Harvest Global to establish fixed income tokenized fund

The launch of Hong Kong's inaugural spot crypto exchange-traded funds (ETFs) is expected to occur by mid-2024, according to one of Hong Kong’s leading crypto executives. Gary Tiu, the executive director and head of regulatory affairs at OSL, a licensed cryptocurrency exchange based in Hong Kong, made that assertion in discussion with The Hong Kong Economic Journal. Tiu provided the publication with insights into the accelerating pace of negotiations between cryptocurrency exchanges and fund companies in the region.Photo by Stella P on UnsplashUp to ten firms contemplating ETF launchOSL is actively engaged in discussions with multiple fund companies, with five to ten firms contemplating the introduction of spot crypto ETFs. Tiu revealed that certain firms have made notable progress, raising the possibility of the debut of these ETFs in Hong Kong by the middle of the year. Additionally, the OSL executive emphasized the significance of maintaining reasonable fees in collaborations between OSL and fund companies, given the limited presence of licensed crypto exchanges in the city – a total of two at present. This suggestion from Tiu aligns with similar recent soundings emanating from HashKey, another licensed crypto exchange in Hong Kong, which recently disclosed its ongoing discussions with asset managers exploring the potential launch of spot crypto ETFs. Livio Weng, the CEO of HashKey, indicated that approximately ten fund companies are considering the introduction of such ETFs in the city. VSFG’s ETF plansAligned with Tiu’s thoughts on the matter, according to a Bloomberg report last week, Venture Smart Financial Holdings Ltd (VSFG), a Hong Kong-based financial services firm, expressed plans to potentially launch a spot bitcoin ETF within the first quarter of this year. Bloomberg reported the company's goal of growing the ETF's assets under management to $500 million by the end of 2024. The regulatory landscape in Hong Kong is actively adapting to accommodate spot crypto ETFs, with the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) announcing in December that they have reviewed their existing policies. Two circulars were published, outlining the requirements for spot crypto ETFs, with the SFC stressing that transactions should be conducted through SFC-licensed crypto platforms or authorized financial institutions. Currently, Hong Kong has listed several futures-based crypto ETFs, including the Samsung Bitcoin Futures Active ETF, CSOP Bitcoin Futures ETF and CSOP Ether Futures ETF. Hong Kong venue for Bitcoin conferenceIn a related development, local lawmaker Johnny Ng revealed on social media on Monday that Hong Kong will host The Bitcoin Conference this year. Earlier this month Ng urged the local administration in Hong Kong to swiftly follow the United States' approval of spot bitcoin ETFs and position the city as a leading hub in the cryptocurrency space. With Hong Kong and Singapore vying for hub status in the Asian region relative to the digital assets space, the launch of ETF products would give the Chinese autonomous territory a competitive head start given that Singapore doesn’t appear to be close to accommodating crypto ETFs for the time being.

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.”

In an effort to safeguard crypto investors from falling prey to misleading advertisements, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of Thailand has intensified its scrutiny of promotional campaigns within the crypto sphere.  Broker agent eventsOn April 29, the Bangkok Post reported that the SEC has raised concerns regarding the potential violation of local regulations through introducing broker agent (IBA) events. These events, the SEC clarified, may breach regulations as IBAs are only permitted to promote digital token services to deter speculation on cryptocurrencies, categorized as high-risk assets. IBAs, acting as local conduits for partner digital asset exchanges, typically earn commissions by onboarding clients within a specific market. Such practices are common for exchanges or brokers that don't directly operate in certain markets. Deputy Secretary-General Anek Yooyuen conveyed the commission's unease over crypto exchanges offering preferential treatment to onboard users. Yooyuen stated: "When operators organise sales promotions by offering rewards to entice people to use the service, this could encourage use of the service without considering the investment risks. This is especially the case for cryptocurrencies.”Photo by Than Diep on UnsplashWarning of consequencesHe cautioned that failure to adhere to these guidelines would result in “punishment according to the law.” While cryptocurrency exchanges are legal in Thailand, they must secure local approval. Notably, last month, Thailand even greenlit asset management firms to launch private funds, offering Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) exclusively to institutional and ultra-high-net-worth investors. Nonetheless, the country recently prohibited the sale of cryptocurrency lending products and mandated that exchanges prominently display risk warning messages. International regulatory trendThis move by the Thai SEC mirrors actions taken by regulators in other major crypto markets. For instance, the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued 450 alerts for illegal crypto ads in 2023 alone. Similarly, Spain’s principal securities market regulator, the National Stock Market Commission, denounced fraudulent crypto asset promotions in November 2023, emphasizing companies’ obligations to adhere to local laws. Thai advertising guidelines mandate businesses and advertisers to substantiate the “facts” presented in their campaigns, failing which could lead to legal repercussions. A recent incident provides a case in point. Hackers hijacked advertisements on Etherscan, redirecting users to phishing sites aimed at draining crypto wallets. Scam Sniffer, a blockchain investigation firm, attributed the widespread phishing campaign to the inadequate oversight by advertisement aggregators. The company made the following statement on the matter: “Etherscan aggregates ads from platforms like Coinzilla and Persona, where insufficient filtering could lead to exposure to phishing attempts.” The wallet drainer scam involves enticing users to counterfeit websites and coercing them to link their crypto wallets, enabling scammers to siphon funds into their own wallets without user authentication or consent. This is not the first time that the authorities in Thailand have homed in on crypto-related advertising. In August 2023, the southeast Asian country’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) outlined that it had engaged with social media firm Meta, owner of Facebook, informing it that its response to the proliferation of fraudulent platform ads relative to crypto had been inadequate.