BitMEX CEO Calls for an End to Internal Market Makers

Bitget Report Finds Gen Z Dominates Crypto Copy TradingA recent report by Bitget, the Seychelles-headquartered crypto exchange, sheds light on the growing trend of copy trading among younger investors, particularly Gen Z.Photo by rc.xyz NFT gallery on Unsplash44% under 25The report, released on Thursday, reveals that an impressive 44% of all copy traders on the platform are under the age of 25, indicating a strong inclination among this generation towards this type of investment and trading strategy.Copy trading, or social trading, involves emulating the trading activities of established investors. Bitget’s findings indicate that the younger demographic is more receptive to this approach, with individuals aged 25 to 35 constituting just under one-third of all copy traders. Comparatively, individuals aged 35 to 55 represented 17% of copy traders, while those over 55 constituted a mere 7%.Reliance on influencersInterestingly, this trend aligns with Generation Z’s penchant for seeking advice from social media influencers. Bitget’s report highlights that Gen Z’s tendency to turn to these influencers for investment decisions could be a driving factor behind their affinity for copy trading.A survey by Forbes Advisor in January found that approximately 80% of both Gen Z and millennials rely on financial advice from social media platforms. Notably, platforms like YouTube, Reddit, and TikTok have gained their trust, with half of the respondents claiming to have profited from advice received.The report also reinforces crypto’s status as the preferred investment choice among Gen Z. A joint study by the CFA Institute and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Foundation in May revealed that crypto was the most popular investment option for Gen Z in the United States, a striking 44% of Gen Z investors initiated their investment journey with cryptocurrencies, surpassing the 35% of millennials who did the same.Geographical differencesThe trend extends beyond the US, with 43% of British and 35% of Canadian Gen Z investors indicating crypto as their inaugural investment.Geographically, Bitget’s report showcases intriguing patterns among its copy-trading user base. While nearly a third of users hail from Western Europe, almost half originate from East or Southeast Asia. This distribution highlights the global reach of the platform and the appeal of copy trading across diverse regions.Of note, despite constituting only 1% of Bitget’s global copy traders, a remarkable 62% of African users expressed interest in copy trading. This proportion stands as the highest among all regions surveyed, reflecting a growing appetite for innovative investment methods on the African continent.Bitget’s report underscores the evolving landscape of investment practices, with Generation Z at the forefront of embracing new approaches like copy trading. It also builds on prior initiatives and research undertaken by the firm. In May Bitget launched a corporate social responsibility (CSR) project titled “Blockchain4Youth.” That initiative revealed that Bitget understands that the younger generation is where the greatest opportunity for mass market adoption lies for crypto and Web3.As the influence of social media on financial decisions continues to rise, the crypto industry may see further shifts in investment patterns and strategies among different demographic groups.

NFTs not subject to South Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection ActIn anticipation of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act coming into effect in July of next year, the South Korean Financial Services Commission (FSC) has issued an advance notice regarding its subordinate statutes.Photo by Ethan Brooke on UnsplashSeven specific provisionsThe subsidiary regulations under the Act detail seven specific provisions aligned with the Act’s objectives. Firstly, assets categorized as electronic securities, mobile vouchers, deposit tokens backed by the Bank of Korea’s central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) will not be classified as virtual assets and hence, not regulated by this Act. However, in instances where NFTs are used as a means of payment for specific goods or services, they will be regarded as virtual assets.Secondly, banks will take responsibility for managing the deposits of users on cryptocurrency exchanges. This aligns with the Act’s requirement for virtual asset service providers (VASPs) to keep users’ funds separate from their own, either by depositing them in, or entrusting them to, reputable institutions. Under these regulations, banks are required to manage users’ assets in a manner consistent with how investors’ deposits are handled under the Capital Markets Act. This means that banks are allowed to invest VASP users’ assets only in secure instruments, such as state and local government bonds, and are also obligated to pay fees to deposit owners, taking into account the yields of these investments.80% of user assets in cold walletsThe third key aspect of the regulations is that VASPs are required to store a minimum of 80% of user assets in cold wallets, which are not connected to the internet. This is higher than the current requirement of 70%, enhancing the security measures for users of virtual assets. To calculate the total value of a virtual asset at any given time, its total supply is multiplied by its average daily price over the past year. VASPs are obligated to assess the value of virtual assets every month.The fourth regulation mandates that VASPs must enroll in an insurance plan, contribute to a rainy day fund or accumulate reserves. This is to ensure they can fulfill their compensation responsibilities in the event of incidents like security breaches or technical failures. The required preparation amount is set at a minimum of 5% of the user assets stored in hot wallets, as these are more susceptible to risks. VASPs are required to update their compensation thresholds or reserves monthly and must take any necessary actions to comply with these requirements by the next working day following the update.Information disclosure guidelinesAnother regulation addresses the issue of insider trading in the context of the virtual asset market. Under the current Capital Markets Act, information is considered disclosed when it’s made available through disclosure systems of the FSC or the Korea Exchange (KRX). However, since the cryptocurrency market lacks a similar system, the new statute provides criteria for determining when information is deemed disclosed.For instance, if a VASP, including exchanges, releases crucial information about a virtual asset on an exchange and six hours pass, that information is regarded as disclosed. This acknowledges the non-stop nature of the crypto market. Moreover, information disclosed post 6 p.m. is treated as officially disclosed after 9 a.m. the next day.Additionally, if a virtual asset issuer publishes significant information about its token on a website hosting its white paper, the information is deemed public after one day. This is conditional upon the website being publicly accessible and having consistently provided important token information for the preceding six months.These rules aim to provide clarity and fairness in information disclosure in the crypto market, adapting the principles of traditional financial markets to the unique dynamics of virtual assets.No arbitrary suspension of transactionsThe sixth regulation restricts VASPs from arbitrarily halting deposits and withdrawals of virtual assets unless there are justifiable reasons for such actions. Acceptable circumstances for suspending these transactions include situations where the VASP experiences a technical disruption in its system, where regulatory authorities instruct a VASP to cease deposits and withdrawals or where cyberattacks or similar incidents have occurred or are clearly imminent.Lastly, virtual asset exchanges are required to monitor for abnormal transactions continuously. These are transactions that show substantial shifts in the prices or trading volumes of virtual assets, particularly in response to news or rumors that could influence cryptocurrency prices. If VASPs suspect unfair trading practices, they must report to the FSC or the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS). When there is ample evidence of such activities, crypto exchanges are obligated to notify the police or the prosecutors’ office. In addition, the financial regulator has the authority to levy fines based on the prosecution’s decisions or after completing consultations with the prosecution if a year has passed since the day of the report.During the period of advance notice, which spans from Nov. 11 to Jan. 22, the FSC will seek comments from relevant organizations, experts and businesses. This process is aimed at refining the rules and regulations subordinate to the Virtual Asset User Protection Act. Moving forward, the financial authorities plan to publish a set of guidelines and Q&A materials and conduct explanatory sessions, with the goal of ensuring a smooth implementation of the Act.

