Singapore Looks to Prohibit Crypto Lending and Staking

The Legal Future of South Korea’s Crypto Industry: Necessary Legislation and SystemsA recent National Assembly symposium organized by South Korea’s Digital Asset Policy Forum brought experts together to discuss the challenges and prospects of the implementation of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act at the National Assembly Members’ Office Building in Seoul on Tuesday.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashInternational modelsReferences were made to global examples, such as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) — the world’s first standalone virtual asset legislation enacted in the EU — which ensures transparency, disclosure, authorization, and supervision of crypto-asset transactions. However, unlike the capital market, MiCA does not impose regular disclosure reporting requirements or corrections on them. Firms in Japan, on the other hand, are asked to provide disclosure under autonomous regulation through the Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association (JVCEA).Notably, in its recent Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets Consultation Report, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) states that it is “seeking to encourage optimal consistency in the way crypto-asset markets and securities markets are regulated within individual IOSCO jurisdictions, in accordance with the principle of ‘same activities, same risks, same regulatory outcomes’.” This principle refers to the concept that any crypto-asset activity that has a similar function and poses similar risks to those in the traditional financial system — such as operating a trading platform or providing custody services — is subject to regulation that ensures equivalent outcomes, as defined by the UK Parliament.The IOSCO report also suggests that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) should disclose information regarding ownership and control of crypto-assets, issuer and business-related information, issuer management teams, transaction history and operational description of crypto-assets, token ownership concentration, transfer protocols, and a given CASP’s treatment of the client crypto-assets and their respective rights and entitlements during events like hard forks and airdrops.Hurdles to overcomeExperts at the forum reflected these considerations in their sentiments. Han Suh-hee, a lawyer at Barun Law Firm, emphasized that it is important to determine what kind of information should be disclosed. She argued that it is necessary to discuss to what extent information about virtual asset issuers should be disclosed and whether mandating firms to disclose their financial and business conditions is efficient.In particular, Han underlined the need to consider the differences between virtual assets and stocks when establishing a framework for the disclosure of virtual assets holdings. Unlike stocks, virtual assets possess distinctive characteristics like their borderless and decentralized nature, unclear issuer backgrounds, and the ability to conduct peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions.Lee Han-jin, a lawyer at Kim & Chang Law Firm, added that the enactment of Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act was aimed at establishing a system directly targeted at regulating virtual assets and virtual asset service operators (VASPs) — a significant development from the Financial Transaction Reporting Act, which had until now been the only legal framework responsible for regulating VASPs along with other entities like casino business operators. Virtual assets are now subject to a more systematized regulatory approach.However, he said that the Virtual Asset User Protection Act still has its setbacks because it is undergoing a two-stage legislative process. Lee criticized the fact that the same definition of VASPs outlined in the Financial Transaction Reporting Act had been brought over, which limits their identity to transaction intermediaries, wallet operators, and custodians while overlooking their other roles like crypto management, crypto deposits, and crypto collective investments.Lee also pointed out another weakness: the scope of prohibition on using undisclosed information and market manipulation is broader in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act than in the Capital Markets Act. He argued that enforcement decrees should stipulate the definition of insiders and exceptional cases when deliberating on the prohibition of insider virtual asset trading.Lee thus emphasized the need for a clear definition of virtual assets in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, as it is yet unclear whether they are objects or assets. All things considered, he believes there must be a law that can encompass blockchain-based decentralization, outline the similarities and differences between digital assets and financial products, and accommodate new services that utilize smart contracts.“We are in the process of creating a regulatory system similar to those being adopted in other countries based on their respective markets,” said Lee Seok-ran, head of the Financial Innovation Bureau at the Financial Services Commission (FSC). “Unlike the stock market, which is equipped with regulations to prevent fraudulent transactions and misconduct, virtual assets are traded on multiple exchanges, so we are considering how to interpret unfair trading activities and conduct market surveillance.”She explained that the commission is prioritizing user protection measures and subordinate regulations. “I believe we will be able to create a system for subordinate regulations on disclosure once an overall global trajectory is established. But before that happens, we are working on guidelines for defining unfair trading activities with regulators and the Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA).” Unfair trading activities associated with virtual assets include not only those conducted on exchanges but also under other circumstances.The FSC officer said that the financial authority is set to establish legal criteria to distinguish cases such as false statements in white papers of crypto projects. She added that enforcement decrees will define both the conditions for restricting deposits and withdrawals on crypto exchanges and the corresponding limits.

