ECSP vs MiFID II vs Unregulated: Reading a P2P Licence in 2026

What ECSP Regulation 2020/1503 Actually Does

EU Regulation 2020/1503 on European Crowdfunding Service Providers came into force on 10 November 2021. It created a single licence allowing a platform to passport crowdfunding services across all EU member states from one home regulator. The regulation applies to crowdfunding platforms facilitating loans and equity investments up to EUR 5 million per project per 12 months.

An ECSP licence requires the platform to hold minimum prudential capital, publish a key investment information sheet for each project, implement governance and risk-management procedures, and submit periodic reports to the national competent authority. The home regulator-Latvijas Banka in Latvia, EFSA in Estonia, the Bank of Lithuania in Lithuania, the Central Bank of Ireland in Ireland-supervises the platform's compliance with these obligations.

The regulation does not require the platform to segregate client funds in a trust account, does not impose a compensation scheme for investor losses, and does not guarantee that loans will be repaid. A platform holding an ECSP licence can fail, borrowers can default, and investors can lose capital. The licence means the platform met entry requirements and operates under supervisory oversight, not that your investment is protected.

MiFID II Investment Firm Licences

Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II came into force in January 2018 and predates the ECSP regulation. MiFID II licences apply to investment firms providing services such as reception and transmission of orders, portfolio management, and dealing on own account. Several P2P lending platforms hold MiFID II licences because they structure their service as investment advice or order execution rather than pure crowdfunding.

A MiFID II investment firm must hold higher minimum capital than an ECSP platform, comply with conduct-of-business rules including best execution and client categorisation, and submit to more intensive supervisory reporting. Mintos, Twino, Nectaro, Debitum and Indemo all hold MiFID II licences from Latvijas Banka. The higher capital requirement and stricter conduct framework give MiFID II a stronger regulatory footprint than ECSP in principle.

MiFID II does not, however, guarantee loan repayment or protect against borrower default. The licence governs how the platform operates, not the credit quality of the underlying loans. A MiFID II platform can offer high-risk loans, experience defaults, and deliver negative returns. The investor carries the credit risk in every case.

Platforms Operating Without a Financial Licence

Five of the 19 platforms tracked by this site-PeerBerry, Hive5, Robocash, Loanch and Reinvest24-operate without an ECSP or MiFID II licence as of September 2026. PeerBerry holds an ECSP application pending in Lithuania but has not yet received authorisation. Scramble operates in Estonia without a licence. These platforms are not breaking the law; their home jurisdictions classify P2P lending as outside the scope of financial regulation or allow a grace period for compliance.

Operating without a licence does not automatically mean the platform is unsafe, just as holding a licence does not guarantee safety. Robocash has operated since 2017 and reports a cumulative volume exceeding EUR 500 million. Reinvest24 launched in 2018 and focuses exclusively on real estate. PeerBerry opened in 2017 and offers a buyback guarantee on most loans. Each has years of track record and published terms; none holds a financial regulator's licence.

The absence of a licence means no national competent authority supervises the platform's governance, capital adequacy or disclosure standards. If a dispute arises, you have no regulator to escalate to. If the platform fails, there is no compensation scheme. The investor carries operational risk alongside credit risk.

Maclear and Swiss SRO Membership

Maclear operates from Zurich and holds membership in PolyReg, a Swiss self-regulatory organisation under the Swiss Anti-Money Laundering Act. This is not a banking licence, not an investment-firm licence, and not equivalent to ECSP or MiFID II. Swiss law requires financial intermediaries to join an SRO or obtain direct FINMA supervision for AML compliance. Maclear's PolyReg membership meets that AML requirement.

Switzerland has no compensation fund for P2P lending. PolyReg does not supervise credit risk, does not impose prudential capital rules beyond AML thresholds, and does not regulate the platform's loan origination or investor protection standards. Maclear's regulatory status is weaker than both ECSP and MiFID II, which is why it scores lower on the investor protection criterion in our rating system. This does not mean Maclear is unsafe; it means the regulatory framework around it is lighter.

Maclear is this site's commercial affiliate partner and pays a commission when a reader opens an account through our links. Its regulatory status and score-27 out of 50 points, ranking 17th of 19 platforms-are reported without adjustment. A transparent affiliate relationship depends on honest scoring.

All 19 Platforms and Their Licence Types

What Actually Matters When Choosing a Platform

Licence type is one data point among many. A MiFID II licence signals stricter oversight than ECSP, and ECSP signals more governance than no licence at all, but neither guarantees operational stability or loan quality. Track record-years operating and cumulative volume-often matters more than licence type when assessing whether a platform can survive a downturn or manage a spike in defaults.

Mintos holds a MiFID II licence and has operated since 2015 with billions in reported volume. Robocash holds no licence and has operated since 2017 with hundreds of millions in volume and a published buyback track record. Both carry credit risk. Both have delivered returns to investors over multiple years. The licence difference affects how each is supervised, not whether borrowers repay their loans.

Our rating system awards up to 10 points for investor protection based on licence type: MiFID II scores highest, ECSP second, Swiss AML SRO third, unregulated platforms score lower. This reflects the regulatory framework around the platform, not the platform's operational competence or the quality of its loan book. A high investor-protection score does not mean your capital is safe; it means the platform operates under formal supervisory oversight. The other four criteria in our method-track record, return transparency, structural clarity, liquidity-capture operational and disclosure quality.

Where to Go From Here

If you want to compare platforms by their regulatory status alongside track record and liquidity, read how our rating method works or browse the full review index. If you are assessing operational risk specifically, read what happened when P2P platforms failed for historical context.