South Korea’s FIU Faces Staffing Cuts Amid Crypto Challenges

Lee Bok-hyun, the governor of South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), is set to have a meeting with Gary Gensler, the chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in May. The purpose of their meeting is to discuss whether to classify non-fungible tokens (NFTs) as virtual assets. Currently, NFTs are not seen as virtual assets in Korea, but there is a high likelihood of them being acknowledged as such following the meeting in May, local financial media outlet Edaily reported.Photo by Andrey Metelev on UnsplashLack of definition for NFTsAn NFT is a digital certificate of authenticity that is not fungible or replicable. NFTs tokenize content or assets of various types – from images, music, videos, games and artworks to real-estates – by assigning a unique token ID to them. Many see 2018 as the year NFT technology was first introduced.  Despite its wide range of applications, no legal definition has been made for NFTs. Some view NFTs as technology, and others as virtual assets or securities. The Korean government decided not to recognize NFTs as virtual assets under the Virtual Asset Protection Act (Virtual Asset Act), effective in July. Behind this decision is a perception that NFTs are less likely to pose significant risks to the market, as a large portion of NFTs are now traded by collectors seeking to expand their private collections.  However, NFTs are increasingly seen as speculative destinations by many investors over time, as prices of virtual assets including BTC surge. This shift backs the local movement to recognize NFTs as well as spot bitcoin ETFs as virtual assets. Opposition from NFT businessesBlockchain industry insiders say defining NFTs is of utmost importance, noting that classifying NFTs as virtual assets headfirst could deal a heavy blow to businesses in this sector. One finance insider mentioned that defining NFTs comes down to understanding their purposes and how they are utilized. If NFTs are primarily used for speculative purposes or as currency, they could be recognized as virtual assets, the person said.  The biggest resistance is coming from NFT-related businesses. That is because recognizing NFTs as virtual assets would require these businesses to obtain a virtual asset service provider (VASP) license from the financial authority, which takes significant costs and workforce in the process. A CEO of a blockchain startup, who preferred to remain anonymous, expressed concerns about the possibility of NFTs becoming virtual assets, saying that such recognition would enable NFT transaction tracing, potentially leading to severe violations of human rights. While many industry insiders expect that the financial authorities will bring NFTs under the forthcoming Virtual Asset Act, the FSS stated that no decisions have been made regarding details of the upcoming meeting with the U.S. SEC. 

Crypto Features in India-UK Markets DialogueAccording to a press release published by HM Treasury, the 2nd India-UK Financial Markets Dialogue meeting held on Wednesday featured six key themes with crypto featuring among them.©Pexels/SkitterphotoThe event brought officials from both nations together in the first in-person financial dialogue since 2017. While the meeting considered banking, insurance and reinsurance, capital markets, asset management and sustainable finance, it also allotted time to discuss payments and crypto-assets.CBDC knowledge sharingBoth sets of officials discussed the scope for augmenting knowledge on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) by way of mutual learning. The officials agreed on the importance of robust global approaches relative to the emergence and development of crypto-assets internationally. The joint statement issued following the meeting revealed that progress relative to the G20 roadmap for enhancing cross-border payments was a matter which was discussed. It’s an item that could have major implications for the use of cryptocurrency in cross border transactions.Global collaborationThe meeting marks another move towards greater global collaboration on policy and regulation relative to digital payment systems and crypto assets. Earlier this month, India’s Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said that the introduction of any new regulations on digital assets needs to be coordinated on a global basis. “The G20 and its members agree that it’s not going to be possible to have an independent, standalone country dealing with crypto assets”, Sitharaman stated at a news conference following a meeting of central bank governors and G20 finance ministers.There’s a growing recognition among politicians, government and central bank officials that decentralized money doesn’t end at a territory’s borders due to its inherently decentralized properties.Taking steps to regulate cryptoWhile on the one hand strategizing as to how digital assets can be best controlled on a global level, India is also taking its own individual steps towards national regulatory action. Recently, it expanded its Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to include consideration of digital assets. The newly amended PMLA will now deal with the exchange of digital assets for fiat money and vice versa. It also considers safekeeping, transfer and administration relative to cryptocurrency. Furthermore, its broadened scope deals with financial services offered related to virtual or digital assets.Rajagopal Menon, the VP of India’s leading cryptocurrency exchange WazirX, has said that “regulations levied by India have been baby steps toward institutional participation in the crypto exchange.” While market participants in the digital assets space are apprehensive about the regulatory measures that governments and state regulators choose to adopt, so long as the objective isn’t to regulate the innovation out of existence, such developments can have a profoundly positive effect on the digital assets market.There’s no doubt that in line with Menon’s point relative to the Indian context, the same scenario can play out in all digital markets given the application of the right regulatory approach. Institutional investment for the most part has eluded crypto despite many already heralding its arrival in recent years. Institutions move slowly and the only way in which they will be comfortable in working with digital assets is with complete regulatory clarity having been set out.So while some in crypto may be concerned at the mention of global regulatory coordination in respect of digital assets, so long as it doesn’t go too far, greater work towards improved regulatory clarity in the digital assets market can be a catalyst for further adoption and growth in India, the UK and further afield.

