform licensing summary

Data recorded January 2026. ECSP licences are checked against ESMA's register of authorised crowdfunding platforms. MiFID II licences are checked against national competent-authority registers. Platforms marked ECSP pending have applied for authorisation but have not yet appeared on the ESMA register.

Choosing between licensed and unlicensed platforms

Licensing status is one input into your allocation decision, not the only one. A platform with no licence can have a stronger execution record, better originator diversification, and more transparent reporting than a fully licensed rival. Conversely, an ECSP licence does not prevent the platform from making poor credit decisions, holding concentrated originator exposure, or running into liquidity trouble.

Where licensing matters most is in the event of platform failure. If the platform becomes insolvent, a licensed platform must follow business-continuity plans filed with the regulator, maintain loan records, and allow investors to recover their positions. An unlicensed platform has no such obligation, and whether you can recover anything depends on the goodwill of the liquidator and the enforceability of the platform's terms under general insolvency law.

The second place licensing matters is in the complaint route. If a licensed platform breaches its conduct obligations, you can escalate to the competent authority, which has enforcement powers. If an unlicensed platform changes its terms, delays withdrawals, or refuses to honour a buyback, your only recourse is a civil claim, which is slower, more expensive, and harder to enforce across borders.

Our approach weights investor protection at 30 per cent of the total score, with licensing status forming part of that category. A platform holding an ECSP or MiFID II licence starts with a higher protection score than an unlicensed rival, all else equal. A platform with no licence can still score well if it compensates with strong execution, transparent reporting, and clear separation of client funds, but the absence of regulatory supervision remains a structural risk that never disappears.

Capital at risk. P2P lending can lose part or all of the money you put in. No compensation scheme covers borrower defaults. This guide is editorial opinion, not investment advice. Check the platform's current licensing status and terms before you invest.