Bullish Market Analysis Finding as Asia Doubles Crypto Users

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.

BNP Paribas Partners With Chinese in Digital Yuan PushThe Chinese authorities continue with their sustained efforts to promote use of the digital yuan, on this occasion by hooking up with French international banking group, BNP Paribas.According to the South China Morning Post (SCMP) on Friday, the partnership will see BNP Paribas collaborating with the Bank of China (BOC) to promote the digital yuan to its corporate clients. The digital yuan or e-CNY is a digital representation of the Chinese sovereign currency, issued by the BOC.Photo by Eric Prouzet on Unsplashe-CNY system accessAs part of the arrangement, BNP Paribas China will connect into the BOCs system, accessing an e-CNY management system. The BOC has authorized ten banks in China including the four state-owned banks, all of which are domestic lenders, to deal with its digital currency business.The direct e-CNY system access enables straight-through processing, allowing BNP Paribas to offer digital wallet functionality to its corporate clients relative to the digital yuan. Essentially, the system will allow BNP Paribas China’s corporate clients to link their bank accounts with an accompanying digital wallet. Other functionality that will be enabled as a consequence includes access to smart contract applications through the m-CBDC bridge (central bank digital currency).BNP Paribas China CEO CG Lai commented on the partnership: “While this collaboration can supplement the Bank’s offline payment collection capabilities and further optimize our clients’ account structure, this also reinforced the Bank’s commitment to the China market.” Lai outlined that the bank intends to enhance customer service capabilities by pursuing digital innovation that, like in this instance, contributes to China’s economic development.Louise Zhang, Head of BNP Paribas China Transaction Banking claimed that the partnership will “provide innovative, efficient cash management and trade financing services to local and multinational clients.”CBDC developmentThere has been a lot of activity in recent years when it comes to the development of CBDCs. The central banks of most nations have carried out some level of preparatory or investigative work relative to a digital currency. However, China has been by far the leader in its development of a CBDC.The BOC first began research into a digital currency in 2014. The country’s State Council approved the development of the digital yuan in partnership with China’s commercial banks in 2017. Beyond initial development, a testing phase began in 2019 with the project known as the Digital Currency Electronic Payment (DCEP) system emerging as the first version of the digital yuan after a number of years of development.In 2020, the BOC began more extensive testing of the digital currency in four Chinese cities — Shenzhen, Suzhou, Chengdu and Xiong’an. To promote use of the currency at that time, they offered free digital yuan to residents of those cities to spend, in that way, stepping up efforts to popularize the digital currency.Last month, the administrators of the Chinese city of Xuzhou announced that it was in the process of publishing a pilot scheme which will set out a means for promoting China’s e-CNY digital currency. Also in April, the eastern city of Changshu clarified that it is gearing up to commence paying state employees in the city in e-CNY. According to an announcement made by the city’s finance bureau the civil servants will start to receive e-CNY as payment in May.

A Chinese creditor of failed crypto exchange FTX has filed an objection on his own behalf and that of 300 others, with a U.S. bankruptcy court against a motion lodged with a view towards excluding payouts to creditors resident in China, Russia and 47 other foreign jurisdictions.Photo by Mariia Shalabaieva on UnsplashPotential distribution forfeitureThe FTX Recovery Trust, an entity formed in January to oversee the FTX bankruptcy estate following the adoption of a plan of reorganization, filed a motion last week seeking the approval of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in the United States to adhere to new parameters related to the claims of creditors residing in restricted overseas jurisdictions. Besides China and Russia, the list of restricted jurisdictions also includes many within the Asian region, including  Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Macau, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Qatar, Bangladesh and Cambodia. The FTX estate claims that these jurisdictions have regulations and laws restricting cryptocurrency transactions. In such cases, the FTX Recovery Trust claims that it cannot break local laws.  The difficulty for creditors resident in these countries is that if it's deemed illegal to reimburse them, they won’t qualify for the next scheduled distribution from the estate. In that instance, distribution forfeiture will be triggered. Taking to X on July 7, FTXcreditor.com, an entity that has been buying up bankruptcy claims from FTX creditors over the course of the FTX bankruptcy process, highlighted the peril that creditors residing in these restricted countries may face. It stated: “Distribution forfeiture is triggered at every distribution record date. The first record date already passed, if your claim is still tied to a local KYC when the stamp drops, that tranche is potentially gone.” Short timeframe for objectionsMr. Purple, a pseudonymous distressed assets bankruptcy professional who has been advocating for FTX creditors since the collapse of the business in November 2022, concurred with this view in a subsequent post on X. He pointed out that an extremely short timeframe has been given to affected creditors to respond. The motion was filed on July 2 and objections are due by July 15. $500 million in claims are at stake which accounts for 5% of all creditor claims. Of this, 82% of these claims belong to Chinese creditors. In a series of follow-up posts, the bankruptcy professional describes several procedural issues that he believes will result in it being incredibly difficult for affected creditors to have their funds reimbursed.Mr. Purple concludes:”The incentives are designed to be extremely risk averse in finding [a legal opinion] that paying creditors is legal! [The estate’s lawyers will] take the fees and say its not legal.” In his court filing, the Chinese creditor, who is resident in Singapore, stated: “My family holds four KYC-verified accounts with aggregate claims exceeding $15 million USD.” . . . “We have fully complied with every procedural requirement under the Plan. The proposed motion now jeopardizes our right to distribution in an arbitrary and inequitable manner.” On X, he asserted that the FTX Recovery Trust’s motion “constitutes an impermissible and material modification of the Plan.” Aside from legal action, the only other potential solution for creditors residing in restricted countries is to sell their claims. However, claims buyers are pricing in greater risk with lower rates and less favorable terms.