DWF Labs Enters Into Strategic Partnership with TRON

Asia has taken the lead, surpassing North America, in terms of being a crypto developer hub according to a recent report. Electric Capital, a venture capital firm based in Silicon Valley in the United States, recently compiled a report centered upon global crypto developer data. Its analysis of the data has led to some interesting findings. Photo by Shubham Dhage on UnsplashNorth America loses its leadElectric Capital General Partner Maria Shen took to the X social media platform on Oct. 30 to provide further details on some key takeaways. In the first instance, Shen points out that North America has lost its lead in terms of crypto developer share, with Asia emerging as the leading region in this respect. Shen stated that “for the first time, Asia is the #1 continent for crypto talent.” Underpinning that claim, she provided data that identifies a drop in North America’s share of crypto developers from 44% in 2015 to 24% in 2024. Within the same timeframe, Asia’s share of crypto developer talent has increased from 13% to 32%. Teasing the data out further, the United States still remains the number one country for crypto devs on a country-by-country basis. It leads this particular metric with 18.8% of the developer talent pool, followed by India with 11.8% and the United Kingdom with 4.2%. A consequence of U.S. regulatory uncertaintyRegulatory uncertainty in the United States has been identified as a contributing factor by some crypto community commentators. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the U.S. has engaged in regulation by enforcement rather than establishing a bespoke regulatory framework for crypto.  This approach has led to SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda calling crypto regulation in the U.S. “a disaster” earlier this month. Others, like Nic Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures, have gone further, describing the approach of the Biden Administration to crypto as “Operation Choke Point 2.0,” suggesting that there is an active plan being implemented to suppress the industry. This negative approach has led many U.S.-headquartered crypto firms to pursue growth opportunities overseas, particularly within centers in Asia and the Middle East such as Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Hong Kong and Singapore. All of these centers have taken the opposite approach, deliberately working towards putting purpose-made regulatory frameworks in place over the course of the past two years, in order to get crypto innovation started on the right footing. Shen underscored the issue from a U.S. perspective, by pointing out that 81% of crypto devs, who are actively playing their part in shaping the future of digital money, live outside the U.S. She highlighted the significance of this, stating: “This is a national security issue & innovation drain for the US.” In a subsequent post, she questioned whether this had come about due to a negative regulatory environment, adding that “the US needs clear crypto policy to maintain its country lead.” 

Cosmose AI, an artificial intelligence-driven retail analytics firm headquartered in Singapore, has opted to collaborate with the Near Foundation with the aspiration of building a blockchain-based payments system centered on low transaction fees as a more cost-efficient alternative to more conventional payments processors like Stripe and PayPal. Payment platform disruptionThe Near Foundation is a non-profit organization responsible for guiding governance, contracting protocol maintainers and funding ecosystem development relative to the proof-of-stake (PoS)-based Near blockchain protocol. In a blog post published to the Cosmose AI website on Sunday, the company set out the extent of its new partnership with the Near Foundation.Cosmose AI uses AI-powered analytics to track in-store foot traffic as a basis to engage with shoppers online. Both companies will work towards building a payment system that facilitates shoppers to purchase goods and services at low transaction fees through cryptocurrency. As part of the deal, Near has made a strategic investment in Cosmose AI, reflecting a Cosmose company valuation of $500 million.In its press release, Cosmose stated that the investment from the Near Foundation means that the Cosmose “is set to apply Web3 principles and further advance the AI-driven retail ecosystem. Cosmose believes that it can leverage Web3 such that users maintain complete control over their data while benefiting from the ecosystem they help to create.The AI-driven company has a suite of retail solutions, including the KaiKai app, which enables retail customers to discover retail stores in their local vicinity. The app also includes an online targeting platform. Both elements are being overhauled with a Web3 facelift, with the Near collaboration enabling the integration of blockchain into the app.KaiKai already settles payments by leveraging Near Protocol with the creation of its own native stablecoin, Kai-Ching. Near Foundation CEO Marieke Flament said that Near will give Cosmose “the means to leverage the full potential of Web3 in a way that is sustainable, transparent, and infinitely scalable.” Moving away from Stripe, PayPalIn an interview with TechCrunch, Cosmose Founder and CEO Miron Mironiuk stated: “ I’m not sure if you know how expensive and slow it is to process online payments. It’s absolutely crazy.” The Near protocol leads with an ability to achieve inexpensive, scalable blockchain transactions. If successful in building this blockchain-based payments system, Cosmose would be in a better position to replace the use of payments service providers like Stripe and PayPal.Mironiuk gave the example of a simple coffee purchase. Small transactions like that can involve transaction fees in excess of 10%. This overhead is reflected in the overall price of the cup of coffee, with the seller passing on the cost to the buyer. In that one isolated example, Mironiuk makes the point that a regular coffee drinker could be spending an additional $200 per year to cover the costs of payments intermediaries.Over the course of nine years, Cosmose has grown to a point where it extends its service to 20 million stores. The firm operates on a global basis, with its team of eighty staff distributed across centers such as Hong Kong, Tokyo, Paris, Shanghai and Warsaw, as well as at its Singapore headquarters.

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.