OliveX Launches OVE Governance Token

The Need to Distinguish Between Security and Non-Security Virtual AssetsWith the recent enactment of the Virtual Asset User Protection Bill in South Korea, there is a need to lay out criteria for determining whether virtual assets qualify as securities, says Kim Ja-bong, a senior research fellow at the Korea Institute of Finance, in his report titled “The Implications of Determining Which Virtual Assets Constitute Securities and Investor Protection” released on Saturday.Photo by Shubham Dhage on UnsplashThe implications of the Virtual Asset User Protection ActThe Virtual Asset User Protection Act — which will take effect in July of next year — aims to protect customer assets, establish regulations against unfair trading practices, and enforce penalties. Notably, it will target virtual assets that are not securities, deeming it necessary for regulators to determine if virtual assets qualify as securities or not in order to enforce the bill. Assets with characteristics of securities will fall under the jurisdiction of the Capital Markets Act.Therefore, if the Virtual Asset User Protection Act does not provide sufficient investor protection, issuers may be incentivized to issue non-security assets rather than security assets to avoid the regulations of the Capital Markets Act. This further necessitates the act of distinguishing between virtual assets that are securities versus those that are not.Determining if a virtual asset is a security or notThere are two approaches to do this, according to Kim: the passive approach, which avoids considering a virtual asset as a security whenever possible, and the active approach, which treats a virtual asset as a security whenever applicable.He argues that it is better to focus on whether an investment contract qualifies as a security if it is considered an investment contract, rather than simply selecting a specific approach.Furthermore, the nature of virtual assets renders them unbound by national borders, so it is necessary to establish assessment criteria that correspond with international standards, such as those used in the US and Europe.This is especially important because if the criteria differ from international standards, there is a risk of domestic investors suffering damages due to an issuer’s pursuit of regulatory arbitrage between countries.Equitable recognition and potential for security tokensAccording to Kim, the importance of determining whether virtual assets are securities lies in ensuring that security tokens receive the same recognition and trading treatment as traditional securities such as stocks. With such a measure, security token offerings can serve as an efficient and reliable method for raising funds. Although there may be concerns that such a regulation may hinder the development of virtual assets, it may well be an opportunity for security tokens to be qualified and trusted as high-quality financial instruments just like existing securities, Kim claims.Even for virtual assets that are not considered securities, there are many types of assets that are financial in nature, such as e-money tokens — therefore, it is necessary to actively protect investors in non-security virtual assets through financial regulations such as reinforcing disclosure obligations, which is being done in the EU through the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).Empowering regulators for enhanced investor protection and market integrityKim underscored that investor protection and healthy growth of the virtual asset market are made possible mainly through expanding regulators’ authority to protect economic interests and prevent damages. The author also suggested institutional reforms that grant regulators substantial authority, which would enhance their ability to protect investors effectively and provide compensation for damages.He added that regulators should also have the authority to enforce liability for damages or impose civil penalties for unfair trading practices conducted using classified information.

