Hong Kong Broadens Pilot Program for China’s Digital Yuan

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.

Crypto Titans Clash on Elon Musk’s XA subtle panel discussion photo posted by Andrei Grachev of Singapore’s DWF Labs turned into a war of words among crypto trading titans on Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter).Photo by Marek Piwnicki on UnsplashDWF vs GSRGrachev, who is a Managing Partner at the market maker and Web3 investment firm, thanked his fellow panelists in the post. However, the tone quickly soured as Cristian Gil, Co-Founder of rival market-making giant GSR, took offense to Grachev’s presence on the panel and voiced his disapproval on the platform.Gil didn’t mince his words, stating: “[Andrei Grachev] had absolutely no business to be on that panel. It’s insulting to [GSR] , [OKX] and [Wintermute] to be in the same room as [DWF Labs].”DWF vs WintermuteHis remarks received a “Like” from Evgeny Gaevoy, the CEO of market maker Wintermute. In response, Grachev defended his presence, asserting that DWF was superior in technology, trading, and business development compared to its rivals, going so far as to suggest to Gil: “Yeah, if I were you — I would be also crying all the time.”The exchange continued with Grachev claiming that DWF was capturing market share from Wintermute, and Gaevoy responded with a nonchalant “lol,” challenging Grachev to invest more if he believed DWF posed a threat.DWF Labs’ rapid growthWhile the exchange consisted of mere words, it shed light on DWF Labs’ sudden rise to prominence earlier over recent months. The company has featured prominently in an array of investments in Web3 startups and blockchain networks over the course of 2023. Prominent among them have been investments in EOS, the Algorand ecosystem, and the TRON ecosystem.Recently appearing on the BlockBeats podcast, Grachev defended the company, outlining that it was not involved in market manipulation in response to recent assertions to the contrary.“We do not engage in any manipulative behavior,” Grachev stated. “Of course, we have the futures market, which is a tool for hedging positions and trading clubs. We are completely different from directional traders,” he added.Gaevoy added some humor to the mix by sharing a meme, raising questions about the maturity level of these prominent figures in the crypto industry. The spat provoked a broad array of commentary from the crypto community.Crypto immaturityThe very public clash raises concerns about how traditional Wall Street firms, currently making bold moves into the crypto space, might perceive such behavior. Notably, firms like BlackRock have been involved in Bitcoin ETF applications, signaling a growing interest in cryptocurrency among mainstream financial institutions. In response to Gaevoy and Grachev, one commentator wrote: “The institutions are never coming back.”While it would appear that there’s no love lost between DWF, GSR, and Wintermute, it also seems evident that both market makers can agree on Singapore as being an appropriate location from where to operate a crypto business. While Wintermute is London-based, it revealed recently that it was expanding its operations in Singapore. Like Wintermute, GSR is primarily based in London although it too maintains a presence in Singapore to service Asia-centric business.

CoinGecko Report Points to Q3 Market ContractionThe third quarter of 2023 was marked by a significant market downturn and market cap contraction. That’s one of a number of findings in a Q3 crypto industry report compiled by Malaysian cryptocurrency ranking platform CoinGecko.Photo by Kanchanara on UnsplashMarket cap contractionThe company released its latest research on Tuesday. In mid-August, Bitcoin (BTC) witnessed a sudden drop from approximately $29,000 to around $26,000, leading to a dip in the total cryptocurrency market capitalization from $1.2 trillion to $1.1 trillion.The total crypto market capitalization recorded a nearly 10% decline, amounting to a drop of $119.1 billion. Since reaching its local peak on April 17, the total market capitalization has experienced a decline of 16.3%.Notable shifts in the top 30 cryptocurrencies include Solana (SOL) climbing to #7, TrueUSD (TUSD) rising to #19, Litecoin (LTC) falling to #14, Avalanche (AVAX) dropping to #22, and Binance USD (BUSD) sliding to #27.Stablecoin shrinkageThe top 15 stablecoins saw a 3.8% decrease in market capitalization during Q3 2023, reaching $121.3 billion. Tether (USDT) maintained its market cap during this period. USD Coin (USDC) experienced the largest absolute loss at -$2.26 billion (-8.3%), while Binance USD (BUSD) faced the most significant percentage decline of -45.3%, amounting to a drop of -$1.87 billion. TrueUSD (TUSD) was the sole gainer among the top 5, with a 12.8% increase in market cap.NFT trading volume cut in halfTrading volume for NFTs declined by 55.6%, dropping from $3.67 billion in Q2 to $1.63 billion in Q3. Ethereum maintained its dominance, accounting for 83.2% of the NFT market during Q3. ImmutableX NFTs, driven by trading card game Gods Unchained, experienced a strong Q3, with a market share increase from 2.1% in Q2 to 3.9% in Q3.Continued growth for RWAsThe Real World Asset (RWA) sector has continued to grow in 2023, with tokenized US treasury bills gaining popularity. The market cap for these tokenized T-bills increased from $114.0 million in January 2023 to $665.0 million by the end of September, marking a 5.84x gain. Traditional financial institutions led the way, with American asset manager Franklin Templeton controlling almost half of the overall market share, followed by Ondo Finance at 27%. Ethereum held 49% of the market cap share, while Stellar followed closely behind with 48%.Spot DEX and CEX trading volume downIn Q3, spot trading volume on the top 10 decentralized exchanges (DEX) totaled $105 billion, a 31.2% drop from Q2. THORchain experienced a significant gain in volume, though this was partially attributed to illicit transfers.Spot trading volume on the top 10 centralized crypto exchanges (CEX) amounted to $1.12 trillion, a decrease of 20.1% compared to Q2. Binance’s market share dropped to 44%, facing regulatory pressures and significant executive departures. Among the Asian exchange platforms, HTX, previously known as Huobi, secured the third spot with an 8% market share. Only Upbit and Bybit saw gains, while Kucoin was edged out of the top 10.While Q3 may not have been the most positive industry quarter recently, things are looking a lot more promising as Q4 develops, with Singapore-based digital assets financial services platform Matrixport predicting a bitcoin unit price of $45,000 by year end.