China Launches Shenzhen Park Centered on CBDC Growth

Ripple Pursues International Growth Via Dubai ExpansionThe Dubai Fintech Summit was held in the Venice of the Gulf earlier this week, bringing with it an announcement from Ripple outlining its plans to expand in the Middle Eastern location.Photo by Christoph Schulz on UnsplashResponding to the regulatory environmentRipple CEO Brad Garlinghouse was a keynote speaker at the Summit on Monday, and he took that opportunity to outline the company’s plans within the region. Immediately following his speech, Garlinghouse took to social media to confirm those plans. He tweeted out:“As I just shared on stage at #DubaiFintechSummit, @Ripple is expanding in Dubai. With 20% of our customers based in MENA and clear regulatory regimes being developed, it’s no surprise that Dubai is emerging as a key global financial hub for crypto innovation to thrive.”It’s no coincidence that at the very same event, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong was present alongside the company’s executive team. Armstrong also spoke at the event and the outcome of that involvement saw Coinbase too, signaling that it sees potential in setting up a regional base in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).In Coinbase’s case, it’s understood that it is considering the Emirate of Abu Dhabi as opposed to Dubai. Nonetheless, the rationale for pursuing such a move by both leading digital assets companies is the same. Both have been outspoken about the issues they have with the regulatory situation as it exists in the United States right now, relative to digital assets.Office presenceAs an initial step in that Middle East expansion, Ripple is opening an office in Dubai. The office will be located within the Dubai International Financial Centre (DFIC). In what appears like an effort to underscore the company’s official arrival in the United Arab Emirates, Ripple is holding its seventh annual customer conference in the country’s capital later this year.This week, Garlinghouse confirmed that the company’s prolonged legal battle with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States is projected to cost the company a whopping $200 million. The Biden administration is using all the major financial agencies in the US to clamp down on the sector. It’s little wonder, therefore, that companies like Ripple and Coinbase are seeking refuge overseas.That regulatory and administrative landscape in the United States relative to crypto stands in total contrast to the experience of Navin Gupta, Ripple’s Managing Director of South Asia & MENA in respect of the UAE. In an interview with CoinDesk TV Gupta said that the “UAE as a market is very attractive to us, the Middle East as a market is doing very well.”Gupta drew on his experience in working in Silicon Valley previously and recalling how back then it had three ingredients that made it function that he believes is now the case for the UAE: talent, venture capital investment and a workable regulatory approach.

South Korea is tightening its grip on the cryptocurrency sector, with courts handing down the first prison sentence under an investor protection law enacted last year. The ruling comes just as financial authorities signal a comprehensive overhaul of digital asset governance, ranging from ownership caps to the tokenization of real-world assets. The Seoul Southern District Court sentenced the head of a crypto management firm to three years in prison for manipulating virtual asset prices and amassing roughly 7 billion won in illegal profits, according to Yonhap News Agency. The court also imposed a fine of 500 million won ($340,000) and ordered the forfeiture of approximately 846 million won ($580,000). Photo by Daniel Bernard on UnsplashFirst sentence under 2024 protection lawThis marks the first conviction under the new investor protection law, which took effect in July 2024. It was also the first case fast-tracked directly from the Financial Supervisory Service (FSC) to prosecutors under the new legal framework. The conviction coincides with a broader regulatory debate involving Financial Services Commission (FSC) Chairman Lee Eog-weon. According to MoneyToday, in testimony before the National Assembly’s National Policy Committee on Feb. 5, Lee outlined an agenda covering anti-money laundering (AML) enforcement, stablecoin regulation, and digital innovation. However, he cautioned lawmakers against enacting blunt, one-size-fits-all rules that could stifle competition. Ownership cap rules trigger debateLee pushed back against a proposal to cap major shareholder stakes at 15%, pointing out that the exchange market is already a monopoly where smaller players hold less than 3% combined. He warned lawmakers that forcing firms with negligible market share to dilute ownership would effectively choke off investment. He argued that such restrictions would stifle innovation, advocating instead for a tiered regulatory approach that accounts for new entrants starting with no market share. Lee also addressed a separate policy direction that would recognize bank-led consortia—in which banks hold more than 50% plus one share—as eligible stablecoin issuers. He said the approach was not intended to favor any particular corner of the financial industry. On the enforcement side, the commission announced plans to strengthen its response to cross-border crime and money laundering involving digital assets, as reported by Digital Asset. A key measure under consideration is the expansion of the travel rule, which requires exchanges to share sender and recipient information for transactions. The rule currently applies to transfers of 1 million won ($680) or more, and regulators want to extend it to smaller transactions as well. The commission also pledged to support AI-driven transformation across the financial sector and to build a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets. STOs near legalizationIn a related development, South Korea has cleared a major legislative hurdle for the tokenization of real-world assets (RWAs). Amendments to the Capital Markets Act and the Electronic Securities Act passed the National Assembly last month, roughly three years after financial authorities first issued guidelines on security token offerings (STOs), according to another Digital Asset report. The legislation allows securities to be digitized on blockchain-based distributed ledgers and creates a new class of issuer account management institutions, enabling qualified companies to issue and manage security tokens directly. The bill now requires only Cabinet approval and official promulgation before it takes effect.