Kbank’s Upbit Customer Deposits Total $2.2BKbank, an internet-only bank in South Korea, is facing criticism due to its relatively high proportion of cryptocurrency customer deposits compared to other banks. Kbank reportedly manages approximately KRW 3 trillion (equivalent to $2.2 billion) in deposits from customers of cryptocurrency exchange Upbit, which accounts for about 18% of its total customer deposits.This percentage stands out, being notably higher than other banks that provide accounts to the other four crypto-to-fiat exchanges in Korea. That is according to a report by Maeil Business Newspaper, which obtained documents submitted to lawmaker Kim Hee-gon by the Financial Services Commission (FSC).According to Korean law, crypto exchanges must secure real-name bank accounts from banks to offer crypto trading services against the Korean won. Kbank offers its accounts to Upbit, the dominant player in the Korean crypto market.Photo by David McBee on PexelsNotable exposure to crypto exchangeThe FSC documents showed that Kbank’s Upbit customer deposits totaled KRW 3.09 trillion, making up 18% of its total deposits, which amount to KRW 17.2 trillion.In a striking contrast, Nonghyup Bank had 0.2% of its deposits, equivalent to KRW 557.8 billion, in Bithumb, which is the nation’s second-largest cryptocurrency exchange. Kakaobank, another internet-only bank, had 0.3% (KRW 112.2 billion) of its deposits in Coinone. Shinhan Bank held 0.01% (KRW 43 billion) in Korbit, and Jeonbuk Bank had a similarly small 0.02% (KRW 4.2 billion) in Gopax.Lawmaker Kim pointed out that Kbank has become a bank dedicated to crypto trading. Kim proposed that financial authorities take proactive measures to assess the potential risks that may emerge when Kbank utilizes Upbit customer deposits as a basis for offering credit loans. Such risky financial practices could potentially result in higher loan defaults and the emergence of a greater number of individuals with poor credit histories, which could ultimately jeopardize the stability of the financial market.Regulatory gapThe current Financial Transaction Reporting Act mandates that virtual asset service providers (VASPs) segregate customer deposits from their own assets as a measure to combat money laundering. However, it has been noted that there are regulatory gaps stemming from the absence of specific guidelines for the custody of these deposits.According to the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), Nonghyup and Kakaobank store deposits in separate accounts within the bank. On the other hand, Kbank and Jeonbuk Bank keep deposits in corporate accounts under their respective exchange partners’ names.When deposits are stored in separate accounts within the bank, only the bank has access to those funds, and they are essentially operated in a manner similar to a trust, preventing the bank from using the funds arbitrarily. In contrast, funds held in corporate accounts can be used by the bank as a source for lending. Lawmaker Kim warned that in scenarios such as exchange bankruptcies or similar situations, banks holding customer funds in corporate accounts could face difficulties in ensuring customer protection.Each of these banks receives reserve funds from crypto exchanges in anticipation of potential compensation requirements in the event of unforeseen losses. The FSS states that as of the end of last month, the reserve amounts held by each bank were as follows: Kbank had KRW 200 billion, Nonghyup Bank had KRW 100 billion, Kakao Bank had KRW 73 billion, and both Shinhan Bank and Jeonbuk Bank had KRW 30 billion.Kbank’s Upbit customer deposits are approximately 72 times larger than Shinhan Bank’s Korbit customer deposits. However, the reserve amounts held by Kbank are only 6.7 times greater than those held by Shinhan. Lawmaker Kim emphasized the importance of banks maintaining reserve funds that are proportional to the customer deposits held in their partner crypto exchanges.Signs of recoveryMeanwhile, the Korean cryptocurrency industry, which faced a downturn in the latter half of last year due to events like the Terra collapse and FTX’s bankruptcy, has exhibited signs of recovery in the first half of this year.The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the FSC recently reported that the cryptocurrency market cap in South Korea has reached KRW 28.4 trillion as of the end of June this year. This reflects a 46% increase compared to the end of last year when it stood at KRW 19.4 trillion. Additionally, the total operating profit of domestic exchanges surged by 82% to KRW 227.3 billion over the past six months, compared to the previous figure of KRW 124.9 billion.The total market’s max drawdown (MDD) was 62%. MDD assesses the extent to which an asset has declined in value from its highest point to its lowest point within a specific time frame, before experiencing a recovery. The FIU considers this MDD to be high, urging investor caution.