P2P crowdlending regulation: MiFID II, ECSP and risks

Investing in crowdlending (or P2P lending) in Europe is not just about comparing rates and any guarantees on loans. It also means understanding which legal framework the platform operates under, and what it really provides if something goes wrong. After a major analysis effort (loan agreements, authorisations, discussions with platforms), here I offer you one of the most comprehensive French-language guides to P2P crowdlending regulation: MiFID II, ECSP/PSFP, national licences, risks, contract types and links to my P2P comparison tool.

Why regulation matters

You often read “the platform is regulated” and think that means there is no risk. Yet “regulated” does not always mean the same thing. Some licences obviously protect the investor (information, account segregation, recourse). Others only target the borrower or money laundering (AML/KYC).

One point not to overlook, which I often repeat on my YouTube channel: a regulated platform can still generate losses. Mintos (MiFID II) and EstateGuru (ECSP) each have more than 100 million euros of claims in serious difficulty and with little chance of recovery. Conversely, players without regulation/authorisation sometimes show track records with no losses at all, but with fewer regulatory protections if the platform goes off track.

Finally, regulation (MiFID II or ECSP) on a platform is a major plus to look for whenever possible. It is a key criterion, just like the financial statements of lending companies.

The different regulatory frameworks

Here is the hierarchy I use in my P2P comparison tool:

This ranking is not an absolute quality score: ECSP prohibits certain conflicts of interest that MiFID II may allow if they are properly managed. It is one factor among others to consider before investing.

1. MiFID II: the most demanding framework

The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II, European Commission) governs investment firms and the marketing of financial instruments. On paper, it is the same type of regime as for a traditional broker.

What MiFID II provides for the investor

• Segregation of client funds: your money must be separated from the platform’s money.

• Fee transparency: commissions and retrocessions must be disclosed.

• Standardised documentation: contracts and risk information must be traceable.

• Recourse: internal complaints procedure, financial ombudsman, possibility of contacting the national regulator.

• Compensation up to €20,000: if the authorised company cannot return client assets (bankruptcy, serious misconduct). This is not a guarantee against a loss on the underlying loan.

In practice, Latvian platforms often structure loans through notes or vehicles (SPV), which makes the product closer to a classic financial instrument, hence their choice of MiFID rather than ECSP.

Why are almost all MiFID II platforms Latvian?

Historically, Latvia was a pioneer of P2P in Europe (Mintos from 2015, Twino just after). The Bank of Latvia gradually pushed the sector towards a robust framework. The result: an ecosystem (lawyers, auditors, compliance) concentrated in Riga. Other countries have instead steered their players towards ECSP.

2. ECSP / PSFP: the European crowdfunding standard

The European regulation on European crowdfunding service providers (ECSP, or ECSPR) has applied since November 2021. In France, the national equivalent is called PSFP (Prestataire de Services de Financement Participatif), authorised by the AMF. This is the status of La Première Brique in real estate crowdfunding, distinct from pure P2P but based on the same “protected investor” logic.

In crowdlending, ECSP notably provides:

• KIIS (Key Investment Information Sheet), a harmonised information sheet for each project.

• Loss-bearing capacity simulation and warnings for non-sophisticated investors.

• 4-day reflection period for non-sophisticated investors (absent under MiFID II).

• Strict prohibition of certain conflicts of interest (tougher than MiFID on this point).

• Segregated funds through a PSD2-authorised payment provider (often Lemonway, Mangopay…).

• Minimum capital of around €25,000 or ¼ of fixed overheads (whichever is higher).

Obtaining ECSP authorisation often requires 18 to 24 months of overhaul (governance, IT, compliance). It is not just a simple administrative form.

* the Lendermarket platform holds an ECSP licence, but also continues to offer part of its product range as “unregulated” / outside the ECSP framework. The authorisation improves internal processes, but not all loans benefit from the same level of security.

3. Investor-oriented national licences

Before ECSP, some countries had created local P2P frameworks. In Lithuania, the EMI + P2P licence combination already protected investors (segregation through an electronic money institution). NEO Finance and FinBee are the historical examples; FinBee has migrated to ECSP, while NEO Finance remains under the national framework for now.

In the United Kingdom, AxiaFunder operates under the FCA with partnership shares (Scottish SPV), with real investor protection, but outside EU harmonisation post-Brexit.

This level is solid, without reaching MiFID compensation or ECSP passporting throughout the EU.

