The key points raised throughout this response include:

• Request for clarity over International Cryptoasset Firms (AICF): As highlighted in our response to CP25/40, it is critical that international firms have clarity over what precise activities firms would require a branch, or branch and subsidiary. We recognise that non-retail customers may not need additional levels of protections as retail customers, and therefore members are generally supportive of UK branches of non-UK entities only being able to obtain authorisation for services to a non-retail customer base. 
• Specified Investment Cryptoassets (SICs) must fall in-scope of existing FSCS protections: It is critical that FSCS protections that apply to traditional securities should also apply to SICs. 
• FCA should utilise CASS 6 for SICs and qualifying cryptoassets: It is critical that RSICs should be treated in the same way as traditional securities from a regulatory perspective. As such, RSICs should be subject to CASS 6, with the possibility that CASS 6 be updated to include specific requirements for RSCICs (including around the handling of private keys) which can be applied where appropriate. Additionally, as we raised in our response to CP25/14, we continue to support the utilisation of CASS 6 for safeguarding and custody of qualifying cryptoassets.