Statement Regarding Seznam Zprávy Articles on the BETFIN Project

Response to the articles “Betfin lures with effortless profits from gambling; the project is already being investigated by customs officers” (SZ Byznys, 29 Aug 2025) and “Promoters of the gambling Betfin target even children; they were handing out money in front of a school” (SZ Byznys, 8 Sep 2025).

1) Introduction

We strongly object to statements that may create the impression that Betfin is a centrally managed “gambling project” targeting vulnerable groups (minors). No one from the Betfin community, nor Mr. Nebenführ, organizes marketing activities aimed at minors and they respect the legal framework of the Czech Republic including the rules for advertising and the protection of youth.

In the cases that were described in the article as events in front of schools, these were not organized activities of the Betfin community, but purely individual activities of individuals, which in no case were intended to promote participation in a game of chance.

2) What Betfin is: open and decentralized software

Betfin is a software protocol running on a public blockchain. Interactions (including gaming smart contracts) take place peer-to-peer between users; no specific person performs custody of funds, collects bets, or pays out winnings to clients. The rules are written in smart contracts which, once the conditions are fulfilled, automatically execute the transfer between users’ wallets without the intervention of an intermediary.

Code management takes place on a community basis and any changes are technically tied to multi-party approval (multisig). For this reason, we regard Betfin as a project with the highest possible degree of decentralization (the absence of a person with full de facto control).

3) Why Betfin should not be subject to the obligation to obtain a license under MiCA [Regulation (EU) 2023/1114]

European MiCA regulation expressly states that if services related to crypto-assets are provided in a fully decentralized manner without an intermediary, they do not fall within its scope (recital 22 of MiCA). The same recital adds that crypto-assets without an identifiable issuer do not fall under Titles II–IV of MiCA (on issuance and white papers); providers of services with respect to such assets would be subject to MiCA only if they were regulated “crypto-asset services.”

Our position therefore rests on the following points:

1. Absence of intermediation: Smart contracts provide matching and settlement directly between participants’ wallets; there is no entity that would “provide a service” within the meaning of MiCA (e.g., custody, reception and transmission of orders, etc.).
2. Unidentifiable “issuer” of a utility token within the meaning of recital 22 of MiCA (referring to the absence of a classic issuer with control and obligations for a white paper).
3. Technical and contractual autonomy of users: the protocol only enables participants to conclude smart contracts among themselves; management of funds remains with the owners and is not transferred to a provider.

We point out that discussion on the practical delineation of a “fully decentralized” solution is taking place also at the European level; however, the interpretative guidance of recital 22 is clear: without an intermediary = outside the scope of MiCA.

4) Staking does not fall under MiCA (confirmed by the European Commission’s position published by ESMA)

There is an official answer by the European Commission published in the Q&A on ESMA’s website (ESMA_QA_2067, 20 Jun 2024) regarding “staking.” It expressly states: “MiCA does not contain provisions specific to staking. Therefore, it does not prohibit staking and staking as such is not subject to specific requirements or licensing.” (at the same time it distinguishes so-called staking-as-a-service, where someone stakes another’s assets for a fee and holds their keys—this is considered ancillary to custody and falls under MiCA).

Betfin uses staking on the user’s own account without entrusting keys to a third party; it is therefore not “staking-as-a-service” linked to custody that would require authorization under MiCA.

5) Why Czech gambling regulation should not apply to Betfin

Act No. 186/2016 Coll., on Gambling, defines the “operation of a gambling game” as performing activities consisting, inter alia, in the acceptance of bets and deposits, the payout of winnings, and other organizational, financial, and technical acts related to the introduction and operation of the game. Within Betfin’s model, however:

1. There is no acceptance of bets by an operator — the bets and winnings are locked and settled automatically within a smart contract between participants; no person takes a deposit “into a till” nor “pays it out” to players.
2. No third person holds funds or keys; the protocol does not provide custody nor “transactional escrow” managed by an operator—this is what differentiates it from classic casinos or betting operators.
3. The function of Betfin is purely technical: it creates the space for the direct conclusion of a smart contract between users. Without the existence of a subject that meets the statutory features of “operation,” the protocol cannot be subsumed under the authorization regime as an operator of gambling games.

6) Summary of our position

1. Decentralization: Betfin is an open protocol; without an intermediary = outside the scope of MiCA under recital 22.
2. Staking: The European Commission in the Q&A published by ESMA expressly confirms that staking as such is not regulated by MiCA and does not require a license.
3. Gambling: Without a subject that would accept bets/deposits and pay out winnings, the protocol cannot be considered the “operation of a gambling game” within the meaning of Act No. 186/2016 Coll. (the role of Betfin is technical, settlement takes place between users according to computer code).
4. Advertising and youth: We reject any addressing of minors and the promotion of a gambling game. If the Betfin project has ever been promoted by the community or by an individual (including indirectly), it has been promoted solely as an innovative technical solution with regard to decentralization and its staking possibilities, not as a gambling platform.