Crypto-Friendly Xapo Bank Enters Indian Market

BitMEX CEO Calls for an End to Internal Market MakersIn a recent interview, Stephan Lutz, the acting CEO and group CFO of 100x Group, the parent company of Seychelles-headquartered global crypto exchange BitMEX, expressed his belief that crypto exchanges should phase out their internal market-making teams.Photo by Joe Roberts on UnsplashProp trading desks unnecessarySpeaking with The Block, Lutz argued that with the growth of institutional liquidity providers and high-frequency traders (HFTs) in the market, proprietary trading desks are becoming unnecessary.Lutz stated: “You have enough HFTs out there and prop shops that can perform that function.” He was referring to the role of liquidity providers in filling gaps in the market. He made these comments in response to the emergence of information earlier this week that raised questions about internal trading practices at Crypto.com, a Singapore-based exchange.BitMEX, once the world’s largest crypto derivatives exchange, also used to employ internal traders who acted as market makers. However, Lutz explained that BitMEX’s internal trading team, named Arrakis Capital, now functions primarily as a “treasury desk.” He sees this transition as a natural evolution for crypto exchanges in a market that has matured and attracted more institutional liquidity providers.Arrakis Capital currently performs limited functions, including converting commission fees earned in Bitcoin into fiat currency for operational purposes, hedging BitMEX’s exposure to tokens held as inventory, and making markets for BitMEX’s token $BMEX. Lutz clarified that Arrakis’s market-making activities are limited because external market makers find the token’s liquidity insufficient.Regarding profitability, Lutz stated that Arrakis earns “very minor returns” of up to $100,000 per month from holding T-Bills, but it incurred losses last year. He noted that Arrakis used to play a more significant market-making role when BitMEX dominated the crypto futures market. However, he assured that the trading desk was always segregated, despite accusations in the past.Fee structuresLutz acknowledged that exchanges with internal trading teams have faced increased scrutiny since the controversies surrounding Alameda Research and FTX. To differentiate between benign internal trading teams and hedge fund-like operations, Lutz highlighted several factors, including the separation of client funds and house funds, access to sensitive data, and the ability to move markets on their own exchange. Fee structures also play a role, with low or no transaction fees potentially signaling a market-making motive rather than serving as a counterparty.Lutz’s perspective suggests that crypto exchanges should rely on external liquidity providers and HFTs rather than maintaining internal market-making teams. He argues that the market has evolved. At this point he feels that these teams are no longer necessary, due to the presence of established players within the digital assets space.As regulatory scrutiny grows, ensuring transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest become crucial for maintaining trust within the crypto exchange ecosystem. The digital assets industry is far from arriving at a mature stage in its development. While many in the industry have found the stance taken by regulators to be unhelpful, the industry itself must also demonstrate its ability to iteratively move towards best practice, without that being a knee-jerk response to regulatory enforcement.

