Asian Countries Dominate Chainalysis’ 2023 Global Crypto Adoption Index

Hong Kong’s GSBN Takes Lead in Blockchain LogisticsIn recent years, the logistics industry has seen an increase in the use of blockchain technology to streamline supply chains and provide greater transparency to customers. While some major players, like Danish firm Maersk, have terminated their blockchain-based platforms, others are bullish on the long-term potential of the technology.©Pexels/Ben CheungA blockchain-based shipping platformOne such player is the Hong Kong-based Global Shipping Business Network (GSBN), a nonprofit consortium focused on blockchain trade applications. According to a report by the South China Morning Post, GSBN operates one of the world’s largest platforms as an alternative to Maersk’s TradeLens tool. Since launching its blockchain-based shipping platform in 2021, GSBN has partnered with major shipping companies and terminal operators such as Cosco, Orient Overseas Container Line, Hapag-Lloyd, Hutchison Ports, SPG Qingdao Port, PSA International, Shanghai International Port Group, and Cosco Shipping Ports.The platform, based on a permissioned blockchain with strong data governance, allows only authorized parties to contribute and consume shipping-related data. The organization believes that blockchain is a crucial logistics tool in the long term, and its adoption may take another decade.Blockchain inevitable amid continued digitizationGSBN CEO Bertrand Chen is confident in the potential of blockchain technology, saying that global trade will not continue to rely on “pen and paper” by 2032. He believes that blockchain has the potential to help the industry transform in response to supply issues triggered by events such as COVID-19.“Because of COVID-19, because you have to change the process, I think this is one of the regular use cases of blockchain” . . . “Probably that’s better than NFTs of digital art. NFTs of documents for global trade — this will be the real killer use case.”While Chen acknowledges that China has taken the lead in blockchain logistics due to its significant investment in the industry, he believes that GSBN has global ambitions and is working to attract more European shipping lines. The nonprofit even hopes to onboard Maersk one day, but Chen admits that such a scenario “may be slightly challenging.”Emerging Web3 hubHong Kong has also emerged as a major hub for Web3 and cryptocurrency, with the local government taking action to adopt clear industry regulations. Despite a blanket ban on crypto in China, some Chinese government-related firms have reportedly been growing interested in crypto investment, with state-owned firms like insurer CPIC launching crypto-related funds in early April.Blockchain technology has the potential to revolutionize global trade and supply chain management, providing greater transparency and efficiency. However, widespread adoption may still be years away, and companies will need to navigate regulatory and technical challenges to fully leverage the benefits of blockchain.While some logistics firms may have terminated their blockchain-based projects, others like GSBN remain optimistic about the potential of blockchain technology in global trade. With major shipping partners and terminal operators already onboard, GSBN has a solid foundation to build on as it continues to attract more players to its platform. As the world becomes increasingly digitized, blockchain may be a crucial tool for the logistics industry to transform and adapt to new challenges.

HKMA Issues Warning Against Crypto Firm MisrepresentationThe Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), the central bank for the Chinese autonomous territory, has taken a stand against cryptocurrency businesses that falsely present themselves as “banks” and market their products as “deposits,” issuing a public advisory to raise awareness about the issue.Photo by Marcel Eberle on UnsplashBanking ordinance violationsIn a press release published to its website on Friday, the HKMA said that instances had arisen where crypto firms had labeled themselves as “crypto banks,” “crypto asset banks,” and “digital trading banks.” The regulatory authority underscored that such misrepresentations could be in violation of the Banking Ordinance in Hong Kong.In addition to adopting misleading bank-related titles, these crypto firms have been advertising “savings plans” as “low risk” with “high return,” potentially misleading the public into believing that these entities are authorized banks in Hong Kong, where they can securely deposit their funds.The HKMA stressed that only entities such as licensed banks, restricted license banks, and deposit-taking companies, collectively referred to as “authorized institutions” and holding a license granted by the HKMA, are legally permitted to engage in banking or deposit-taking activities in Hong Kong.Furthermore, funds held on crypto exchanges are not covered by Hong Kong’s Deposit Protection Scheme. “Under the Banking Ordinance, only licensed banks, restricted license banks and deposit-taking companies, which have been granted a license by the HKMA can carry out banking or deposit-taking business in Hong Kong,” the HKMA stated.Misuse of banking termsAny entity using the term “bank” in its business name or implying that it offers banking services in Hong Kong is committing an offense, according to the central bank. The same rule applies to any entity engaging in deposit-taking activities in Hong Kong or soliciting the public to make deposits.It’s important to note that crypto firms not officially recognized as banks in Hong Kong are not subject to the oversight of the HKMA.The HKMA advised the public to exercise caution. In cases of uncertainty regarding an entity claiming to be a bank or soliciting deposits in Hong Kong, individuals are encouraged to consult the register of authorized institutions on the HKMA’s website, and if doubts persist, it suggests that they should contact the authority via its Public Enquiry Service hotline.According to section 97 of the Banking Ordinance, only a bank or a central bank can use the term “bank” or its derivatives in its business name in Hong Kong without the written consent of the HKMA.Additionally, sections 11 and 12 of the Banking Ordinance stipulate that only entities possessing a valid banking license or recognized as authorized institutions are permitted to engage in banking or deposit-taking activities in Hong Kong. As per section 92 of the Banking Ordinance, only an authorized institution is authorized to issue advertisements inviting the public to make deposits, with certain exceptions.The HKMA’s advisory serves as a stern reminder to the crypto industry that regulatory compliance and transparency are essential, particularly when using terms associated with traditional banking, to protect the interests of the public.

Cross Trading of LUNA Tokens Uncovered on Three Korean Crypto ExchangesAccording to a report by the Maeil Business Newspaper on Wednesday, it was discovered that cross trading of LUNA tokens took place on three South Korean cryptocurrency exchanges: Bithumb, Coinone, and GoPax.Three crypto exchangesAn indictment by the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office against Terraform Labs co-founders Do Kwon and Daniel Shin, along with interviews conducted within the cryptocurrency industry, revealed that Bithumb, Coinone, and GoPax were involved in cross trading LUNA tokens with a combined value of $598 million. Specifically, Bithumb accounted for $224 million, Coinone for $299 billion, and GoPax for $74 billion.The prosecution has confirmed that cross trading continued until the end of February 2022, a period marked by significant demands for virtual asset legislation from both the market and academia. Despite widespread calls for regulations to curb unfair trading practices, these instances of cross trading went undetected.Classification of LUNAMoreover, it is reported that legal punishment for the $598 million worth of cross trading is challenging unless LUNA tokens are officially recognized as securities by the court. Under the Korean Capital Markets Act, only cross trading involving tokens identified as securities can be subject to penalties as a form of market manipulation.During a plenary session of the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon made a statement suggesting that LUNA tokens could be considered securities due to their backing by real-world assets. However, he said that this distinction might not apply to other tokens.On April 25, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office indicted Shin and others as accomplices to Kwon, assuming that LUNA tokens were indeed securities. This case now revolves around whether the prosecution can successfully establish the classification of LUNA tokens as securities during the trial, making it the central issue in the case.Photo by Kanchanara on UnsplashCrypto investor protection legislationLast Thursday, the National Assembly’s National Policy Committee approved a bill known as the “Virtual Assets User Protection Act,” signaling an accelerated legislative process. However, there are arguments suggesting that the definition of cross trading should be further clarified in either the legislation or enforcement decree.A representative of a law firm specializing in virtual assets stated that the implementation of the User Protection Act would take another year even after its promulgation, making it challenging to retrospectively penalize cross trading practices that had already occurred.