Bybit CEO Applauds Hong Kong and UAE Regulatory Approaches

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.

FactBlock, a Seoul-based Web3 ecosystem builder and consulting firm, has become the newest member of the WEMIX3.0 blockchain’s 40 WONDERS, or Node Council Partners (NCP), according to an official announcement on Friday (KST). Photo by Growtika on UnsplashShaping the WEMIX3.0 ecosystemThe 40 WONDERS make up a governance council that represents the interests of the WEMIX community by participating in on-chain voting processes for improving or changing WEMIX3.0’s protocol. They are also responsible for validating transactions and operating nodes on the mainnet to boost and maintain its integrity and security. In particular, each member gets to choose their own WONDER number – FactBlock has joined as WONDER 13, shortly after blockchain security audit firm Verichains joined as WONDER 12. FactBlock was able to join by tapping into its resources from secured investments and committing to expanding the ever-growing WEMIX ecosystem and promoting community activity. FactBlock’s industry-oriented missionThe firm is dedicated to ameliorating information asymmetry within the Web3 industry, serving as a gateway for overseas blockchain projects looking to enter the South Korean market and local firms preparing to go international. The firm’s upcoming projects for this year include the launch of Fablo, an educational platform for collective blockchain learning centered around community engagement.  FactBlock has also hosted Korea Blockchain Week (KBW), the largest blockchain conference in the country and in Asia, since 2018. Last year’s event was held at the Shilla Hotel in Seoul in September, hosting a number of industry experts who discussed trends and outlooks for the Web3 industry.

DeFiance Capital Secures Interim Victory in Dispute With 3ACSingapore’s DeFiance Capital, a Web3 and crypto investment firm, has notched up a small triumph in its ongoing $140 million legal clash with failed Singaporean crypto hedge fund, Three Arrows Capital (3AC).Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on UnsplashFavorable rulingAccording to a statement provided via a Medium blog post by DeFiance Capital Founder and CEO Arthur Cheong on Tuesday, the High Court of Singapore has delivered a favorable ruling for the firm, endorsing its preference for jurisdiction in Singapore, rather than the British Virgin Islands, which had been advocated by 3AC.The tussle between 3AC and DeFiance Capital centers around the ownership of certain assets. The liquidators appointed by the British Virgin Islands Court, from Teneo, assert that these assets essentially belong to 3AC’s creditors. However, DeFiance Capital argues vehemently that these assets must be partitioned and returned to its stakeholders.Struggle over assets and jurisdictionAt the heart of the matter are assets totaling $115 million, encompassing digital currencies and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which currently remain under the control of DeFiance Capital. Additionally, there are 69 SAFE (simple agreement for future equity)/SAFT (simple agreement for future tokens) agreements linked to 3AC. Although Teneo places the collective worth of these assets at roughly $141 million, DeFiance Capital’s estimation is more conservative, pegging it at around $120 million.Beyond asset ownership, jurisdiction has become a pivotal point of contention in the legal discourse. DeFiance Capital has steadfastly advocated for legal proceedings to take place in Singapore, where it operates, as opposed to the British Virgin Islands. The recent ruling from the High Court of Singapore lends support to this stance, challenging Teneo’s argument.DeFiance articulated its position, asserting: “Our position was that all the important witnesses and documents are in Singapore and the dispute ought to be heard by the Singapore Courts to ensure all relevant evidence would be available.”With the court’s decision aligning with DeFiance’s jurisdictional preference, the firm hopes that this development will pave the way for more substantive engagement between the parties, rather than being embroiled in procedural wrangling. The firm believes that this will allow the focus to shift towards addressing the core issues at hand.Business riftThe genesis of this legal saga dates back to 2020 when DeFiance was established as part of the 3AC group, operating autonomously under the stewardship of its founder, Arthur Cheong. The rift escalated in February 2022, when Cheong declined 3AC’s proposal to relocate to Dubai, eventually leading to the formation of two Singapore-based firms in May of that year.Furthermore, in the same month, DeFiance extended a loan of $35 million worth of USDC to 3AC, effectively becoming a creditor. Complications arose when 3AC’s founders transferred legal rights related to DeFiance Capital, a transaction that remained incomplete as 3AC filed for bankruptcy.In light of the ongoing dispute, 3AC asserted that DeFiance’s assets should be harnessed to settle its debts. However, DeFiance firmly stood its ground, upholding its ownership claims over the assets.With liquidators advocating for resolution in the British Virgin Islands — a move that DeFiance rejected due to its Singaporean management ties with 3AC — the stage was set for the legal clash that has now taken a notable turn with this recent court ruling.