Fingerlabs teams up with Metaclub to gather users for Web3 membership platform

Binance Set For Japanese Market Re-Entry With 34 Token ListingsBinance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, is gearing up to re-enter the Japanese market with a bang on August 14. According to a report published by local crypto media outlet Coinpost, Binance Japan is set to immediately list an impressive 34 tokens.The move will put Binance ahead of its domestic rivals, as the offering will be the most extensive in terms of the selection of tokens made available to Japanese customers.Photo by David Edelstein on UnsplashBNB token offeringIn addition to that, Binance intends to make its native token, BNB, available in Japan for the first time. Exchange tokens have proven to be controversial in recent times. In November 2022, FTX’s reliance on their native token FTT caused a run on the exchange which Binance started once it started to sell off the token. Similar concerns have been expressed ever since about a similar reliance within Binance relative to its BNB token.The expansion into Japan will likely prove a tonic for Binance, given the difficulties it has experienced in other markets recently. Regulatory pushback has forced Binance out of markets such as Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Cyprus over the course of the past three months.The company has been actively working to comply with Japan’s regulatory environment. In a Twitter video posted in July, Changpeng Zhao (CZ), Binance’s Founder and CEO, expressed his excitement about re-entering the Japanese market. He praised Japan’s clear and progressive approach to crypto regulations, citing the well-established framework that dates back to 2017, as well as recent developments, including the opening up of crypto listing frameworks and the passing of stablecoin regulations in June.Roadmap to market re-entryBinance’s journey back into Japan started in November 2022 when it acquired 100% ownership of Sakura Exchange BitCoin (SEBC). The acquisition paved the way for Binance to be regulated by the Japan Financial Services Agency (JFSA). As part of this move, SEBC underwent a name change, rebranding itself as Binance Japan Inc. The company then announced in May its plans to re-enter the Japanese market.The re-entry comes after the JFSA had previously issued warnings in 2021 against Binance for operating in the country without proper registration. Now, with the acquisition of SEBC and its regulatory compliance, Binance has gained a foothold in the Japanese market once again.Binance Japan aims to provide a comprehensive suite of services to its Japanese customers. New users can access spot trading, Earn products, and the NFT marketplace, while existing customers can migrate to the local subsidiary starting August 14. The token offerings include a diverse range of assets, and the addition of BNB presents exciting opportunities for traders and investors in Japan.Rival exchanges such as Coinbase and Kraken have decided to halt their operations in the country as they struggled to adjust to Japanese market conditions. The move by Binance to re-enter Japan’s market will be closely watched to see if it can succeed where others have failed.

Hong Kong Deems Crypto as PropertyIn dealing with a case involving defunct Hong Kong-based cryptocurrency exchange Gatecoin, a Hong Kong judge has determined cryptocurrency as being property “capable of being held in trust.” Presiding over the case, Justice Linda Chan stated recently that Hong Kong takes a broad definition of what constitutes property.©Pexels/mitbg000Digital assets held in trustHaving expended efforts to try and recover funds from a former payments service provider that the company had partnered with, Gatecoin announced that it would shut down the business and commence the liquidation of the business in 2019. With bankruptcy proceedings being notoriously slow, that process continues today, resulting in Justice Chan’s recent determination.The notion of property held in trust is a common theme that has been explored in a number of cryptocurrency business bankruptcy processes recently, including the BlockFi, Celsius and FTX processes.Gatecoin has not proven to be any different in this regard. Liquidators had turned to the Hong Kong courts for direction as to how creditors’ digital assets, as held on the platform, should be defined. If property is deemed to have been held “in trust”, then that determination has implications for the owner of those assets relative to the bankruptcy proceedings.In the case of BlockFi, a determination was made in a US court that those who had simply custodied digital assets with the platform without earning any yield were property owners and that they should have their assets returned.The importance of Terms of Service (ToS)Alex Mashinsky, the founder and CEO of failed crypto lending competitor Celsius outlined to service users on a number of occasions that the assets remained their property even though his company used customer assets for various trading activities. The bankruptcy judge reached a different determination based on the terms of service. Service users had acknowledged in signing off on Celsius’ terms of service that assets held on the platform that accessed yield-bearing products became the property of Celsius when deposited within those products on the Celsius platform.Although it has not been dealt with yet, 1.4 million creditors relative to the bankruptcy process of failed cryptocurrency exchange FTX are likely to discover later this year if they can claim “in trust” property rights. An ad hoc group of creditors has taken legal action for the return of their digital assets on the basis of an assertion that the assets remained their property when transferred onto the platform.ImplicationsWhilst a seemingly uninteresting determination to anyone less informed about such bankruptcy proceedings, such decisions can have profound consequences. In a bankruptcy process, there is a hierarchy of creditors, with some having greater rights than others when it comes to the distribution of bankruptcy estate funds. Recognition of assets being held in trust as property would likely take those property owners out of the bankruptcy process, allowing the return of their funds (where available) while others who are classified as creditors get a distribution of whatever funds are left in the bankruptcy estate thereafter.Additional complexityGatecoin’s case was further complicated by the existence of various sets of terms of service. In two of the three instances, the court found that no trust language existed. There is one subset of creditors who may have the ability to claim their digital assets as property. The liquidators have agreed to identify them and contact them in that regard.While the process may be proving to be a minefield for Gatecoin’s creditors, it has served a broader purpose in crypto more generally as it has provided yet another opportunity for another jurisdiction, in this instance Hong Kong, to provide some more clarity with regard to the legal status and standing of cryptocurrency.

