Cryptocurrency Losses Surge to $686 Million in Q3

Top Korean Crypto Exchanges Witness Surge in Listings and Delistings During H1In the first half of this year, South Korea’s top five cryptocurrency exchanges experienced notable growth in the number of newly added cryptocurrencies to their platforms. However, they also observed a significant surge in the number of cryptocurrencies being delisted.Photo by Shubham Dhage on UnsplashDelisting and listingAccording to a report by local news outlet Etoday, the nation’s five leading exchanges Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax ceased trading for a total of 51 cryptocurrencies during the first six months of this year. This marked an 88% increase compared to the 27 cryptocurrencies delisted in the previous six-month period. During the first half of last year, the number of delisted tokens was 48.Among the five exchanges, Coinone took the lead by delisting the highest number of cryptocurrencies, totaling 24. Bithumb followed with 14 delisted tokens, Gopax with six, Upbit with five, and Korbit with two. Notably, Coinone continued its delisting spree this month, removing an additional five cryptocurrencies from its platform. Most cryptos were delisted because their projects and services were not operating normally.The significant number of delisted tokens at Coinone appears to be linked to the involvement of its former employees in the unlawful listing of certain tokens. These individuals reportedly received bribes in exchange for listing a total of 46 cryptocurrencies on the trading platform. Among these tokens were PICA and PURE, which are no longer traded on the exchange.Only five cryptocurrencies were delisted according to the decision made by the Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA), a self-regulatory group consisting of the aforementioned five crypto exchanges. The delisted tokens were REP, BASIC, OMG, SRM, and PCI. This indicates that most of the affected cryptocurrencies were exclusively traded on one of the DAXA member exchanges, indicating that DAXA’s listing and delisting guidelines were largely ineffective.Meanwhile, there has been a notable surge in the number of newly added cryptocurrencies. Bithumb, for instance, took the lead by listing an impressive 63 new tokens, nearly three times the number listed by Upbit (22). In the same vein, Coinone added 14 tokens, while Korbit and Gopax followed with six and three new listings, respectively.Profit squeezeLast year, crypto trading platforms adopted a conservative approach when it came to listing and delisting procedures, prioritizing investor protection. However, their stance shifted as the global crypto market encountered a significant decline in trading volume amid crypto winter. This decrease in trading activity subsequently led to reduced operating profits, compelling the platforms to list more cryptocurrencies.With the exception of Upbit, which maintains a dominant market share in the nation, the outlook on crypto exchanges appears more or less grim. In particular, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax are in the red. Bithumb, while still in profit, saw its operating profit last year falling 80% year-over-year to 163.5 billion KRW ($127.9 million). This trend continued this year, with Bithumb’s operating profit In the first quarter of this year recording 16.2 billion KRW, an 80% decrease compared to the same period last year.In light of this development, an industry insider, who wished to stay anonymous, told Etoday that while the market’s total trading volume is witnessing a considerable decline, Upbit’s dominance is still growing. This individual also noted that the decrease in trading volume and the resulting deficit are exerting pressure on exchanges to expand their cryptocurrency listings.

OKX, a global crypto exchange, is understood to be considering carrying out an initial public offering (IPO) in the United States. That’s according to a report published by The Information on June 22. The development indicates changing fortunes for the firm in North America. In February, the company agreed to pay a fine of $84 million and surrender revenues earned through U.S. customers of around $420 million to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ). Photo by appshunter.io on Unsplash‘New era for OKX’The DoJ had taken action against the crypto exchange on the basis of allegations of unlicensed money transfers. Having put this matter behind it and in taking advantage of a more positive regulatory approach to the crypto sector in the U.S. by the Trump administration, in April OKX relaunched its service offering in the U.S. The company described the newly launched service as a “new era for OKX in the U.S.” Another consequence of that positive regulatory approach in the U.S. has been a renewed interest from crypto companies in pursuing IPOs. Yueqi Yang, a reporter with The Information, stated on X: “From IPOs to crypto treasury stocks, crypto is booming right now, but the rally is playing out in the stock market, at valuations that even surprised industry insiders.” USDC stablecoin issuer Circle (CRCL) executed its IPO on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on June 5. Circle’s experience is likely to be encouraging for other crypto firms considering going public. Since going public, the company’s stock has surged by more than 675%. Circle raised in excess of $1 billion with an IPO share price of $31. During Monday’s trading, the company’s market cap exceeded that of Coinbase (COIN). The current market environment has encouraged other crypto firms to follow suit. In March, American crypto exchange platform Gemini filed confidentially for an IPO. Bullish has also taken this option, according to reports earlier this month. Kraken, another global crypto exchange platform, has indicated that it intends to pursue an IPO in Q1 2026. OKB token holder fearsNews of OKX’s intentions to go public has led to crypto community discussions surrounding the use of an exchange token as a means of fundraising versus a traditional stock market listing. OKX launched OKB, its native token, in March 2018.  Commentators have pointed out that those who invest in traditional shares will have access to more liquid markets whereas platform token liquidity is oftentimes concentrated on that specific exchange. Some OKB token holders fear that following the IPO, their token will be sidelined or abandoned. OKX has been working towards expanding across various regional markets recently. Last year it launched OKX TR to cater towards the crypto community in Turkey. It also acquired trading licenses in Singapore and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).  It emerged last week that the company had launched its services in Germany and Poland having acquired regulatory approval in both countries.  OKX was first founded in Beijing in 2013, later moving its headquarters to the Seychelles due to regulatory changes in China.

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.