Bunzz expands Web3 enterprise services in Japan

While global cryptocurrency sentiment remains subdued, authorities and state-linked investors in Abu Dhabi are deepening their engagement with digital assets through expanded regulation and increased capital allocation. On Dec. 8, stablecoin issuer Tether and cryptocurrency exchange Binance announced they had secured regulatory approvals from the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), the international financial center and free economic zone in the UAE capital. The moves signal a continued effort by the United Arab Emirates to integrate blockchain technology into its formal financial system, creating a contrast with the broader market’s current “extreme fear” rating of 22 on the Alternative Fear and Greed Index.Photo by DrawKit Illustrations on UnsplashTether, Ripple stablecoins approvedTether confirmed that its USDT stablecoin has been designated as an Accepted Fiat-Referenced Token within the ADGM. This status allows financial entities licensed by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) to conduct regulated activities involving USDT across a broader range of blockchain networks, including Aptos, Celo, Cosmos, Kaia, Near, Polkadot, Tezos, TON, and TRON. The approval builds on previous authorizations for USDT on Ethereum, Solana, and Avalanche, and follows the FSRA’s recognition of Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin last month. Binance fully cleared for regulated launch Simultaneously, Binance announced it has secured full authorization from the FSRA to operate a regulated platform within the financial center. Pending final operational preparations, Binance is scheduled to commence regulated activities on Jan. 5, 2026. The exchange will operate in Abu Dhabi through a three-entity structure that separates key functions, mirroring traditional financial infrastructure. Nest Exchange Limited (currently Nest Services) will function as the regulated arm for spot and derivatives trading, while Nest Clearing and Custody Limited will manage clearing and settlement. Broker-dealer activities will be handled by a third entity, Nest Trading Limited (currently BCI Limited). Circle awarded FSP for paymentsMore recently, Circle, the issuer of the USDC stablecoin, announced the receipt of a Financial Services Permission (FSP) license from the FSRA. The license allows Circle to act as a Money Services Provider within Abu Dhabi’s International Financial Centre (IFC), enabling it to support regulated payment and settlement services for businesses, developers, and financial institutions across the UAE. Circle has been expanding its regulatory presence in the region throughout the year. In February, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) recognized the company’s USDC and EURC tokens as permitted crypto assets under its virtual asset framework. This regulatory expansion comes amid the UAE’s efforts to develop a comprehensive financial compliance framework. A recent report by the Global Finance & Technology Network identified the UAE as one of seven jurisdictions globally that meet three core standards for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing compliance. Those standards include know-your-customer (KYC) and identity verification, suspicious transaction reporting, and implementation of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Travel Rule. Institutional capital inflows riseIn parallel with the regulatory push, investment vehicles linked to the Abu Dhabi government have increased their exposure to digital assets. Bloomberg reported that in the third quarter, the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, a Mubadala subsidiary, increased its position in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF more than threefold to nearly eight million shares. Separately, the Royal Group, an investment firm associated with the Abu Dhabi royal family, currently holds roughly 6,516 Bitcoin, according to Arkham data. An earlier Crypto Briefing report noted that this acquisition was carried out through its majority-owned subsidiary, Citadel Mining. These simultaneous developments in licensing and capital allocation suggest a coordinated strategy to establish Abu Dhabi as a hub for institutional digital assets, with a focus on long-term infrastructure despite current market fragility. 

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.

Singapore proposes additional rules to safeguard retail crypto investorsSingapore announced on Thursday its intention to implement new regulations aimed at protecting individuals by limiting their ability to trade cryptocurrencies.Photo by Daniel Welsh on UnsplashRules follow public consultation processIn a press release published to its website on Thursday, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the city-state’s central bank and financial regulator, finalized these measures following a yearlong public consultation and review of cryptocurrency platforms, also known as digital payment token (DPT) service providers.Effective in phases from mid-2024, one key measure will prevent operators from accepting purchases through locally issued credit cards. Along the same lines, the regulator wants operators to discourage the use of margin and leverage transactions, or borrowing to facilitate trading activity. Market commentators, such as Custodia Bank Founder and CEO Caitlin Long, have long warned of the havoc that leverage has played in the crypto sector. Last year Long commented:”SO MUCH of the garbage in #crypto during this cycle was just leverage dressed up as tech innovation.”Additionally, incentives that encourage individuals to trade digital tokens will be banned. Such incentives could include providing free trading credits or digital assets as rewards during sign-ups or referrals.Curbing speculationWhile the MAS acknowledges the speculative and highly risky nature of cryptocurrency trading, it asserts that these regulations aim to help cryptocurrency operators protect customer interests. However, the MAS emphasizes that the regulations “cannot insulate customers from losses associated with the inherently speculative and highly risky nature of cryptocurrency trading.”Ho Hern Shin, the Deputy Managing Director for Financial Supervision at the MAS, urged consumers to exercise caution, stating:“We urge consumers to remain vigilant and exercise utmost caution when dealing in DPT services and to not deal with unregulated entities, including those based overseas.”The MAS expanded the scope of these measures to include all retail customers, regardless of their residency, following public feedback. This includes individuals who are not accredited investors or institutional investors. Accredited investors are those with over $1 million in net financial assets, among other criteria.Responding to crypto platform failuresThese regulatory steps come in response to the increasing access of individuals to the risky asset class, driven in part by the collapse of several unlicensed cryptocurrency companies in Singapore such as Hodlnaut and Vauld last year. The resulting calls for greater oversight prompted the MAS to initiate a feedback-gathering exercise in October, seeking input from industry players on proposed measures and other framework-establishing proposals.The bankruptcy filing of cryptocurrency group FTX the following month further accelerated the need for regulatory action globally, including in Singapore. In July, the MAS published the initial set of measures based on the consultation, requiring operators to keep customer assets in a trust and limiting their lending and “staking” of digital payment tokens.Staking, a process enabling investors to earn yields by depositing crypto assets for use in blockchain transactions, is among the activities facing restrictions. MAS Managing Director Ravi Menon criticized cryptocurrencies recently, stating that they have “failed the test of digital money,” citing poor performance as a medium of exchange or store of value and susceptibility to sharp speculative swings, leading to significant losses for many investors.