Japanese Firm Exec Underscores User Experience and Collaboration in Web3

Sumitomo Trade Document Network Partnership Adds Chainlink InvolvementA successful proof-of-concept (PoC) venture between Vodafone and Japanese trading and investment giant Sumitomo has resulted in Vodafone’s Digital Asset Broker (DAB) platform now being integrated into the Chainlink network as a node operator.Vodafone provided details on the Chainlink Labs tie-up via a blog post published to its website on Tuesday. The primary objective of this partnership is to enhance the seamless transfer and processing of financial documents within the $32 trillion global trade ecosystem.Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on UnsplashLeveraging Chainlink’s cross-chain interoperabilityThe proof of concept leveraged Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP), offering a solution that bridges the gaps in document management and financial transaction processing. DAB’s core function is to provide enhanced security and interoperability among Internet of Things (IoT) devices on the edge of a network.The results of this initiative have demonstrated the potential for Vodafone’s IoT devices and blockchain technology to furnish data for use in contracts and artificial intelligence (AI) applications. Furthermore, the prospect of creating a unified interface for data and token transfers is now within reach.For instance, envision a scenario where a cargo vessel detects a fire outbreak. Thanks to the collaborative efforts of DAB’s platform and CCIP, this crucial information could be autonomously relayed to smart contracts, potentially triggering an efficient marine cargo insurance process.Convoluted legacy processTrade documents have long posed a significant challenge due to their existence in both physical and digital formats, often lacking interoperability. This predicament necessitates repeated handovers and makes the exchange of such documents a convoluted process.Vodafone introduced the Digital Asset Broker in February 2022. Their initial application of DAB in the United Kingdom involved a partnership with Mastercard, where they trialed an app designed to assist electric vehicle drivers in locating and paying for the most suitable charging options.In a subsequent move, Vodafone and Sumitomo joined forces in May, culminating in the creation of a new entity in which Vodafone maintained an 80% stake. In addition to transferring DAB, Vodafone also contributed intellectual property, contracts, technology, and software to the new venture. This partnership extended further with joint investments in Safaricom Ethiopia.In August, Vodafone DAB solidified its presence in the enterprise blockchain arena by collaborating with Aventus. Their shared mission is to enhance the efficiency of supply chains within the aviation industry.Chainlink’s CCIP made a significant leap in September when it launched on Ethereum’s Arbitrum One layer 2, promising to enhance scalability. In the same month, it collaborated with the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group to test an Australian dollar stablecoin, underscoring Chainlink’s commitment to transformative developments within the blockchain space.Early blockchain interestSumitomo had expressed a desire to utilize blockchain technology going back a number of years. In 2018, the corporation’s US entity joined the Blockchain in Transport Alliance (BiTA) with a view towards using blockchain technology within its logistics business.Earlier this year, the conglomerate invested in Japanese logistics blockchain project TradeWaltz. In June, its US subsidiary was involved in the first-ever transaction of tokenized carbon credits.As Vodafone and Sumitomo continue to push the boundaries of innovation in trade document management, their partnership with Chainlink brings us one step closer to a more efficient and interconnected global trade ecosystem.