KDIC Seizes Crypto from Debtors Linked to Losses at Financial FirmsDuring the first half of this year, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC) tracked the cryptocurrency holdings of 1,075 individuals and debtors responsible for causing losses at financial entities, including savings banks, according to documents obtained by local news outlet Herald Economy, from the office of lawmaker Kim Han-kyu, a member of the National Assembly’s National Policy Committee. From this scrutiny, KDIC identified 29 wrongful cases and proceeded to confiscate cryptocurrencies in 16 of those instances.KDIC is a semi-state body that has been instrumental in tracing and recovering assets from culpable employees at troubled financial firms and debtors in arrears. Meanwhile, methods for hiding wealth have become more sophisticated, typically unfolding behind the curtain.Photo by Georg Bommeli on UnsplashFirst crypto seizureOut of these individuals, 900 had taken out loans of at least KRW 3 billion ($2.2 million) from beleaguered financial institutions, while the remaining 175 were employees of these institutions, held responsible for their failures. This occasion represents the KDIC’s first seizure of virtual assets.Until recently, the KDIC struggled to reclaim hidden assets funneled into cryptocurrency exchanges, given their limited authority to seek documentation. KDIC’s purview mainly extended to requesting information from public institutions, banks, insurance companies, and securities firms. However, KDIC has now found a way to seize crypto assets by investigating the bank accounts linked to these exchanges. In Korea, crypto exchanges facilitating Korean won trades are legally mandated to secure real-name accounts from banks.Call for expanding KDIC’s authorityGiven the evidence of using cryptocurrencies to conceal wealth, many suggest that amendments to the Depositor Protection Act are necessary, enabling KDIC to directly request relevant data from exchanges and recover more hidden assets effectively.Furthermore in August KDIC secured a court order allowing them to liquidate these assets. Following this successful confiscation, the debtors’ cryptocurrencies have been frozen in their wallets, rendering them unresponsive to any market shifts. Discussions are now underway regarding the method of liquidating the debtors’ cryptocurrencies at market value on exchanges. This includes deliberations on whether KDIC will assume ownership of the cryptocurrencies and directly proceed with their sale.In a chat with Herald Economy, Lawmaker Kim emphasized the need for KDIC to have the authority to access information from virtual asset service providers. This would enable them to more effectively retrieve assets from responsible debtors. Kim further stated that such steps would enhance both the efficiency of debt collection and overall market fairness.

Japan’s GMO Coin Announces Special SGB Airdrop for XRP HoldersGMO Coin, a prominent cryptocurrency exchange operating as part of the Japanese IT conglomerate GMO Internet Group, has unveiled a unique opportunity for XRP holders. Eligible GMO Coin clients who have previously invested in XRP will receive an exclusive airdrop of Songbird (SGB) tokens.Photo by Kanchanara on UnsplashSGB token distributionThe distribution of these SGB tokens is slated for completion by September 29, offering a promising opportunity for XRP enthusiasts. To qualify for this airdrop, customers must have held XRP in their GMO Coin accounts at 09:00 on December 12, 2020. The airdrop is also being extended to those utilizing crypto asset lending services on the platform.To take advantage of the opportunity, eligible clients will need to provide a snapshot of their XRP holdings. While the exact pricing mechanism for the distribution remains undisclosed, it will be revealed at a later date. Presently, SGB is trading at approximately $0.0045, according to Malaysian cryptocurrency data aggregator CoinGecko.GMO Coin has assured its clients that they are free to manage their XRP holdings as they see fit after submitting the necessary proof. The distributions will ultimately be converted into Japanese yen and made available to clients by the end of the month.Ripple’s mixed fortunesThis development comes in the wake of a roller-coaster year for XRP holders. Ripple’s native token experienced substantial price fluctuations in response to various developments and events.One noteworthy instance occurred in mid-July when XRP surged by more than 70%. This surge followed a favorable ruling in a legal dispute between Ripple and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).While regulatory pushback has featured strongly in the US, Ripple has sought to expand its business elsewhere with the Asian region featuring within that strategy. In June, the blockchain-based payments firm obtained in-principle approval from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to offer its services within the city-state.Earlier this month, Ripple struck a deal with SBI Remit Co., a subsidiary of Japanese financial services conglomerate SBI Group, to enable the remittance company to utilize Ripple’s XRP cryptocurrency as a bridge currency, connecting bank accounts in the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia.Songbird networkThe Songbird network serves as a canary blockchain on the Flare layer one network. Essentially, the blockchain plays a crucial role in allowing the facility to enable network architecture testing on the Flare network, including the Flare Time Series Oracle, F-Asset systems, and StateConnector.GMO Financial Holdings, the parent company behind GMO Coin, bought a 10% stake in AWR Capital, a multi-strategy crypto hedge fund, in April. Following that investment, AWR became a market maker at GMO Coin. The Japanese exchange business is ranked ninth on Forbes Digital Assets’ list of the world’s largest crypto exchanges.As GMO Coin prepares to distribute SGB tokens to eligible XRP holders, this airdrop marks a great opportunity for relevant stakeholders. It showcases the platform’s willingness to reward its customers and foster engagement within the crypto community.