OSL Parent Company Denies Sale Plans

Several leading Chinese technology firms have reportedly shelved their plans to launch stablecoins in Hong Kong, following regulatory pushback from the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) and the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC). According to the Financial Times, the authorities have expressed growing concerns over the risks posed by privately issued digital currencies, prompting companies to delay their initiatives.Photo by Jacky Yu on UnsplashBeijing’s focus on control and digital yuanThe companies’ hesitation underscores Beijing’s broader push to preserve control over its monetary system while advancing the rollout of its central bank digital currency (CBDC), the e-CNY. Earlier this month, the PBOC unveiled a new Shanghai-based center to oversee the e-CNY’s international operations, signaling China’s ambition to extend the digital yuan’s reach beyond its domestic market. Over the summer, companies including Ant Group, backed by Alibaba, and e-commerce platform JD.com signaled interest in Hong Kong’s pilot stablecoin initiative or in issuing crypto products such as tokenized deposits. Those plans are now on hold as firms assess policy signals from Beijing and weigh the implications for their businesses. Research efforts reflect China’s cautious approachChina’s cautious stance is also reflected in its research priorities. The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), a vice-ministerial body under the Ministry of Science and Technology, has begun inviting grant applications for projects focused on stablecoins and cross-border regulatory frameworks. In announcing the initiative, the NSFC cautioned that the unchecked circulation of privately issued stablecoins could erode the effectiveness of the country’s capital controls. Globally, approaches to fiat-pegged digital assets diverge. In the United States, President Donald Trump in July signed the GENIUS Act, the country’s first stablecoin legislation, into law. A White House fact sheet argued that stablecoins could strengthen demand for U.S. Treasuries and reinforce the dollar’s standing as the world’s dominant reserve currency. In Europe, however, regulators remain wary. In a blog post that same month, European Central Bank (ECB) adviser Jürgen Schaaf warned that the widespread use of U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoins in the euro area could pose financial risks, noting that dollar-based tokens already account for the vast majority of global stablecoin market capitalization. Geopolitics adds to market volatilityThe recalibration by Chinese firms comes against a turbulent geopolitical backdrop. Cointelegraph, citing President Donald Trump’s interview with Fox News, reported that Trump is expected to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, scheduled for Oct. 31 to Nov. 1. The anticipated meeting follows a string of shifting statements from Trump throughout October—ranging from skepticism about meeting Xi, to announcing new 100% tariffs on Chinese imports, and later adopting a more conciliatory tone. The back-and-forth has coincided with heightened volatility across crypto markets. Market turbulence deepened as a wave of liquidations swept through crypto derivatives, erasing nearly $20 billion in positions on Oct. 10, the largest such event on record. Bitcoin plunged to as low as $104,749 on Oct. 17 and has since rebounded to around $114,000 as of Oct. 28. The pullback by Chinese tech groups underscores the fine line regulators and firms must navigate: advancing digital finance innovation while safeguarding monetary stability and control. How that balance is managed across China, the U.S., and Europe will shape the future of stablecoins and define their place in the evolving global financial order. 

