Laos to Prioritize Blockchain for Digital Transformation

A Beijing-headquartered venture capital firm has invested $30 million in Hong Kong’s HashKey Exchange. That’s according to a report published by Bloomberg on Feb. 14, citing unnamed sources understood to be familiar with the matter. HashKey’s capital injection has come from Gaorong Ventures.  The Chinese VC firm was founded in 2014, initially known as Banyan Capital before rebranding as Gaorong Ventures in 2018. The VC firm focuses on early and growth-stage investments, with a specific interest in new technology.  Gaorong has 23 IPO portfolios on its books, together with 30 projects valued at in excess of $1 billion. It has been an early-stage investor in Chinese tech firms such as Chinese shopping platform Meituan and online retailer PDD Holdings.  Last year, the company participated in a funding round for Dongchedi, the car information and trading platform belonging to ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok.Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on UnsplashBeyond unicorn statusIn this instance, the funds were invested with HashKey Group weighing in with a post-money valuation in the region of $1.5 billion. That puts the company well beyond unicorn status, which it achieved in a previous $100 million funding round over a year ago. At that time, HashKey didn’t disclose the names of investors other than to state that they were “prominent institutional investors” and “leading Web3 institutions.” It’s understood that the round included both existing and new investors. Surging VC investment in crypto startups This latest investment comes amid a backdrop of a surge in venture capital investment into the crypto sector. Well-known American venture investors Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) invested almost $1.2 billion in crypto projects last month.  In 2024, $13.7 billion was invested in crypto and blockchain startups by venture capital firms, marking a 28% increase on the previous year. In Q4 2024, the United States took first place, accounting for 46% of investment into startups across the market in general. Hong Kong weighed in with 17% in second place.HashKey is also playing its own role in crypto and blockchain startup investment. HashKey Exchange’s sister company, HashKey Capital, is an institutional asset manager that also invests in crypto startups. In recent weeks, the company has invested in SignalPlus, a crypto trading software firm focused on the Asian market, and Kelpr, a Cosmos (ATOM) ecosystem wallet project. More crypto VC investment in 2025In January, HashKey Capital CEO Deng Chao told Cointelegraph that he expected more VC capital investment in crypto startups in 2025. He stated: “As we enter into a supportive macro environment driven by stimulative US policies and the formalization of crypto regulatory frameworks, these macro tailwinds are set to drive more VC investments heading into 2025.” Meanwhile, the overarching HashKey Group is positive in its outlook with regard to the crypto and blockchain sector in 2025. Last month, it outlined that it expects Bitcoin and Ethereum to surge in price, the share of the market held by decentralized exchanges (DEXs) to increase, capital inflows into the sector from institutions to grow, the approval of more crypto ETFs and further development of layer-2 networks over the course of the year.

Ripple Exec: Clear Regs Helped Japanese Market Withstand Crypto WinterEmi Yoshikawa, the Vice President of Strategy & Operations at business-focused crypto solutions provider Ripple, has attributed the Japanese cryptocurrency market’s ability to withstand the recent crypto winter to well-defined regulations.©Pexels/WorldspectrumSecurity breach at Mt.GoxIn a recent interview with Korean blockchain media outlet Digital Asset, Yoshikawa noted that Japan implemented regulations on cryptocurrencies earlier than other countries, in part due to the 2014 security breach at the Tokyo-based Bitcoin exchange Mt.Gox that resulted in investor losses.The Mt.Gox exploit prompted revisions to the Payment Services Act, which now recognizes cryptocurrencies as a means of payment. Furthermore, the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act was revised in 2020 to give security tokens the same status as stocks. The Japanese government is also exploring the possibility of allowing the domestic circulation of foreign stablecoins.Although it took several years for companies to enter the market after the regulatory framework was established, the security token market has since expanded, with more businesses now participating.Yoshikawa credited the Japanese crypto market’s resilience during the recent global crypto winter to clear regulatory guidelines. The recognition of cryptocurrencies as financial instruments enabled the regulation of not only spot trading but also derivatives trading. Japanese exchanges are also required to hold customer funds separately in trust firms, ensuring investor protection. This regulatory environment allowed companies and investors to confidently enter the crypto industry last year.FTX JapanFTX Japan’s return of customer assets and resumption of withdrawals in February showcased the effectiveness of these clear regulatory guidelines. Among subsidiaries of the now-defunct crypto exchange FTX, FTX Japan is the only one to have returned customer assets thus far, Yoshikawa emphasized.While crypto regulations in some areas, such as taxation, remain insufficient, both the Japanese government and entrepreneurs agree that the Web3 industry should develop in a way that benefits the nation’s economy.Ripple’s projects in JapanYoshikawa said that Ripple views the Japanese market as one of its key markets. In 2016, the company formed a joint venture, SBI Ripple Asia, with Japanese financial group SBI Holdings. Through this partnership, Ripple collaborated with several Japanese financial institutions to launch RippleNet and provide liquidity to the payment service.Japan’s largest remittance technology firm, SBI Remit, has adopted RippleNet and Ripple’s own remittance system On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) to facilitate real-time payments between Japan and Southeast Asian nations. Yoshikawa underlined that Ripple is committed to supporting Southeast Asian workers in Japan who need swift and cost-effective international payments.

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.