The Quantum Signal Robot MORAI
21. August 2025
Statement by Quantum Data Analytics on Europe and Austria as a Business Location
3. March 2026
Statement on the Decision of the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG), the Proceedings with the FMA, and Our Next Steps
The Federal Administrative Court has dismissed our appeal against the decision of the Austrian Financial Market Authority (FMA) as unfounded. We acknowledge this decision. At the same time, we consider it important to explain transparently how these proceedings arose, what conclusions we draw from the ruling, and why—despite the outcome—we are convinced that we are emerging from this phase substantially strengthened.
This statement is deliberately factual and structured. Not to dramatize the situation, but to make clear why we have addressed this matter so consistently and how we will proceed from here.
1) Context: How the Report and Proceedings Originated
The starting point was an anonymous report in May 2025. Around the same time, due to a technical circumstance, an older version of our website was temporarily online that did not reflect our positioning and delineation with sufficient precision. This presentation was corrected promptly.
We mention this not to shift responsibility, but to clarify one point: In a young and dynamic regulatory environment, even a brief external presentation—regardless of intention or actual technical implementation—can become the basis for legal assessment.
2) What the BVwG Essentially Decided – and Why This Is So Relevant for Tech Products
From the reasoning of the BVwG, it becomes clear that the Court derived its classification primarily from the objective external presentation and the official case file as it existed at the relevant time.
Put simply, the central question was not: How does the technology function in detail, and what can it technically do or not do? Instead, the focus was more on: How was the service presented externally, and what functionality could a third party reasonably assume from that presentation?
The Court follows a functional approach that is common in regulated markets. It is not internal intention that is decisive, but the objectively perceivable product logic—including integration into client portfolios, potential automation, and economic orientation.
Along the MiCA framework, the BVwG particularly referred to criteria relevant for delineation, such as:
Reference to individual client portfolios through integration or connection
Actual or assumed automation or execution within the client account
Economic orientation and remuneration, even if models are described as voluntary or recommended
Public interest in market integrity and customer protection
Regardless of whether one agrees with this perspective, the practical consequence is clear: In comparable constellations, the combination of external presentation, product logic, and monetization model may already lead to classification as a licensable service.
3) Why Our Technical Submissions Ultimately Had Limited Impact
During the proceedings, we explained in detail:
How our technology is actually structured
Which limits and control mechanisms exist
How we distinguish our services from licensable activities
We acknowledge that these technical aspects were not considered in the depth we deemed appropriate.
The decision indicates two main reasons:
First: The BVwG considered the relevant facts sufficiently clarified and therefore refrained from conducting an in-depth technical evidentiary process. As a result, the decision remained largely oriented toward what the authority derived from the website presentation and file record.
Second: The BVwG strictly focused on the assessment date of the authority’s decision. Clarifications or adjustments made after that point could therefore only be taken into account to a limited extent, even if they make the technical distinction clearer today.
We consider it unfortunate that, in a technologically sensitive field, the actual functionality was not examined to the extent that would allow for a robust technical definition. With new technologies, legal certainty does not arise from assumptions, but from clear, comprehensible definitions and delineation criteria.
4) Our Strategy: Definition Instead of Intuition
From the outset, our objective was not to argue for argument’s sake, but to establish legal certainty—particularly regarding a concept that, in the context of new technologies, is often applied intuitively rather than precisely defined: portfolio management.
We maintain that, in its actual functionality, our technology does not fall under the licensing requirement for portfolio management. At the same time, we were aware that in a young regulatory framework, classifications are often derived from external presentation, indicators, and case-by-case evaluation rather than strict technical definitions. It was precisely this discrepancy we sought to clarify in a structured manner.
Why We Pursued a Definition-Oriented Approach
Our goal was to obtain a reliable answer to what exactly the FMA technically and legally understands as portfolio management in constellations involving AI, signals, API connections, and automation.
A blanket classification along the lines of “it looks like portfolio management, therefore it is portfolio management” is, in our view, insufficient as a basis for legal certainty—particularly when short-term presentation errors or imprecise wording can trigger significant consequences.
Our Phased Plan: Structured Methodology
To address this systematically, we developed a phased plan:
Each phase included a focused substantive submission
Concrete applications and questions to the authority
Based on the responses, the next phase would be constructed
These applications were neither symbolic nor procedural excess, but a methodological approach. We aimed to address the open issues arising from the initial decision precisely and step by step, to reach a clear technical and legal classification.
In total, we conceptualized 1,372 applications and questions. In the first phase, the initial 106 were submitted together with our first statement to the BVwG, accompanied by a four-week deadline for response.