Indian Crypto Platform Mudrex Expands Operations in ItalyMudrex, the Indian cryptocurrency investment platform, has achieved a new milestone by successfully registering to operate in Italy.News of Mudrex’s move into the Italian market emerged via a press release published on Tuesday, as well as through an interview given recently by CEO and Co-Founder Edul Patel to CoinDesk. The expansion into Italy marks a rare international move for Indian crypto entities, which have faced challenges due to stringent taxation policies and the global crypto market’s fluctuations.Photo by Mathew Schwartz on UnsplashGlobal expansion planPatel unveiled Mudrex’s ambitious plan for global expansion, with half of the team actively working on international initiatives. The firm’s journey into the Italian market involved gaining approval for registration with Italy’s Organismo Agenti e Mediatori (OAM), a crucial step for crypto firms operating in the country. This registration, granted on September 1, was a strategic move that the company had been carefully planning. Patel explained:“We just wanted some time to pass after the approval before we made the news public.”Coin Sets and thematic indexesDespite having only one million registered users, Mudrex stands out as one of India’s largest crypto platforms. It offers a unique investment approach, focusing on index investing through Coin Sets, an innovative alternative to speculative trading. These Coin Sets encompass various categories, including small, mid, and large-cap assets, as well as Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH). Additionally, Mudrex provides thematic indexes that cover layer one and layer two solutions, NFTs, metaverse projects, and Dow trackers.“While India is our home and where we initially grew, our international customers have told us that investment products in their regions lack diversity,” Patel noted. “We believe that our product is unique and offers distinct advantages.”Mudrex was established in 2018 in Bengaluru while also establishing an office in San Francisco. Alongside Patel, its other Founders included Alankar Saxena as CTO, Rohit Goyal in the role of VP of DeFi, and Prince Arora as VP of Engineering.In 2021 it raised $2.5 million in funding with a view towards launching crypto mutual funds and ETFs. It followed that up in 2022 when it raised $6.5 million in a pre-series A funding round, supported by Y-Combinator, Arkham Ventures, and Tribe Capital.The firm participated in what has become a crypto platform trend over recent months by incorporating an AI chatbot into its platform in June to assist platform users when it comes to learning about crypto.Lithuanian trading licenseMudrex’s expansion into Italy was facilitated by the company’s prior fulfillment of EU operating requirements. The company had obtained a license in Lithuania less than a year ago, enabling it to navigate the EU regulatory landscape efficiently. During the six months of pursuing registration in Italy, Mudrex’s presence in the EU grew substantially, with user numbers increasing from approximately 5,000 to 17,000.With its foothold established in Italy, Mudrex now seeks to make its investment products accessible through various registered entities, including banking partner apps. Patel confirmed ongoing discussions with potential partners, further signaling the company’s commitment to expanding its global footprint.

Hodlnaut to proceed to liquidationCryptocurrency lender Hodlnaut, based in Singapore, is set to undergo liquidation, according to former interim judicial managers, Aaron Lee and Angela Ee.The High Court of Singapore has lifted the protection order it had put in place in respect of the business and efforts to restructure it in August 2022. The decision, formalized with a winding-up order filed on Friday in the High Court, follows a period of trading in 2022 when the company incurred losses of approximately $189 million due to the collapse of the Terra ecosystem in May 2022.The liquidators, tasked with providing regular updates to the more than 17,000 creditors, will oversee the process. Hodlnaut’s crypto assets, amounting to $13.3 million, were locked on FTX before the exchange froze withdrawals and declared bankruptcy last November. Despite a rejected restructuring plan earlier this year, the creditors opted for liquidation, deeming it more favorable to their interests. Aaron Lee and Angela Ee will now act as the appointed liquidators, overseeing the winding-up process under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act of 2018.Photo by Hu Chen on UnsplashCreditors favored liquidationAt an early stage, Hodlnaut founders Simon Lee and Zhu Juntao were in favor of a business sale as a preferable alternative to liquidation. Back in February, there appeared to be some potential of a sale, with several buyers having indicated an interest in the business. The identity of these interested parties was never revealed and the interim judicial managers of the restructuring process later confirmed that no “white knight” had emerged to buy out the business.It became clear in April of this year that creditors preferred liquidation as opposed to attempting to restructure the business. The Algorand Foundation is a leading creditor, with a $35 million exposure to Hodlnaut. In a court filing in April, the Algorand Foundation, alongside other leading creditors Samtrade Custodian Limited and S.A.M. Fintech Pte Ltd., were noted as being opposed to a restructuring.OPNX bidIn August it emerged that controversial crypto claims trading platform OPNX, owned by Three Arrows Capital’s (3AC) Kyle Davies and Su Zhu alongside Mark and Leslie Lamb from CoinFLEX, was mounting a bid for Hodlnaut.OPNX had proposed to provide a capital injection of $30 million. The proposal outlined that this investment would be made in the form of FLEX tokens, the native token of the CoinFLEX platform.Following consideration by the interim judicial managers overseeing Hodlnaut’s restructuring process, it decided not to take up the offer. It was decided that the FLEX tokens had a speculative value and that they were highly illiquid.Additionally, no clear timeline had been provided by OPNX in respect of the repayment of creditors’ debts. Furthermore, the proposal was found to be scant on detail, particularly with regard to payments which were limited to 30% of liabilities. In August the FLEX token experienced a large drop, falling 90% in value.