Suspected Malicious Activity Drains AnySwap Tokens via Multichain ExecutorAccording to an on-chain sleuth known as Spreek, a person is using the Multichain Executor to drain tokens associated with the AnySwap bridging protocol.Multichain is a cross-chain routing network, established and maintained by a Chinese developer team. It supports in excess of 25 blockchains and more than 1,100 tokens.Photo by Marek Piwnicki on Unsplash$100 million outflowThis revelation comes after abnormal outflows of over $100 million from Multichain bridges on July 7, which were flagged by the Multichain team. Spreek’s report via Twitter on July 10 states that the Multichain Executor address has been draining anyToken addresses across multiple chains and transferring them to a new externally owned account (EOA).Evidence provided in the report includes an Ethereum transaction, 0x53ede4462d90978b992b0a88727de19afe4e96f0374aa1a221b8ff65fda5a6fe, which called the “anySwapFeeTo” method on the Multichain Router: V4 contract. This transaction resulted in approximately $15,275.90 worth of anyDAI being minted on Ethereum, sent to the Multichain Executor, burned, and exchanged for the underlying DAI backing the asset.The funds from these transactions were sent to the following address:0x1eed63efba5f81d95bfe37d82c8e736b974f477b. Similarly, on the BNB Smart Chain (BSC), the Multichain Executor used the anySwapFeeTo function to convert $208,997 worth of anyUSDC into Binance-pegged USDC and sent them to the same address. Additionally, 50.80 anyBTC, equivalent to $39,251.43 at the time, was converted into Binance-pegged Bitcoin and sent to the address.In total, approximately $263,524.33 worth of tokens were sent to this address through the anySwapFeeTo method. Spreek suggests that this behavior could be part of the protocol’s normal functioning. However, a different account engaged in similar activity the day before and ultimately sold the drained tokens, indicating malicious intent.Potential exploitSpreek theorizes that the attacker may be exploiting the anySwapFeeTo function by setting fees to an arbitrarily large amount, allowing them to drain users’ funds. The function apparently permits setting any value, enabling the address to choose the total value of the token held in that anyToken.The Multichain incident has puzzled blockchain analysts, as it remains unclear whether it resulted from an exploit or if it was simply large token-holders moving their funds between networks. The mystery began on July 7 when over $100 million worth of tokens were withdrawn from the Ethereum side of Multichain’s bridges and transferred to wallet addresses with no prior transactions. This represented the majority of funds held on each bridge.Hack or rug pullThe Multichain team labeled these withdrawals as “abnormal” and advised users to stop using the protocol. However, they have not disclosed the source or nature of the anomaly. In response to the incident, stablecoin issuers Circle and Tether froze some of the addresses involved in the suspicious transactions. Chainanalysis, a blockchain analytics firm, has commented that the incident appears more like a hack or rug pull rather than a migration.Adding to the complexity, the Multichain team has reported that their CEO is missing, and they have shut down certain bridges due to losing access to some of the network’s multi-party computation network servers. There have been various concerns relative to Multichain since May. The situation continues to evolve, with ongoing investigations and efforts to mitigate any potential damage caused by the suspected malicious activity.