CME Group Expands Crypto Reference Rates to Asian Markets

KOTEC and Busan Techno Park Join Hands to Boost Technological Growth of Busan EnterprisesThe Korea Technology Finance Corporation (KOTEC) announced that it signed a cooperative agreement with Busan Techno Park on Monday at Busan Techno Park’s headquarters to support the growth of enterprises and offer financing for technological development. Under the agreement, KOTEC and Busan Techno Park have established a mutually beneficial system to jointly nurture and support tech companies based in Busan that are striving to commercialize data and blockchain technologies.Photo by Christopher Lee on UnsplashFostering tech innovation in BusanKOTEC is a non-profit government-affiliated institution aimed at financing innovative small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for technology development. It offers services like credit guarantees, technology appraisal, equity investments, and technology transfers. Busan Techno Park is a regional industrial innovation institution for the southern port city of Busan, which operates a cooperative system among industrial, academic, and governmental agencies for the technological advancement of local companies.The two entities have committed to sharing information about companies that require financing for technological advancement — such as technological challenges that they may face — and promote joint projects related to technology investment and financing. They also aim to gather data resources for technology transfer, evaluation, and commercialization.KOTEC has marked Busan as a regulation-free special zone for companies that reside there. The demarcation of regulation-free special zones aims to foster the innovative and strategic development of a certain region. It is also operating a system under a regulatory sandbox preferential guarantee, which aims to facilitate accelerated market entry for businesses specializing in blockchain technology, maritime mobility, ammonia energy, and more.Empowering financing for technological advancementThe regulatory sandbox is a system run by the Korean government that exempts or suspends existing regulations for a designated amount of time for companies releasing new products and services and regulates them post-mortem if there is a problem. Under the sandbox policy, preferential guarantees refer to a technology guarantee fund that provides guarantees up to KRW 2 billion (approximately $1.5 million) for loans of facility funds to companies subjected to temporary approval and decreases the guarantee rate by up to 0.5%.In March, KOTEC was designated as a data appraisal agency by the Ministry of Science and ICT. Since then, the corporation has been implementing the data value plus guarantee — a product that determines the economic value of data and provides guarantees accordingly.“We will actively contribute to the government’s national tasks, including providing prioritized support for the cutting-edge future strategy industry. We will make even greater efforts to contribute to job creation and regional economic development,” said Kim Se-hyun, Head of KOTEC’s Busan-Gyeongnam Regional Office.

Bithumb and Korbit Struggle to Gain Traction Despite Zero Trading FeesSouth Korean cryptocurrency exchanges Bithumb and Korbit have recently eliminated trading fees, but their bold decision hasn’t yielded much results. Bithumb was the first to implement this change and attracted users for about a week, but it is now seeing a loss in market share. Korbit, following Bithumb’s example, is also struggling to achieve meaningful outcomes.Photo by Alexander Grey on UnsplashLimited impactLocal media outlet Chosun Biz used data from crypto data platform CoinGecko to draw this conclusion. On October 26, Korbit’s daily trading volume represented 0.19% of the total trading volume among South Korea’s top five crypto exchanges (Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax). This figure marked a 0.14 percentage point increase compared to the 0.05% recorded on October 19. Korbit had implemented a zero trading fee policy at 9 a.m. (KST) on October 20. Additionally, they launched a promotion offering KRW 5,000 ($3.69) worth of bitcoin to users who transferred virtual assets totaling KRW 1 million or more from Travel Rule-compliant exchanges to Korbit. While the promotion did contribute to Korbit’s market share, it still remains below 1%.Bithumb’s performance showed some improvement, albeit briefly. As of October 26, Bithumb’s market share stood at 18%, marking a 4.7 percentage point increase from its 13.3% share on October 3, the day before it eliminated trading fees. However, it’s worth noting that its market share had reached almost 30% shortly after the promotion’s launch. This indicates that its strategy is losing efficacy over time.The less-than-enthusiastic results from their daring marketing endeavors can be attributed to their inability to draw in retail investors. To begin with, Upbit, the leading player in the market, had already been providing a relatively low fee of 0.05%. Furthermore, adapting to new user interfaces on these exchanges posed a challenge. Zero trading fees weren’t attractive enough for crypto investors to leave their current platforms.Trading volume mattersIn the case of Korbit, its lower trading volume was a disadvantage when it came to attracting users. On crypto exchanges, a higher trading volume typically translates to faster trade executions. As a result, users of Korbit might experience delays in executing trades at their preferred price.Jeong Hye-won, a research associate at crypto data analytics platform Xangle, told Chosun Biz that users on exchanges with lower trading volumes tend to experience slippages due to slower transaction speeds and sparsely populated order books. A slippage means the difference between the initially placed order price and the executed order price. Jeong further explained that Korbit’s zero trading fee policy didn’t have a significant impact because it offers fewer listed tokens compared to Upbit and Bithumb.There is speculation that the free-trading fee promotions introduced by Bithumb and Korbit, despite their revenue sacrifices, might conclude sooner than initially anticipated due to their perceived ineffectiveness. Bithumb derives 99.95% of its revenue from trading fees, while Korbit relies on trading fees for 99.79% of its income. An industry insider has commented that trading fees play a vital role in an exchange’s revenue, and given Bithumb’s reported loss in earnings during the second quarter, there are concerns about their capacity to sustain this strategy.

