Dubai Regulator Suspends BitOasis’ Crypto License

Russians will continue to have access to crypto markets despite the application of sanctions, according to a senior Russian official. Impossible to completely block marketThat’s the view of Anton Gorelkin, the deputy head of the State Duma committee on information policy. In a report published by Russian state-owned news agency TASS on March 6, Gorelkin is quoted as stating: "It should be recognized that it is impossible to completely block this market for Russia." Gorelkin added that crypto remains one of the mechanisms through which international sanctions being applied to Russia can be circumvented. Russian firms have increasingly been using Bitcoin and crypto in international trade to circumvent sanctions. The Russian official’s comments come as Russian crypto exchange Garantex has been forced to suspend its services. Last month, the Council of the European Union (EU) had added the exchange to its latest Russian sanctions package. This was part of the EU’s sixteenth sanctions package against Russia since the conflict in Ukraine began. It’s the first time that a crypto exchange has been included within any such sanctions. The EU did so on the assertion that Garantex is “closely associated with EU-sanctioned Russian banks.” Photo by Michael Parulava on UnsplashTether ‘enters war’ against Russian crypto marketThe crypto exchange took the decision to suspend its services following an action taken by leading stablecoin issuer, Tether. Taking to Telegram, the exchange stated: “We have bad news, Tether has entered the war against the Russian crypto market and blocked our wallets worth more than 2.5 billion rubles [$27 million].” The exchange took the opportunity to warn its users that “all USDT in Russian wallets is currently under threat.” Garantex added that it has been the first to be hit with such a measure, but that it won’t be the last. The firm said that it “will fight, and [it] will not give up.”  Tether has been under the spotlight of regulators and governments globally in recent years. In response, it appears to have incorporated the freezing of funds subject to sanctions more recently, with closer cooperation with law enforcement and government agencies. Last year, the company outlined that it planned to freeze funds held in addresses related to countries or companies subject to sanctions. Last September, Tether claimed to have played a role in an operation carried out by the Dutch authorities and U.S. Secret Service that led to the takedown of two crypto exchanges, Cryptex and PM2BTC, who were alleged to have been involved in money laundering. Garantex had already been subject to U.S. sanctions since April 2022. At the time, the U.S. authorities described the exchange as a "ransomware-enabling virtual currency exchange." The firm was originally established in Estonia in 2019. Commenting on the development, Gorelkin stated:  "To the investors who underestimated this risk, my condolences."  He also asserted that the latest round of sanctions will not be the last in attempts to apply pressure on Russian cryptocurrency firms and crypto sector infrastructure within Russia. While he believes that crypto remains a tool to get around sanctions, he stated that “USDT can be safely deleted from this list.”

XRP, the native asset of the XRP Ledger (XRPL), a blockchain network developed by Ripple Labs, is destined for further institutional adoption in Asia due to the launch of the region’s first XRP tracker fund. Crypto-focused institutional asset manager HashKey Capital recently announced the launch of its HashKey XRP Tracker Fund, which has been devised to track the performance of what is the world’s fourth-largest crypto asset by market cap, after Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and U.S. dollar stablecoin Tether (USDT).Photo by Kanchanara on UnsplashEnabling institutional accessThe fund enables investors to gain exposure to XRP without having to take direct ownership and custody of the digital asset. Bitcoin and Ethereum exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have become popular in a number of markets, including the United States, as they allow institutional investors to gain exposure to these digital assets where they may have been uncomfortable with direct ownership due to concerns around custody and counterparty risk or regulatory concerns. According to HashKey’s press release, investors can buy into the fund through cash or in-kind subscription and subscribe or redeem shares monthly. The fund will be measured and compared against a benchmark index provided by CF Benchmarks, a provider of crypto-related indices. HashKey Partner Vivien Wong acknowledged the potential that XRP has in the market, stating:“XRP stands out as one of the most innovative cryptocurrencies in today’s market, attracting global enterprises who use it to transact, tokenize, and store value.”She added that the new fund simplifies access to XRP within the region, while catering to a growing demand for investment opportunities related to digital assets.Potential ETF fund conversionThis marks HashKey’s third product that tracks digital asset pricing, with the company having launched both Bitcoin and Ethereum exchange-traded funds (ETFs) previously. On X, HashKey Capital outlined that the XRP Tracker Fund could potentially evolve into a fully fledged ETF, subject to regulatory approval, within the next 1-2 years. The new fund, which was launched on April 18, also incorporates a strategic partnership with XRP developer Ripple Labs. In what is understood to be the first of a number of collaborations, Ripple will fulfill the role of being the fund’s anchor investor. Ripple’s Managing Director for the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region, Fiona Murray, cited the development as proof that institutional adoption of digital assets continues to go from strength to strength.  Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse stated last month that he expects a number of spot XRP ETFs to be approved in the United States later this year. Earlier in March, analysts at American investment bank JPMorgan had estimated that spot XRP ETF approval in the U.S. could result in net inflows of $8 billion into such products.At the time of writing, XRP was trading at $2.09. The asset has increased in price by 300% over the course of the past 12 months, largely due to a changing regulatory environment in the United States and optimism that a settlement can be reached to end its multi-year legal battle with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

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.