Titi Financial Announces $TITI Airdrop

FTX Opts Out of Plan to Sell off FTX JapanThe FTX Debtor that was brought in to manage the bankrupt estate of the failed FTX cryptocurrency exchange has decided to not follow through with a plan to sell off the Japanese business.That’s according to a report by Nikkei on Thursday. In November 2022 a new management team was brought in to restructure the FTX business immediately following the business having filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the courts in Delaware in the United States.Photo by Jezael Melgoza on UnsplashOptimizing value for creditorsThe original plan was to look to sell off subsidiary companies within the group such as FTX Japan, FTX Turkey, and FTX Europe. Those plans have now at the very least been delayed. Nikkei cited an FTX executive who claimed that it’s not so much that plans have been delayed but rather that the FTX Debtor has identified another approach that will likely optimize value for creditors.“They hope to increase the price by selling the entire group, rather than selling subsidiaries in various regions,” Nikkei’s FTX source stated.Rebooting the exchangeThe response from creditors to this news has been largely positive. While the notion of a rebooted FTX business has proven to be controversial within the crypto space, most creditors recognize that the business can provide much greater value for them if it is restarted internationally.Global investment banking firm Perella Weinberg Partners (PWP) was brought in by the FTX Debtor in November 2022 to carry out a strategic review of the assets held by the FTX group. In a recent bankruptcy court hearing in Delaware, one of its partners stated that they are currently in the process of inviting bids from interested parties.At that time, PWP indicated that the Debtor was looking to revive the international FTX business. That would likely mean an entity headquartered outside the United States. It remains to be seen what will happen in the case of the FTX US business. Due to an unwelcoming regulatory approach in the US right now, setting up a crypto business there is seen as having additional risk factors.Asian interestA number of weeks ago, the Debtor filed a list of interested parties. The list included a number of high-profile Asian companies, although it’s not clear if their interest lies in the business in its entirety or specific FTX assets.Among them was Japanese telecoms firm Docomo. Tokyo-headquartered global financial services company Nomura also featured. Japan’s largest Ecommerce company, Rakuten, also signed a letter of intent in expressing its interest. FTX Japan had attracted 41 bidders. It’s being speculated that some of these Japanese entities will now bid on the entire business or join consortiums who will do so.FTX Japan solventCreditors of FTX Japan have fared much better than their international counterparts. In the wake of the collapse of the Mt.Gox cryptocurrency exchange in 2014, the Japanese authorities set to work on providing greater protections for customers. As a consequence, FTX Japan was required to ring-fence customer funds. For that reason, Japanese customers have already been given access to their funds.In a recent exchange on Twitter, well-known American investor Mark Cuban pointed out that Japanese regulators had been successful in protecting FTX investors in Japan. Cuban made the point to former US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulator John Reed Stark, underscoring the failure of US regulators in doing so.

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.

The Korea Federation of Banks (KFB) Chairman Cho Yong-byoung paid a visit to Poland yesterday to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on financial cooperation between South Korea and Poland, Korean news media The Korea Economic Daily reported. The MOU was signed by Chairman Cho and the Polish Bank Association (ZBP) President, Tadeusz Białek. The partnership aims to strengthen bilateral financial collaboration, which will be backed by holding joint financial conferences, sharing information on financial regulations and training financial experts. Photo by Lukasz Radziejewski on UnsplashJoint seminar on digital finance, blockchain and AI Following the MOU signing ceremony, the two associations conducted a joint seminar on digital finance, economy and the banking industry. The event was attended by Korea's Financial Services Commission (FSC) Chairperson Kim Joo-hyun, representatives of KFB members, President Białek and executives of Polish banks.  Among the mainly discussed topics were Korea's digital financial landscape and its digital banking industry, along with the Polish economy and its banking industry. In particular, the participants focused on innovative changes in the financial industry brought by cutting-edge technology such as blockchain, AI and big data.  During the conference, Chairman Cho expressed his commitment to bolstering the bilateral partnership, stating that the Korean banking industry will support local companies in expanding their businesses in Poland.