4. Borrower-oriented national supervision

In Estonia in particular, the Finantsinspektsioon issues licences for consumer lenders or credit intermediaries. The regulator ensures that the borrower is not over-indebted; it does not supervise the protection of P2P investors in the way ECSP would.

Typical model: assignment of claims: you buy the repayment right to an already granted loan, often with a buyback guarantee from the originator.

5. AML / SRO: the bare minimum

Maclear (Switzerland, outside the EU) belongs to an SRO authorised by FINMA. This imposes anti-money laundering controls, audits and screening of managers (Gewähr, professional integrity). However, the Swiss SRO does not protect the investor in the event of a bad project or credit default.

It is a plus compared with “zero authorisation”, but clearly below ECSP or MiFID.

6. Platforms with no investor authorisation

Many Estonian, Croatian or Latvian platforms (outside MiFID II) operate through lending companies authorised for credit, without an “investment platform” licence. You sign an assignment or loan agreement with a commercial company; in the event of a dispute, you are more in civil contract law than in a harmonised financial framework.

PeerBerry / Crowdpear case: PeerBerry is not ECSP-authorised, but common shareholders created Crowdpear a few years later, a sister ECSP platform. This shows that a group adapts to regulation when creating a platform. It remains to be seen whether PeerBerry will follow this path later. I hope so.

If this interests you, I present the different regulatory frameworks in this video:

To see more videos like this, feel free to follow me on my YouTube channel: Liberté Financière on YouTube.

Type of contract: as many risks as there are labels

The regulator also looks at what you sign. In my comparison tool, the “Type of contract” criterion is cross-referenced with the regulatory framework:

• Financial instrument (MiFID II): note, bond; this is the most “securities-like” level.

• Crowdfunding loan (ECSP): you lend through the authorised platform.

• Assignment of claims: you buy an existing claim (the most common model outside MiFID/ECSP).

• Pool / platform contract: e.g. Go & Grow at Bondora: less transparency loan by loan.

• Direct loan to the platform: the riskiest legally (close to a non-bank deposit).

Find the definitions in my crowdfunding and crowdlending glossary.

Sensitive cases: non-subordinated loan and “unconditional” repayment

Some contracts promise repayment without clearly mentioning the risk of loss or subordination to other creditors. In May 2026, BaFin (Germany) considered that Ventus Energy was carrying out a deposit-taking activity without a banking licence, and required investors to be repaid. Real estate platforms such as Devon or Asterra switched their contract in June 2026 to subordinated loans to clarify the risk; the question remains open as to long-term legal sufficiency.

To date, FF Forest is in my view in a comparable grey area (unclear answers on subordination). This type of case illustrates why regulatory risk and contract risk must be considered together.

Examples to understand properly

Regulation vs performance: what the figures say

Do not confuse regulatory framework with loan/lending company quality.

• Mintos (MiFID II), significant claims in recovery (order of magnitude: more than 100 million euros).

• PeerBerry (unauthorised platform), track record with no losses for investors to date, with strong originator partners. This guarantees nothing for the future, but it is an observation.

• Swaper, Robocash, Iuvo: longevity with no major incident for investors, but a lighter legal framework.

For me, the solution is of course to cross-check regulation, but also contract type, originator financial statements and diversification. You can explore the financial statements on the public P2P financial statements page and in the members’ area for detailed analyses.

Conflicts of interest: ECSP stricter than MiFID II?

Regulatory paradox: ECSP prohibits, in principle, a platform from listing projects from its own group or related parties without separate authorisation. MiFID II allows certain conflicts if they are identified, managed and disclosed (governance, separation of functions).

In plain English: MiFID may be “higher” in terms of capital and compensation, but ECSP may be “tougher” on structures where the platform finances itself through investors. Hence the importance of reading both axes in the comparison tool: framework + contract type.

How to read a loan agreement before investing

Whatever the framework, download the standard contract or project sheet and check:

1. Who your debtor is: end borrower, originator, platform, SPV?

2. Subordination: subordinated loan (you rank after other creditors) or not?

3. Buyback: who commits, within what timeframes, with what exclusions (fraud, originator bankruptcy)?

4. “Unconditional” repayment: a warning signal if no risk is mentioned (cf. Ventus case).

5. Applicable law and court: Estonia, Latvia, Croatia…

This is exactly the work I did to feed the comparison tool: you can use it as a first pass, then confirm with the contractual PDF.