BitMEX CEO Calls for an End to Internal Market MakersIn a recent interview, Stephan Lutz, the acting CEO and group CFO of 100x Group, the parent company of Seychelles-headquartered global crypto exchange BitMEX, expressed his belief that crypto exchanges should phase out their internal market-making teams.Photo by Joe Roberts on UnsplashProp trading desks unnecessarySpeaking with The Block, Lutz argued that with the growth of institutional liquidity providers and high-frequency traders (HFTs) in the market, proprietary trading desks are becoming unnecessary.Lutz stated: “You have enough HFTs out there and prop shops that can perform that function.” He was referring to the role of liquidity providers in filling gaps in the market. He made these comments in response to the emergence of information earlier this week that raised questions about internal trading practices at Crypto.com, a Singapore-based exchange.BitMEX, once the world’s largest crypto derivatives exchange, also used to employ internal traders who acted as market makers. However, Lutz explained that BitMEX’s internal trading team, named Arrakis Capital, now functions primarily as a “treasury desk.” He sees this transition as a natural evolution for crypto exchanges in a market that has matured and attracted more institutional liquidity providers.Arrakis Capital currently performs limited functions, including converting commission fees earned in Bitcoin into fiat currency for operational purposes, hedging BitMEX’s exposure to tokens held as inventory, and making markets for BitMEX’s token $BMEX. Lutz clarified that Arrakis’s market-making activities are limited because external market makers find the token’s liquidity insufficient.Regarding profitability, Lutz stated that Arrakis earns “very minor returns” of up to $100,000 per month from holding T-Bills, but it incurred losses last year. He noted that Arrakis used to play a more significant market-making role when BitMEX dominated the crypto futures market. However, he assured that the trading desk was always segregated, despite accusations in the past.Fee structuresLutz acknowledged that exchanges with internal trading teams have faced increased scrutiny since the controversies surrounding Alameda Research and FTX. To differentiate between benign internal trading teams and hedge fund-like operations, Lutz highlighted several factors, including the separation of client funds and house funds, access to sensitive data, and the ability to move markets on their own exchange. Fee structures also play a role, with low or no transaction fees potentially signaling a market-making motive rather than serving as a counterparty.Lutz’s perspective suggests that crypto exchanges should rely on external liquidity providers and HFTs rather than maintaining internal market-making teams. He argues that the market has evolved. At this point he feels that these teams are no longer necessary, due to the presence of established players within the digital assets space.As regulatory scrutiny grows, ensuring transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest become crucial for maintaining trust within the crypto exchange ecosystem. The digital assets industry is far from arriving at a mature stage in its development. While many in the industry have found the stance taken by regulators to be unhelpful, the industry itself must also demonstrate its ability to iteratively move towards best practice, without that being a knee-jerk response to regulatory enforcement.