Malaysia Ushering in Fifth Digital Asset Exchange

The Legal Future of South Korea’s Crypto Industry: Necessary Legislation and SystemsA recent National Assembly symposium organized by South Korea’s Digital Asset Policy Forum brought experts together to discuss the challenges and prospects of the implementation of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act at the National Assembly Members’ Office Building in Seoul on Tuesday.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashInternational modelsReferences were made to global examples, such as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) — the world’s first standalone virtual asset legislation enacted in the EU — which ensures transparency, disclosure, authorization, and supervision of crypto-asset transactions. However, unlike the capital market, MiCA does not impose regular disclosure reporting requirements or corrections on them. Firms in Japan, on the other hand, are asked to provide disclosure under autonomous regulation through the Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association (JVCEA).Notably, in its recent Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets Consultation Report, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) states that it is “seeking to encourage optimal consistency in the way crypto-asset markets and securities markets are regulated within individual IOSCO jurisdictions, in accordance with the principle of ‘same activities, same risks, same regulatory outcomes’.” This principle refers to the concept that any crypto-asset activity that has a similar function and poses similar risks to those in the traditional financial system — such as operating a trading platform or providing custody services — is subject to regulation that ensures equivalent outcomes, as defined by the UK Parliament.The IOSCO report also suggests that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) should disclose information regarding ownership and control of crypto-assets, issuer and business-related information, issuer management teams, transaction history and operational description of crypto-assets, token ownership concentration, transfer protocols, and a given CASP’s treatment of the client crypto-assets and their respective rights and entitlements during events like hard forks and airdrops.Hurdles to overcomeExperts at the forum reflected these considerations in their sentiments. Han Suh-hee, a lawyer at Barun Law Firm, emphasized that it is important to determine what kind of information should be disclosed. She argued that it is necessary to discuss to what extent information about virtual asset issuers should be disclosed and whether mandating firms to disclose their financial and business conditions is efficient.In particular, Han underlined the need to consider the differences between virtual assets and stocks when establishing a framework for the disclosure of virtual assets holdings. Unlike stocks, virtual assets possess distinctive characteristics like their borderless and decentralized nature, unclear issuer backgrounds, and the ability to conduct peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions.Lee Han-jin, a lawyer at Kim & Chang Law Firm, added that the enactment of Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act was aimed at establishing a system directly targeted at regulating virtual assets and virtual asset service operators (VASPs) — a significant development from the Financial Transaction Reporting Act, which had until now been the only legal framework responsible for regulating VASPs along with other entities like casino business operators. Virtual assets are now subject to a more systematized regulatory approach.However, he said that the Virtual Asset User Protection Act still has its setbacks because it is undergoing a two-stage legislative process. Lee criticized the fact that the same definition of VASPs outlined in the Financial Transaction Reporting Act had been brought over, which limits their identity to transaction intermediaries, wallet operators, and custodians while overlooking their other roles like crypto management, crypto deposits, and crypto collective investments.Lee also pointed out another weakness: the scope of prohibition on using undisclosed information and market manipulation is broader in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act than in the Capital Markets Act. He argued that enforcement decrees should stipulate the definition of insiders and exceptional cases when deliberating on the prohibition of insider virtual asset trading.Lee thus emphasized the need for a clear definition of virtual assets in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, as it is yet unclear whether they are objects or assets. All things considered, he believes there must be a law that can encompass blockchain-based decentralization, outline the similarities and differences between digital assets and financial products, and accommodate new services that utilize smart contracts.“We are in the process of creating a regulatory system similar to those being adopted in other countries based on their respective markets,” said Lee Seok-ran, head of the Financial Innovation Bureau at the Financial Services Commission (FSC). “Unlike the stock market, which is equipped with regulations to prevent fraudulent transactions and misconduct, virtual assets are traded on multiple exchanges, so we are considering how to interpret unfair trading activities and conduct market surveillance.”She explained that the commission is prioritizing user protection measures and subordinate regulations. “I believe we will be able to create a system for subordinate regulations on disclosure once an overall global trajectory is established. But before that happens, we are working on guidelines for defining unfair trading activities with regulators and the Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA).” Unfair trading activities associated with virtual assets include not only those conducted on exchanges but also under other circumstances.The FSC officer said that the financial authority is set to establish legal criteria to distinguish cases such as false statements in white papers of crypto projects. She added that enforcement decrees will define both the conditions for restricting deposits and withdrawals on crypto exchanges and the corresponding limits.