Korea’s FSS to Collect Public Comments on Financial Statement Guidelines for Virtual Asset EntitiesThe South Korean Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) has revealed a set of exemplary financial statements aimed at clarifying the disclosure requirements of virtual asset-related entities. These guidelines have been designed to align with the Korean version of International Financial Reporting Standards (K-IFRS), which was established by the Korea Accounting Institute (KAI).It was reported earlier this month that the Financial Services Commission (FSC) brought forward these regulations to tackle accounting uncertainties within the blockchain industry.The main goal of these exemplary guidelines is to help entities provide financial statement readers with essential information regarding virtual assets. This includes details about the reserve amount held by virtual asset issuers and information about the virtual assets held by virtual asset service providers (VASPs).Photo by Kelly Sikkema on UnsplashPresentation sessionsTo ensure effective dissemination and understanding of these guidelines, the FSS, KAI, and the Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants (KICPA) have planned presentation sessions. These sessions will take place from July 26 to August 11, which will involve visits to VASPs, listed companies, and accounting firms. Valuable feedback and suggestions from these stakeholders are anticipated, as the events encourage open two-way communication and welcome participation from anyone interested.Discussion meetingsTo further refine the ideas put forward during the presentation sessions, two separate discussion meetings with experts are scheduled for September and October. The recommendations gathered from the industry will undergo a careful review by experts and be thoughtfully incorporated into the guidelines.The FSS will finalize the guidelines in cooperation with the FSC, and the Securities and Futures Commission under the FSC will review them and give approval for their implementation. This is expected to take place between October and November.The FSC has stated that these exemplary guidelines are currently in their preliminary stage and open to potential changes during the public comment period. Additionally, companies have the flexibility to make necessary adjustments to these practice guidelines to suit their specific needs and requirements.Issuers, holders, exchangesThe exemplary practice guidelines are specifically targeted at three types of entities: virtual asset issuers, virtual asset holders, and virtual asset trading exchanges.For virtual asset issuers, providing essential information about their virtual assets is a key requirement. This information should encompass their business models, accounting policies, obligations (e.g. whitepapers), and the current status of their projects. Such details should be disclosed in the annotations of their financial statements. Furthermore, revenue generated from the sales of virtual assets must be recognized, and any changes to their obligations should be duly noted. Moreover, disclosure of the reserved amount of issued virtual assets and their intended usage plan is mandatory.Companies holding virtual assets must provide information regarding accounting policies, the total value of assets held, the reasons behind their holdings, and any gains or losses incurred. Additionally, holders are obligated to disclose risks associated with virtual assets and their potential impact.Virtual asset trading platforms, such as exchanges, are mandated to disclose not only their own virtual asset holdings but also those held on behalf of their customers. This disclosure should encompass detailed information about their accounting policies, the total value of assets under their custody, associated risks, and the involvement of third-party custodians. In particular, the platforms must indicate whether they treat customer assets under their custody as assets or liabilities and provide a clear rationale for such classification in the annotations of their financial statements.