Regulatory geography: Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Croatia…

Three Baltic countries, three strategies:

• Latvia: pushed by the central bank towards MiFID II for historical players.

• Lithuania: EMI + national P2P, then ECSP migration for some.

• Estonia: local borrower licences + assignment of claims; little ECSP.

As for Croatia, it now hosts many platforms without EU investor authorisation (PeerBerry, Robocash, Loanch, …). Local law does not require investor regulation to date: it is not illegal, it is a choice of jurisdiction.

Sources and further reading

• EU Regulation 2020/1503 (ECSP): official text.

• MiFID II, European Commission.

• AMF, PSFP.

• ESMA, Crowdfunding.

Frequently asked questions about P2P crowdlending regulation

What is the difference between MiFID II and ECSP?

MiFID II governs the distribution of financial instruments (notes, bonds, etc.) with broker requirements and possible compensation (€20,000). ECSP is designed for crowdfunding (crowdfunding loans, equity, etc.) with KIIS, a reflection period and prohibitions on conflicts of interest. Both protect the investor, but along somewhat different axes.

Are PSFP and ECSP the same thing?

In substance, yes for crowdlending/crowdfunding: PSFP is the French status implemented on the basis of the European ECSP regulation. Bienprêter or La Première Brique are PSFP; Afranga or Lendermarket are ECSP in their country of authorisation.

Can a regulated platform still make me lose money?

Yes. Authorisation regulates the platform (information, segregation, conflicts), not repayment by the end borrower. A loan can default even on Mintos or a French PSFP.

Does MiFID compensation of €20,000 cover loan defaults?

No. It applies to cases where the investment firm cannot return your client assets (platform bankruptcy, serious misconduct). Not investment losses on the underlying loans.

Why are all MiFID II platforms in Latvia?

The history of the local market + the central bank’s MiFID interpretation + the legal ecosystem in Riga.

What is an assignment of claims?

You buy from a lender (often the company affiliated with the platform) the right to be repaid on an already granted loan. Legally, you are not always within a “regulated investment” framework in the ECSP/MiFID sense.

Does buyback offset the lack of regulation?

No. Buyback is a promise from the originator, not a regulatory guarantee. If the originator goes bankrupt, the buyback may not be honoured.

PeerBerry is not regulated: is that dangerous?

It is a clearly higher regulatory risk, but not a sentence to default on the loans subscribed.

As a French investor, am I protected by the AMF on an Estonian platform?

The AMF does not directly supervise a platform authorised in Estonia. You depend on the regulator in the country of authorisation (EFSA, Bank of Latvia, etc.) and on applicable European law (ECSP/MiFID passport). In the event of a cross-border dispute, the FIN-NET network can direct you to an ombudsman.

What is the ECSP 4-day reflection period for?

It allows non-sophisticated investors to cancel their commitment without justification within 4 working days. Useful to avoid impulsive decisions, but absent from purely MiFID platforms.

What happened with Ventus Energy? (May 2026)

BaFin considered that the model resembled deposit-taking without a banking licence (contracts with repayment presented as unconditional). Investors were invited to be repaid: this is a case of legal requalification risk.

Is MiFID II always “better” than ECSP?

Not systematically, even if overall it is a step above. MiFID offers €20k compensation and broker experience, but ECSP adds the reflection period and stricter conflict prohibitions. The “best” framework also depends on the quality of the loans offered under that framework (especially the contract type).

Can I invest on an Estonian platform from France?

Yes, if the platform accepts French residents (KYC). You remain subject to the law of the country of authorisation for the investment relationship and to French taxation for your income.

Why does Iuvo no longer have an Estonian FSA licence?

Iuvo requested the withdrawal of its credit intermediary licence in 2022. The platform continues with an assignment model without ECSP/MiFID investor authorisation, hence a low regulatory score in my comparison tool despite its age.

Conclusion

The regulation of P2P crowdlending is neither an empty shell nor a guarantee of returns. Above all, it is a procedural protection mechanism: segregation, information, sometimes compensation in the event of platform failure. MiFID II and ECSP/PSFP offer the highest level in Europe; Estonian or Croatian assignments of claims rely more on the solidity of the originators and the content of the contracts.

To take concrete action: open the P2P comparison tool, watch the video above, consult the financial statements and articles on the web, diversify, and keep in mind that the risk of capital loss remains real everywhere.

And as always, don’t give up on ANYTHING!

Last updated: June 2026. Feel free to send your comments via the Contact page or the YouTube comments under the videos.