Crypto.com Plans to Launch Its Services in South Korea This Year

Shots Fired in New OKX Ad CampaignGlobal crypto spot and derivatives exchange OKX has launched a daring ad campaign that sets US-based rival exchange Coinbase firmly in its cross hairs.The formerly Chinese and now Seychelles-based exchange has pushed out a global ad campaign along the following theme: “The system doesn’t need an upgrade; it needs a rewrite.” The ads were launched on Tuesday, pointing out the ills of the traditional, centralized financial system.Photo by Merakist on UnsplashCrypto exchange rivalryThe advert doesn’t explicitly call out its rival, Coinbase. However, it is nuanced in taking a subtle dig at the US-based exchange. Exactly two months prior, on March 9, Coinbase released its own ad campaign. Coinbase claimed in its ad that “it’s time to update the system,” with OKX’s subsequent commercial having been carefully worded to poke fun at the Coinbase commercial.With a number of high profile epic failures of crypto businesses over the past twelve months, including the fall of FTX, the remaining exchanges in the business have been tripping over themselves in an effort to convince the alternative asset-investing public that theirs is the safest platform upon which they can securely trade.In its sixty second commercial, OKX poses the question “why don’t we change everything?”, set up by its claim that the conventional finance system is broken.The last of the big spendersThere’s been a notable change of strategy in the marketing activities of crypto businesses since the height of the last crypto bull run. Gone are the marketing excesses exemplified most by the now bankrupt FTX exchange.FTX demonstrated itself to be a profligate spender on all manner and means of marketing, particularly during 2021 and 2022. It paid Wall Street investor and Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary $15 million to be a spokesperson for the company. Similar deals were struck with a range of celebrities including former NBA star Shaquille O’Neal, NFL stars such as former New England Patriots quarterback, Tom Brady, and a host of others.At the height of its marketing opulence, the fraudulently run firm signed a $135 million sponsorship deal that provided it with the naming rights to the home stadium of the NBA’s Miami Heat. 2022's Super Bowl, one of the world’s largest single marketing opportunities, saw FTX and others pay out big on advertising spend.By contrast, this year’s Super Bowl was almost a complete washout as far as crypto business participation was concerned. Meanwhile, all of the celebrities that featured in FTX’s marketing activities have found themselves the subject of multi-million dollar class action lawsuits filed by FTX creditors.A more sobering marketing strategyDespite the reputational damage that crypto has suffered due to these high profile failures, firms like OKX and Coinbase have continued to maintain a responsible level of advertising and marketing activity.That’s best exemplified by OKX’s ongoing marketing relationships with McLaren’s Formula One racing team and Manchester City Football Club. In March, US-based crypto exchange Kraken announced a marketing partnership with the Williams Formula One racing team.Crypto.com is probably the only crypto firm that spent excessively during the last bull run yet has continued to maintain a relatively high level of marketing activity. Much of that may have been due to commitments it had made during a more buoyant market. Notwithstanding that, the firm did fall foul of the UK advertising regulator, who banned its NFT promotion in December 2022.

Hong Kong to Issue Digital Asset Licensing Guidelines in MayAccording to Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), the Commission will issue new guidelines for virtual asset exchanges within the Chinese autonomous special administrative region (SAR).© Pexels/Jimmy ChanSFC CEO Julia Leung made that announcement while speaking at an event in the city on Thursday, indicating that the guidelines are due to be released next month. Additionally the autonomous region intends to introduce a new licensing system from June 1 onwards, enabling the retail investors among Hong Kong’s populace to trade leading cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum.Hong Kong authorities had provided an insight into this approach back in February, when plans to provide retail access to digital assets were first set out. At the time, they outlined the need for retail customers to pass a knowledge test relative to digital assets or otherwise only being allowed to trade such assets once the customer had completed a certain level of training relative to digital assets, provided by a regulated crypto service provider.This latest announcement has arrived amid a backdrop of a series of recent indications that signify the intent of authorities in Hong Kong to make the autonomous region a major financial hub centered around digital assets.Leung articulated that the further development of this digital assets framework follows a consultation process that attracted more than 150 responses. Although virtual asset service providers (VASPs) will need to await the complete rollout of the licensing system, a handful of crypto businesses such as OSL and Hashkey, under the supervision of the Hong Kong regulator, have already started to offer their services.Crypto as propertyA Hong Kong court recently recognized cryptocurrency as property. The ruling emerged in a bankruptcy hearing pertaining to failed cryptocurrency exchange Gatecoin. In presiding over the case, Justice Linda Chan outlined that the autonomous region takes a broad view of what constitutes property. In finding crypto to meet the definition of property, she went on to clarify that it therefore has the capability of being held in trust.The finding has particular relevance in the crypto world right now given the consequences of an “in trust” custodianship of customer’s digital assets relative to numerous ongoing bankruptcy processes involving failed crypto businesses, and the pecking order of creditors in those instances, in their efforts to recover their digital assets.Positive approachWhile mainland China remains an adverse territory relative to digital assets, Hong Kong has taken to welcoming the sector and with that, enticing crypto firms to relocate to the autonomous region from the mainland. Leadership in the city has been making all the right soundings to demonstrate that it is actively trying to nurture the nascent sector.While recent months have seen the Biden administration in the United States attempt to close off banking from the crypto sector, in contrast, Hong Kong’s largest virtual bank, ZA Bank, was recently given permission to act as a settlement bank for regulated Web3 businesses located within Hong Kong.

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.