The logic was simple: Each answer should provide a foundation to build the next phase properly—until we achieved a robust understanding of where exactly the boundary lies between information, signal, or tool and portfolio management, especially in technical detail.
Our Conclusion
We acknowledge that this definition-oriented approach was not reflected in the judicial outcome to the depth we intended. Nevertheless, our core motivation remains:
We consider clear technical definitions necessary when classifying new technologies within existing categories
We remain convinced that our technology does not fall under the licensing requirement for portfolio management in its actual functionality
At the same time, we act responsibly and pursue the licensing path to ensure predictability, stability, and regulatory sustainability within the current framework
5) Why We Will Not Escalate Further – and Still Remain Clear
There would be options to further challenge the decision. We have consciously decided not to do so. Not because we abandon our position, but because we prefer to allocate our resources where they create the greatest value for customers, partners, and long-term scalability: the licensing path and a clear, auditable structure.
We do not aim to prevail in grey areas. We aim to grow within a framework that is sustainable.
6) Why We Still Consider This a Gain
This phase was demanding. And yes, the outcome is not what we expected from a technical standpoint. Yet it delivered three crucial elements for a technology company:
Regulatory clarity
We now understand how Austrian authorities and courts classify comparable models in practice. That creates predictability.
Sharpened product and communication standards
We learned—and implemented—that communication in regulated markets is interpreted functionally, not benevolently. This leads to higher standards in UI, terminology, contractual logic, and process design.
Technological advancement
Our AI VARIN was enriched during this process with valuable data, structured requirements, and compliance-relevant insights. This strengthens our system technically, organizationally, and in documentation.
Our conclusion is clear: We are emerging from this phase not smaller, but more precise, resilient, and regulatorily mature.
7) Practical Contradictions and Open Questions in Licensing Our Model
We are now focusing on the licensing path. At the same time, we openly acknowledge that licensing a technological model like ours is not merely a formality—it raises practical contradictions that are not entirely within our sphere of control.
a) KYC Is Not Proof of Ownership of an External Exchange Account
We conduct our own KYC. However, without direct, reliable confirmation from the respective exchange, we cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that the exchange account for which a client wishes to receive signals legally and factually belongs to that client.
In practice, attribution depends on data and confirmations held by third-party providers. If regulation expects us to guarantee clear attribution, a tension arises between obligation and actual data availability.
b) Documentation and Control Obligations Depend on Third-Party Limits
Another issue concerns ongoing documentation and monitoring requirements, particularly where enhanced burden of proof or factual reversal of the burden of proof may apply in conflict situations.
To protect ourselves legally, we would need to regularly verify whether:
The client account still exists
Permissions (e.g., API scopes) are correctly configured
Access remains within the intended scope
However, such verification is technically limited by the rate limits imposed by exchanges. If an exchange allows only a certain quota of API calls, compliance-driven documentation alone may consume a significant portion of this quota. As the number of clients increases, so does this demand.
In extreme cases, a paradox may arise: The more thoroughly we fulfill regulatory documentation requirements, the more likely it becomes that third-party infrastructure limits prevent reliable operation of the signal product itself.
c) Discretion Does Not Replace Technical Legal Certainty
Many of these issues are not purely legal. They depend on technical standards, data access, and interface rules beyond our direct control.
If the feasibility of regulatory obligations depends heavily on administrative discretion or third-party platform behavior, innovative business models lack a predictable foundation for reliable alignment.
This is precisely why our original approach focused on technical definition and delineation—not out of defiance, but to establish legal certainty where technical reality meets legal categories.
Additional open questions arise in areas such as:
Attribution of client trades in copy or auto-execution functions
Revocation or modification of API rights by the client
Incident handling and liability in case of exchange or API failure
Data minimization versus documentation duties
Cross-border constellations (client in one country, exchange in another)
Auditability when exchanges do not provide standardized exports
Scaling costs when compliance obligations increase non-linearly
We will provide updates on the licensing process when there are meaningful developments to share.
Outlook
We continue to build—with clear guardrails, transparent communication, and a consistent licensing approach. Our goal remains unchanged: to develop innovative technology that is regulatorily sustainable and worthy of trust.
9) Acknowledgment
We thank all our clients, partners, and supporters who have accompanied us through this phase. Special thanks also to those who provided constructive criticism and asked challenging questions—helping sharpen our model.
We are looking ahead and aim to conclude the licensing process in due course. Many of the required organizational and technical standards are already in place, as we have always regarded compliance, documentation, and traceability as integral components of a responsible technology product.
