High-profile sports sponsorships driving Crypto.com user base expansion

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.

China’s central bank and seven other ministries have released a sweeping new policy tightening controls on cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, and the tokenization of real-world assets (RWA), citing mounting speculative activity and risks to financial order, public asset safety, national security, and social stability. The move builds on warnings issued late last year. At a Nov. 28 meeting on crypto regulation, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) reaffirmed that all commercial activities involving digital assets remain illegal, citing the proliferation of speculative trading that was complicating financial risk management. Officials said enforcement against crypto-related illegal financial activity would be stepped up to safeguard economic stability, and flagged stablecoins as a particular concern due to deficiencies in customer identification and anti-money laundering (AML) controls, as well as risks of fraud and unregulated cross-border capital flows.Photo by William Olivieri on UnsplashCrypto not legal tender in ChinaIn the latest notice, regulators again stress that digital assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and USDT have no legal tender status in China and cannot circulate as money. All crypto-related activities—including trading, exchange services, token issuance, derivatives, pricing, information brokerage, and related financial products—are classified as illegal financial activities and are strictly prohibited. Overseas entities and individuals are also barred from providing crypto-related services to users in China. The document further tightens oversight of stablecoins, warning that fiat-pegged tokens effectively perform some functions of sovereign currency. It explicitly bans the issuance of offshore yuan-linked stablecoins without regulatory approval. RWA tokenization deemed illegalChinese regulators laid out a comprehensive framework addressing RWA tokenization, defining it as the use of blockchain or similar technologies to tokenize ownership or income rights of assets. Authorities say that domestically conducted RWA tokenization, or the provision of related services, may constitute illegal securities issuance, illegal fundraising, or unauthorized financial business, and is prohibited unless explicitly approved and conducted via designated financial infrastructure. Offshore RWA tokenization targeting Chinese entities is also banned. The policy establishes a coordinated enforcement mechanism led by the central bank and securities regulator, involving development, industry, public security, cybersecurity, judicial, and foreign-exchange authorities, while placing primary enforcement responsibility on local governments. Financial institutions, payment firms, intermediaries, technology providers, and internet platforms are ordered not to provide accounts, clearing, custody, marketing, IT support, or online access for crypto or unauthorized RWA tokenization activities. Companies are also prohibited from using terms such as “cryptocurrency,” “stablecoin,” or “RWA tokenization” in business registration or advertising. China will continue its strict campaign against crypto mining, requiring all remaining mining projects to be shut down and banning the domestic manufacture and sale of mining equipment. The document also tightens supervision of overseas activities by Chinese entities, requiring regulatory approval for offshore token issuance or RWA tokenization involving onshore assets or rights, and imposing enhanced compliance, risk management, and AML requirements on overseas subsidiaries of Chinese financial institutions. The new rules take effect immediately and replace a notice issued in 2021, when China introduced a broad ban on crypto trading and mining, broadening the restrictions to explicitly cover RWA tokenization. 

NFTs not subject to South Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection ActIn anticipation of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act coming into effect in July of next year, the South Korean Financial Services Commission (FSC) has issued an advance notice regarding its subordinate statutes.Photo by Ethan Brooke on UnsplashSeven specific provisionsThe subsidiary regulations under the Act detail seven specific provisions aligned with the Act’s objectives. Firstly, assets categorized as electronic securities, mobile vouchers, deposit tokens backed by the Bank of Korea’s central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) will not be classified as virtual assets and hence, not regulated by this Act. However, in instances where NFTs are used as a means of payment for specific goods or services, they will be regarded as virtual assets.Secondly, banks will take responsibility for managing the deposits of users on cryptocurrency exchanges. This aligns with the Act’s requirement for virtual asset service providers (VASPs) to keep users’ funds separate from their own, either by depositing them in, or entrusting them to, reputable institutions. Under these regulations, banks are required to manage users’ assets in a manner consistent with how investors’ deposits are handled under the Capital Markets Act. This means that banks are allowed to invest VASP users’ assets only in secure instruments, such as state and local government bonds, and are also obligated to pay fees to deposit owners, taking into account the yields of these investments.80% of user assets in cold walletsThe third key aspect of the regulations is that VASPs are required to store a minimum of 80% of user assets in cold wallets, which are not connected to the internet. This is higher than the current requirement of 70%, enhancing the security measures for users of virtual assets. To calculate the total value of a virtual asset at any given time, its total supply is multiplied by its average daily price over the past year. VASPs are obligated to assess the value of virtual assets every month.The fourth regulation mandates that VASPs must enroll in an insurance plan, contribute to a rainy day fund or accumulate reserves. This is to ensure they can fulfill their compensation responsibilities in the event of incidents like security breaches or technical failures. The required preparation amount is set at a minimum of 5% of the user assets stored in hot wallets, as these are more susceptible to risks. VASPs are required to update their compensation thresholds or reserves monthly and must take any necessary actions to comply with these requirements by the next working day following the update.Information disclosure guidelinesAnother regulation addresses the issue of insider trading in the context of the virtual asset market. Under the current Capital Markets Act, information is considered disclosed when it’s made available through disclosure systems of the FSC or the Korea Exchange (KRX). However, since the cryptocurrency market lacks a similar system, the new statute provides criteria for determining when information is deemed disclosed.For instance, if a VASP, including exchanges, releases crucial information about a virtual asset on an exchange and six hours pass, that information is regarded as disclosed. This acknowledges the non-stop nature of the crypto market. Moreover, information disclosed post 6 p.m. is treated as officially disclosed after 9 a.m. the next day.Additionally, if a virtual asset issuer publishes significant information about its token on a website hosting its white paper, the information is deemed public after one day. This is conditional upon the website being publicly accessible and having consistently provided important token information for the preceding six months.These rules aim to provide clarity and fairness in information disclosure in the crypto market, adapting the principles of traditional financial markets to the unique dynamics of virtual assets.No arbitrary suspension of transactionsThe sixth regulation restricts VASPs from arbitrarily halting deposits and withdrawals of virtual assets unless there are justifiable reasons for such actions. Acceptable circumstances for suspending these transactions include situations where the VASP experiences a technical disruption in its system, where regulatory authorities instruct a VASP to cease deposits and withdrawals or where cyberattacks or similar incidents have occurred or are clearly imminent.Lastly, virtual asset exchanges are required to monitor for abnormal transactions continuously. These are transactions that show substantial shifts in the prices or trading volumes of virtual assets, particularly in response to news or rumors that could influence cryptocurrency prices. If VASPs suspect unfair trading practices, they must report to the FSC or the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS). When there is ample evidence of such activities, crypto exchanges are obligated to notify the police or the prosecutors’ office. In addition, the financial regulator has the authority to levy fines based on the prosecution’s decisions or after completing consultations with the prosecution if a year has passed since the day of the report.During the period of advance notice, which spans from Nov. 11 to Jan. 22, the FSC will seek comments from relevant organizations, experts and businesses. This process is aimed at refining the rules and regulations subordinate to the Virtual Asset User Protection Act. Moving forward, the financial authorities plan to publish a set of guidelines and Q&A materials and conduct explanatory sessions, with the goal of ensuring a smooth implementation of the Act.