Ripple Pursues International Growth Via Dubai ExpansionThe Dubai Fintech Summit was held in the Venice of the Gulf earlier this week, bringing with it an announcement from Ripple outlining its plans to expand in the Middle Eastern location.Photo by Christoph Schulz on UnsplashResponding to the regulatory environmentRipple CEO Brad Garlinghouse was a keynote speaker at the Summit on Monday, and he took that opportunity to outline the company’s plans within the region. Immediately following his speech, Garlinghouse took to social media to confirm those plans. He tweeted out:“As I just shared on stage at #DubaiFintechSummit, @Ripple is expanding in Dubai. With 20% of our customers based in MENA and clear regulatory regimes being developed, it’s no surprise that Dubai is emerging as a key global financial hub for crypto innovation to thrive.”It’s no coincidence that at the very same event, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong was present alongside the company’s executive team. Armstrong also spoke at the event and the outcome of that involvement saw Coinbase too, signaling that it sees potential in setting up a regional base in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).In Coinbase’s case, it’s understood that it is considering the Emirate of Abu Dhabi as opposed to Dubai. Nonetheless, the rationale for pursuing such a move by both leading digital assets companies is the same. Both have been outspoken about the issues they have with the regulatory situation as it exists in the United States right now, relative to digital assets.Office presenceAs an initial step in that Middle East expansion, Ripple is opening an office in Dubai. The office will be located within the Dubai International Financial Centre (DFIC). In what appears like an effort to underscore the company’s official arrival in the United Arab Emirates, Ripple is holding its seventh annual customer conference in the country’s capital later this year.This week, Garlinghouse confirmed that the company’s prolonged legal battle with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States is projected to cost the company a whopping $200 million. The Biden administration is using all the major financial agencies in the US to clamp down on the sector. It’s little wonder, therefore, that companies like Ripple and Coinbase are seeking refuge overseas.That regulatory and administrative landscape in the United States relative to crypto stands in total contrast to the experience of Navin Gupta, Ripple’s Managing Director of South Asia & MENA in respect of the UAE. In an interview with CoinDesk TV Gupta said that the “UAE as a market is very attractive to us, the Middle East as a market is doing very well.”Gupta drew on his experience in working in Silicon Valley previously and recalling how back then it had three ingredients that made it function that he believes is now the case for the UAE: talent, venture capital investment and a workable regulatory approach.

Bank of Japan Publishes Results of CBDC PoCThe Bank of Japan (BoJ) recently concluded the second phase of its central bank digital currency (CBDC) proof of concept (PoC) project, which began in April. The results of this phase were published on Monday, and they shed light on key aspects such as the comparison between account-based and token-based CBDCs and the management of holding limits for users with multiple accounts.Photo by Manuel Cosentino on UnsplashToken-based CBDCsThe experiments conducted by the central bank covered a wide range of topics. Among the most intriguing findings were the advantages and disadvantages of token-based CBDCs and how to effectively impose holding limits for users with multiple CBDC balances.Token-based CBDCs have garnered interest from various central banks, with some adopting the UTXO token model used by Bitcoin without the use of a distributed ledger. A UTXO or unspent transaction output, defines where a blockchain transaction starts and finishes. The Bank of Japan explored this model and analyzed its pros and cons.In the initial proof of concept, both account-based and token-based CBDCs were examined, considering scenarios where the central bank managed the ledger or shared it with intermediaries like banks. In the token-based model, fixed token denominations were used, similar to physical cash in countries like India, and a centralized ledger was employed. However, in the recent phase, the central bank utilized flexible value tokens similar to UTXO and shared ledger functions with intermediaries.The Bank of Japan favored the flexible value token model due to its ability to handle multiple requests simultaneously. However, it acknowledged that this model may require more technical resources compared to the account-based approach. Challenges may arise when implementing additional functions, such as holding limits, while maintaining optimal performance. The European Central Bank (ECB) also noted in a recent report that most payment providers are accustomed to account-based payments and would incur costs to adapt to token-based systems.Another significant aspect explored by the BoJ was how to impose holding limits when users have multiple CBDC balances through different intermediaries. The challenge lies in determining if the overall holding limit has been breached without compromising user privacy.Homomorphic encryptionOne possible solution discussed in the report is the use of homomorphic encryption, which enables computations to be performed on encrypted data without it first needing to be decrypted. That allows for the necessary checks without intermediaries accessing the specific data being checked. Although this solution may slightly increase processing time, it could introduce a higher risk of data inconsistencies.Alternatively, a simpler approach proposed by the central bank is to establish a per-account holding limit and a limit on the number of accounts a single user can hold, rather than imposing global limits. Ideally, users with multiple accounts would have a higher per-account holding limit compared to those with fewer accounts.Phase 3 underwayWith the next pilot phase already underway, the BoJ aims to test the end-to-end process flow and identify challenges related to integrating with external systems. Additionally, they are creating a CBDC Forum to gather input from the private sector, ensuring a collaborative approach to CBDC development.While investigation and research into CBDCs continues, the BoJ has said that it will make a final decision on CBDC implementation by 2026.