Roger Ver sues Matrixport over frozen crypto fundsRoger Ver, often referred to as “Bitcoin Jesus,” finds himself embroiled in a legal dispute with Jihan Wu, the co-founder and chairman of Matrixport, a Singapore-based digital assets financial services platform.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash$8 million disputeThe crux of the matter is a contentious $8 million that Ver claims Wu withheld from him in connection with the fallout of the unrelated failure of the CoinFLEX crypto platform. This conflict has led to a lawsuit filed by Ver’s counsel in the Seychelles.The legal complaint, which originated last year, revolves around bit.com, a crypto exchange owned by Matrixport, refusing to allow Ver to withdraw his $8 million. Wu, a creditor of CoinFLEX, contends that he incurred financial losses due to the exchange’s restructuring.However, Ver asserts that the insolvency of CoinFLEX, an unrelated entity, should not be tied to the funds owed to him by Matrixport. Off the back of that assertion, Ver confirmed to The Block that in August 2022, he sued Smart Vega Holding Limited, a Seychelles-incorporated subsidiary company of Matrixport, for $8 million.Ver asserts CoinFLEX collapse innocenceRoger Ver maintains that he is not to blame for CoinFLEX’s collapse. He states that the narrative emerged due to breaches of confidentiality regarding the arbitration between CoinFLEX and himself. It emerged last month that creditors of CoinFLEX had taken legal action against its CEO, Mark Lamb, as well as Ver. It’s understood that Ver had benefited from a settlement negotiated with Lamb. Creditors are seeking to recover any benefit realized by Ver as a consequence of this settlement.Ver told Coindesk in an email that he initiated arbitration proceedings against CoinFLEX in June 2022, seeking $200 million in damages. He maintains he was the plaintiff in this case, not CoinFLEX, which later filed a counterclaim for $84 million.Confidentiality is a key aspect of arbitration proceedings, especially in Hong Kong where the arbitration took place. Despite this, it is alleged that Lamb broke this confidentiality, which led to the misrepresentation that CoinFLEX was the plaintiff in the case. Ver firmly believes that CoinFLEX’s insolvency was primarily due to market turmoil in May 2022 and poor risk management on the part of its co-founders.Matrixport standing firmWhile Matrixport does not deny withholding the cryptocurrency from Ver, it argues that Ver should repay his debt to CoinFLEX, which is a creditor of Ver. Once this is done, CoinFLEX will release monies owed to Wu.The dispute also touches on the terms of service. Matrixport maintains that it has the right to withhold funds for penalties related to defaulted margin calls and legal fees and it is committing significant legal resources to defend its position. Ver’s attorney counters this argument, stating that Matrixport’s terms of service do not permit such penalties and that there is no legal justification for withholding the funds.Matrixport claims that the funds are being held because of an investigation into Ver’s “margin trading irregularities.” The company’s Head of Public Relations and Brand, Ross Gan, said that Ver “continues to make unreasonable demands.” Gan added:“We will respect the legal process and the ultimate Court ruling on this case and reserve all our rights to take further legal action in this ongoing dispute with Mr. Ver.”

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the city-state’s central bank and primary financial regulator, has set a deadline of June 30 for unlicensed digital token service providers (DTSPs) working out of Singapore to cease offering their services to clients in overseas markets.Photo by Hu Chen on UnsplashResponding to feedbackThe deadline emerged by way of a process MAS has followed as part of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 (FSM Act). Last October, the regulator invited feedback from stakeholders related to the authority’s approach to the regulation of DTSPs. MAS published its response to that feedback on May 30.  It stated:”DTSPs which are subject to a licensing requirement under section 137 of the FSM Act must suspend or cease carrying on a business of providing DT services outside Singapore by 30 June 2025.” It added that it was not including any transitional arrangement for DTSPs despite MAS receiving such a suggestion from a number of feedback respondents. Instead, unlicensed DTSPs will need to abide by the June 30 deadline and have acquired a license by then or cease unlicensed activity.The regulator defines DTSPs as individuals, partnerships or Singapore corporations operating from a place of business in Singapore, including those formed or incorporated in Singapore who offer digital token services outside Singapore. Those found in breach of the regulation could face up to three years in prison and fines of up to S$250,000 ($195,000). Companies who have already obtained licensing or those exempted by way of the Securities and Futures Act, Payment Services Act and the Financial Advisers Act are free to continue trading. Challenging licensing requirementsThose who wish to become compliant will have to satisfy some challenging requirements. For those granted a license, an annual license fee of S$10,000 ($7,780) applies. Small-scale DTSPs need to satisfy a $150,000 ($116,670) ongoing capital requirement, while larger, well-established DTSPs must comply with a S$250,000 ($195,000) capital requirement. Additionally, MAS has put in place competency requirements related to a DTSP's CEO, directors, partners and managers. Hagen Rooke, a partner at law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, outlined on LinkedIn that while it's possible for unlicensed operators to obtain licensing, it will be very difficult to get a license. In its feedback response document, the regulator stated: “MAS will approach the licensing of DTSPs in a prudent and cautious manner and there will be extremely limited circumstances under which MAS will consider granting an applicant a licence under section 138 of the FSM Act.” Rooke advised crypto companies that may be affected to act swiftly in order to derisk through an operational restructuring or removing the businesses' Singapore touchpoints. He suggested that firms need to consider if it has customers outside of Singapore or front-office functions located outside of the city-state to determine if they could be affected by this regulatory measure. A number of Asian countries have moved to take action against unlicensed foreign firms that have engaged with local investors, with Thailand becoming the latest country to do so recently. However, the Singaporean authorities have approached the issue from the opposite perspective, citing the potential reputational risk that unlicensed DTSPs pose for Singapore.