Token Cat Limited, a Nasdaq-listed Chinese automotive marketplace formerly known as TuanChe Limited, has approved a new digital asset investment policy that will allow the company to deploy up to $1 billion into cryptocurrencies as part of its treasury strategy. In a press release distributed via Chainwire, the Beijing-headquartered company said its board of directors signed off on a Crypto Asset Investment Policy authorizing the use of a portion of its cash reserves to acquire selected tokens under internal risk-management controls. Any purchased assets will be held with third-party custodians rather than managed in-house, the company said.Photo by Precondo CA on UnsplashThe initial allocation will focus on tokens tied to newer projects in areas such as artificial intelligence, RAW-to-chain infrastructure, and token–equity hybrid models. Further deployments will be evaluated over time and will remain subject to additional board approval, according to the statement. The policy will be implemented under the oversight of Sav Persico, who was recently appointed chief operating officer. Token Cat said he brings decades of experience in technology and blockchain-related businesses and emphasized that the initiative reflects a long-term approach to digital assets rather than a speculative trade. China’s regulation and softer DAT inflowsToken Cat’s decision comes even as China’s central bank continues to stress that crypto-related business activity remains off-limits domestically. According to Reuters, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) recently reiterated that services involving virtual assets constitute “illegal financial activities” and highlighted that cryptocurrencies do not have the legal status of fiat currency. The statement was issued against the backdrop of what the central bank characterized as a renewed pickup in speculative crypto trading and broader concerns about financial risks. Beyond China, Token Cat’s move fits into a wider trend of companies experimenting with so-called digital asset treasuries (DATs), in which companies commit varying portions of their balance sheets to crypto. Those strategies, however, have seen softer momentum in recent months. Cointelegraph, citing data from DefiLlama, reported that DATs drew about $1.32 billion in fresh capital in November, the lowest monthly intake of 2024. Bitcoin-focused DATs accounted for the bulk of that activity with roughly $1.06 billion of inflows, while Ethereum-based DATs saw about $37 million in outflows. Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan said on X that DATs have generally moved in tandem over the past six months, but he expects that pattern to change as investors begin to differentiate between firms with clearly articulated strategies and those without. He said a limited number of DATs could emerge with more resilient valuations, while others may continue to trade at persistent discounts. Biotech Sonnet advances HYPE-token planDespite the recent slowdown in inflows, new corporate efforts to gain exposure to digital assets continue. One example is Sonnet BioTherapeutics Holdings, a North Carolina–based biotechnology company developing immuno-oncology drugs. On Dec. 2, Sonnet said its shareholders had approved a proposed business combination with Hyperliquid Strategies Inc. (HSI) and Rorschach I LLC. That vote followed an agreement reached in July for Sonnet to merge with Rorschach to form Hyperliquid Strategies, a new entity expected to hold roughly 12.6 million HYPE tokens valued at about $583 million, along with at least $305 million in cash, for a projected combined value of $888 million. Hyperliquid is a decentralized exchange (DEX) built on its own layer-1 blockchain. Its native token, HYPE, has a total supply of one billion and is used for network governance, staking, and smart contract functions on HyperEVM, the platform’s EVM-compatible environment. Sonnet’s move, together with Token Cat’s newly adopted investment policy, adds to a steady stream of corporate initiatives testing the role of digital assets in balance-sheet management. With companies ranging from biotech firms to automotive marketplaces exploring similar strategies, the coming months will show whether crypto holdings can establish themselves as durable components of corporate treasuries. 

In a contrasting move to the recent approval of several spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), regulators in both Singapore and Thailand have turned down permission to list spot bitcoin ETFs.Photo by Dmytro Demidko on UnsplashBitcoin not a qualified assetAccording to local news media on Wednesday, Singapore's Monetary Authority (MAS) has announced its decision not to permit the listing of spot ETFs in the country. The MAS argues that cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, do not meet the criteria for qualified assets within the context of ETFs. This regulatory divergence means that retail investors in Singapore won't see the introduction of spot bitcoin ETFs domestically. However, they still have an avenue to trade such ETFs as they can turn to local brokerages for access to overseas markets. Despite this allowance, the MAS emphasizes the need for these retail investors to exercise caution due to the inherent high volatility and speculative nature of cryptocurrency trading. A spokesperson from the regulatory authority clarified that while collected investment schemes (CIS), falling under the Securities and Futures Act regulation, include ETFs, they do not encompass bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency. Future potentialWhile MAS may be turning down spot bitcoin ETFs at this point, there’s potential for a change of heart in the future. The FIMA Bill is currently working its way through the city-state’s legislative process. If enacted, it would give broader regulatory oversight of crypto to MAS. Lasanka Perera, CEO of Independent Reserve Singapore, recently suggested that the bill could make an ETF more likely. Thailand says noMeanwhile, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has stated that it currently does not plan to allow asset management firms to launch spot bitcoin ETFs in the country. Thai securities brokerage firms have been encouraging investors to consider investing directly in U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs. The Thai SEC clarified that while it closely monitors these developments, there is no immediate policy to allow spot bitcoin ETFs in Thailand. The regulator emphasizes that Thai investors can still engage in digital asset investments through domestic exchanges licensed by the SEC under the Digital Assets Decree. India, too, doesn’t appear to have been looking favorably on the potential for such products. The governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said last week that “the way we look at crypto remains unchanged, irrespective of who does what.” Asian optimismIn the wake of ETF approval in the U.S., many industry commentators had suggested that Asia would respond positively. Australian venture capitalist Mark Carnegie has suggested that the developing bull market would be “an Asian story.” Yat Siu, co-founder of Hong Kong’s Animoca Brands, expressed the view that U.S. ETF approval would have a substantially positive impact within the Asian region. Hong Kong appears to be the most positive in the region in its outlook with regard to embracing spot bitcoin ETFs. Immediately following approval in the U.S., a Hong Kong legislator spoke out to encourage a proactive response relative to launch of similar products within the Chinese autonomous territory. Meanwhile, recent news reports indicate that spot bitcoin ETFs experienced substantial trading volume, accumulating $10 billion just three days after their approval in the U.S.