Terraform Labs seeks summary judgment to dismiss SEC allegationsLawyers representing bankrupt Singaporean crypto firm Terraform Labs and its co-founder, Do Kwon, have requested a summary judgment from a New York judge in their legal battle against the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).If granted, such a dismissal could potentially spare them from a full-blown trial. In their motion, the legal team argued vehemently that they are innocent of the SEC’s allegations, maintaining that the regulator has failed to provide any compelling evidence of wrongdoing.Photo by Bermix Studio on UnsplashDefining a securityThe motion, which was filed last Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserts that the implicated cryptocurrencies of Terra Classic (LUNC), TerraClassicUSD (USTC) and Mirror Protocol (MIR), together with its Mirrored assets (mAssets), are not securities as claimed by the SEC in its complaint.The heart of the matter revolves around the SEC’s assertion that Terraform Labs offered or sold securities, a claim vehemently denied by the defendants. The SEC initially brought the case in February, referencing algorithmic stablecoin TerraUSD, which famously collapsed in May 2022.Lawyers claim case is unsubstantiatedBoth Kwon and Terraform Labs’ attorneys argued that despite over two years of investigation, more than 20 depositions, and the exchange of a staggering two million pages of documents, the SEC’s case remains unsubstantiated.The SEC’s original complaint in February accused Kwon and Terraform of raising substantial sums from investors by offering and selling an inter-connected suite of crypto asset securities, many of which were unregistered transactions. SEC Chair Gary Gensler added that Terraform and Kwon had failed to provide investors with full disclosures, notably concerning LUNA and TerraUSD.A key element of the dispute centers on the SEC’s allegation that Kwon and Terraform moved millions of dollars into Swiss bank accounts for personal gain. According to the agency’s complaint, the company and Kwon transferred 10,000 bitcoins to a financial institution based in Switzerland. The legal team representing Kwon and Terraform vehemently denies this allegation, characterizing it as baseless and unfounded.Flawed stablecoin designAlgorithmic stablecoins, such as TerraUSD, operate using market incentives via algorithms to maintain a stable price. Terra was tied to Luna, a governance token, in an attempt to stabilize prices. Unfortunately, the collapse of TerraUSD in 2022 destroyed in excess of $40 billion in value held by investors. It also had a domino effect, leading to a series of other crypto platform collapses later in 2022.Judge Jed Rakoff, presiding over the case in the Southern District of New York, had previously denied an attempt by Terraform Labs and Kwon to have the case dismissed. This new motion for summary judgment represents their latest effort to put an end to the legal proceedings.In a separate but related action, lawyers representing Terraform Labs Co-Founder Daniel Shin asserted that Shin played no role in the collapse of TerraUSD. In a Seoul district court, they emphasized that Shin had nothing to do with the collapse despite being indicted in South Korea in April on various charges, including fraud.