The European Crowdfunding Service Providers Regulation (EU) 2020/1503 (ECSPR) has, since its adoption, marked a significant milestone in building a first genuine single market for early-stage finance. By establishing a functioning harmonised regime for crowdfunding, it has streamlined rules and provided a more predictable framework for both investors and entrepreneurs. It is not perfect, of course, yet as we approach a possible Article 45 review, it is in our opinion important to remain realistic and grounded in facts.
Crowdfunding has not yet scaled to significance, certainly not in systemic relevance. While we await ESMA’s Market Report on Crowdfunding in the EU 2025 later this year, indicative national data, such as first-half 2025 developments monitored in France suggest stagnation, see our review of the Mazars/France FinTech Baromètre S1 2025, which highlights segmental shifts. At the same time, we understand that legislative resources are scarce and dominated by files of far greater political and economic weight. Against this backdrop, Eurocrowd believes the focus should remain firmly on practical implementation and clarification, not a wholesale revision of the Level-1 text.
This position is directly aligned with the Commission’s wider policy priorities. Under the Startup and Scaleup Strategy and the developing 28th Company Regime, the EU is working to reduce fragmentation and accelerate the growth of young firms. ECSPR already embodies much of this ambition, but its potential is currently constrained by inconsistent national implementation, duplicative reporting, and language burdens that discourage cross-border activity. Addressing these issues through ESMA guidance, proportionate supervisory convergence, and narrowly scoped pilots would likely deliver the same kind of simplification and efficiency gains envisaged under the Startup and Scaleup Strategy, yet without absorbing scarce legislative capacity.
Within the Capital Markets Union (CMU), crowdfunding volumes remain modest, again we await AFME’s 8th edition of the Capital Markets Union – Key Performance Indicators in late 2025, but the sector’s contribution remains valuable. The success of crowdfunding in supporting the CMU depends not on theoretical potential, as often put forward in general claims without underlying data, but on practical usability. The same holds true for the Investment and Savings Union (ISU). Retail investor participation cannot be achieved through political declarations alone. It requires trust, simplicity, and clarity. Overly complex disclosures, inconsistent translation requirements, and uncertain pathways to liquidity all act as deterrents.
Yet, lack of guidance and oversight also creates loopholes in how Crowdfunding Service Providers (CSPs) present their offers to retail investors and projects, as our own analysis earlier this year ECSPR Compliance: Uneven Ground – A Pan-European Analysis of ECSPR Compliance in the Crowdfunding Sector 2025, as well as recent instructions to CSPs by the Dutch Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM), the Stappenplan Crowdfundingplatformen: Verbeter kwaliteit en vergroot vertrouwen beleggers, suggest.
Eurocrowd, as already stated, believes the Revision should remain firmly on practical implementation and clarification, not a wholesale revision of the Level-1 text. We therefore proposes to focus on only a few key aspects through clarifications to the existing text, such as improved templates for the KIIS, language burdens, harmonised reporting standards, and pilots to explore LEI requirements and secondary trading mechanisms. Each of these adjustments could potentially deliver tangible improvements in usability and investor protection at low cost, in line with the Better Regulation agenda. In general, more regulatory convergence would be benefitial.
Crowdfunding credit services, i.e. consumer loans, however, present a separate challenge. A costly and unnecessary reopening of the Level-1 text of ECSPR should be avoided without fact-based evidence. The Consumer Credit Directive (EU) 2023/2225 (CCD) includes most crowdfunding credit services as per Recital 22. Yet Art. 46(2) suggests reviewing crowdfunding credit services “where those platforms do not act as creditors or credit intermediaries but facilitate the granting of credit between consumer” regarding inclusion into ECSPR. We have no nor have we seen any fact-based evidence that there is relevant market demand or market activity.
Based on this, our opinion is that where regulatory uncertainty prevails, i.e. use of fronting banks, relevant market actors should seek to operate under an appropriate financial institution license, as suggested in CCD Recital 22. The clarification in Recital 93 for the EC to “assess the need for further measures to protect consumers seeking to take out a credit or to invest through a provider of crowdfunding credit services” suggests room for coordination between regimes, where we would suggest to include investor protection specification from ECSPR within CCD at the next review for crowdfunding credit service providers that facilitate the granting of credit between consumers. We also suggest respecting the division of regulatory competences across Commission services when it comes to crowdfunding credit services (CCD) and crowdfunding service providers (ECSPR).
We therefore strongly believe that actionable solutions grounded in platform experience will help you to ensure that scarce policy resources are used wisely. Any ECSPR Article 45 review would in our opinion be most impactful if focused on the implementation of improvements, delivered through ESMA clarifications, targeted guidance, and pilot projects. This measured approach strengthens the framework for platforms and investors while advancing the broader objectives of the Startup and Scaleup Strategy, CMU, and ISU, without re-opening Level-1 legislation.