South Korea's Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) plans to introduce a bill this week aimed at establishing a legal framework for digital assets, according to Edaily. The move is part of the party's ongoing efforts to advance its crypto policy agenda ahead of the upcoming presidential election. The proposed law would define the legal status of digital assets and set rules for their issuance, distribution and listing. The bill is expected to keep the requirement for Korean won-pegged stablecoin issuers to obtain authorization with a minimum reserve of 5 billion won ($3.58 million), a key point of debate.Photo by Brady Bellini on UnsplashA DPK official stated that the bill has been drafted and is set to be introduced to the National Assembly this week, following feedback from internal subcommittees. Most of the provisions remain consistent with last month’s draft, but final comments are still being collected on stablecoin reserve requirements, which have been a major point of discussion. Defining digital assetsThe bill defines digital assets as "electronic records with economic value based on blockchain technology" and establishes a regulatory framework for issuers, exchanges and custodians. Key provisions include permitting initial coin offerings (ICOs) and creating a digital asset committee under the Financial Services Commission (FSC). This committee would oversee legal framework design, market monitoring, and policy promotion. Additionally, an industry association will establish a separate committee to oversee token listing practices, ensuring consistent listing standards across exchanges. The most contentious part of the draft has been the regulations for won-based stablecoins. It classifies stablecoins as digital assets akin to fiat currency, requiring a minimum reserve of 5 billion won and authorization from the FSC. It also mandates real-time reserve disclosures, secure asset custody and quarterly reporting. Divide over stablecoin reserve requirementOpinions on the reserve requirement are divided. Some industry insiders argue that the 5 billion won threshold is too high, creating a barrier for startups. Others believe a minimum capital requirement is necessary due to stablecoins' role in payments and their potential as currency substitutes. Lee Jung-yup, president of the Blockchain Law Society, stressed that stablecoins must maintain a basic level of trust, warning that those failing to meet the 5 billion won threshold could become prone to insolvency or fraud. However, Lee acknowledged concerns about the centralized regulatory approach led by financial authorities and the potential for market dominance by large corporations. He suggested exploring the creation of an independent regulatory body for cryptocurrencies, warning that overly strict regulations could stifle domestic digital finance innovation amid growing global competition. Crime surges with market growthWhile regulations continue to evolve, crypto crimes are also rising sharply amid the expanding digital asset market. According to Segye Ilbo, South Korean police arrested about 2,100 individuals for crypto-related offenses last year—17 times more than in 2017, when data collection began. The total losses from such crimes now exceed 1 trillion won ($714 million) annually. Since the election of U.S. President Donald Trump, known for his crypto-friendly stance, Korea's crypto market has experienced rapid growth. This surge has raised concerns about an increase in fraud targeting investors chasing quick profits. 

Bithumb and Korbit Struggle to Gain Traction Despite Zero Trading FeesSouth Korean cryptocurrency exchanges Bithumb and Korbit have recently eliminated trading fees, but their bold decision hasn’t yielded much results. Bithumb was the first to implement this change and attracted users for about a week, but it is now seeing a loss in market share. Korbit, following Bithumb’s example, is also struggling to achieve meaningful outcomes.Photo by Alexander Grey on UnsplashLimited impactLocal media outlet Chosun Biz used data from crypto data platform CoinGecko to draw this conclusion. On October 26, Korbit’s daily trading volume represented 0.19% of the total trading volume among South Korea’s top five crypto exchanges (Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax). This figure marked a 0.14 percentage point increase compared to the 0.05% recorded on October 19. Korbit had implemented a zero trading fee policy at 9 a.m. (KST) on October 20. Additionally, they launched a promotion offering KRW 5,000 ($3.69) worth of bitcoin to users who transferred virtual assets totaling KRW 1 million or more from Travel Rule-compliant exchanges to Korbit. While the promotion did contribute to Korbit’s market share, it still remains below 1%.Bithumb’s performance showed some improvement, albeit briefly. As of October 26, Bithumb’s market share stood at 18%, marking a 4.7 percentage point increase from its 13.3% share on October 3, the day before it eliminated trading fees. However, it’s worth noting that its market share had reached almost 30% shortly after the promotion’s launch. This indicates that its strategy is losing efficacy over time.The less-than-enthusiastic results from their daring marketing endeavors can be attributed to their inability to draw in retail investors. To begin with, Upbit, the leading player in the market, had already been providing a relatively low fee of 0.05%. Furthermore, adapting to new user interfaces on these exchanges posed a challenge. Zero trading fees weren’t attractive enough for crypto investors to leave their current platforms.Trading volume mattersIn the case of Korbit, its lower trading volume was a disadvantage when it came to attracting users. On crypto exchanges, a higher trading volume typically translates to faster trade executions. As a result, users of Korbit might experience delays in executing trades at their preferred price.Jeong Hye-won, a research associate at crypto data analytics platform Xangle, told Chosun Biz that users on exchanges with lower trading volumes tend to experience slippages due to slower transaction speeds and sparsely populated order books. A slippage means the difference between the initially placed order price and the executed order price. Jeong further explained that Korbit’s zero trading fee policy didn’t have a significant impact because it offers fewer listed tokens compared to Upbit and Bithumb.There is speculation that the free-trading fee promotions introduced by Bithumb and Korbit, despite their revenue sacrifices, might conclude sooner than initially anticipated due to their perceived ineffectiveness. Bithumb derives 99.95% of its revenue from trading fees, while Korbit relies on trading fees for 99.79% of its income. An industry insider has commented that trading fees play a vital role in an exchange’s revenue, and given Bithumb’s reported loss in earnings during the second quarter, there are concerns about their capacity to sustain this strategy.