Swoo Pay partners with Mastercard to target Southeast Asian market

Experts Discuss Korean Security Token MarketSince the Korean financial regulator released regulatory guidelines on security tokens in February, many have anticipated that the introduction of security tokens would transform the concept of investment and give rise to new market strategies based on blockchain technology.©Pexels/PixabayIndustry professionals have expressed their opinions on the matter in interviews with media outlets.Token issuance and distributionPark Hyo-jin, vice president at Sejong Telecom, in a recent interview with Korean media outlet Digital Today, expressed his disappointment about the Korean government’s decision to separate token issuance from token distribution. Sejong Telecom is the developer and operator of the blockchain-based real estate fractional investment platform Bbric.According to Park, the capital market law separates token issuance from token distribution in order to prevent conflicts of interest, as interested parties may attempt to control financial products according to their own preferences. However, things are different with security tokens, Park believes. With the help of blockchain technology, a mainnet can issue and distribute tokens without intermediaries.Higher investment limitsPark emphasized the importance of increasing investment limits and cited the small size of the Korea New Exchange (KONEX), a stock exchange for small enterprises, as a reason for its lack of activity. He added that higher caps would result in positive ripple effects.Regarding real estate security tokens, Park doesn’t expect more profitable products, but sees that more investment choices will be available. He is particularly interested in investment contract securities. One such example is renting a piece of land to farmers to distribute harvest profits.Connection with virtual assetsThe security token market will face limitations if it’s not connected with its virtual asset counterpart. He mentioned the need for a digital asset law to create an ecosystem that links security tokens with virtual assets.Meanwhile, in an interview with Economic Review, Lee Kun-ho, former CEO of KB Kookmin Bank, showed a somewhat pessimistic view about the Korean security token market while admitting its potential.Various uncertaintiesIn his opinion, while real estate holds potential as a security token investment, government policies may introduce uncertainties. Likewise, the markets for music and artwork are also subject to unpredictability. Consequently, security token strategies in these areas could encounter limitations.Lee also sees that some of the services don’t necessitate blockchain technology. It is unlikely that any clear winners will emerge in the short term; therefore, it is vital for the industry to approach this issue with prudence, he added.

Conflict Identified as Crypto.com Trading on its Own PlatformTrading practices at Crypto.com, the Singapore-based cryptocurrency exchange, have raised questions about potential conflicts of interest within the digital assets industry.Citing a number of unnamed sources, the Financial Times (FT) made the claim in a report published on Monday.Photo by Pixabay on PexelsConflict of interestIn traditional financial markets, exchanges typically match buyers with sellers at competitive transparent prices, while market making and proprietary trading are conducted by separate private companies. However, US regulators have recently cracked down on similar activities at digital asset exchanges. Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange, faced 13 charges from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including allegations of manipulative trading to inflate trading volume.The presence of internal traders at Crypto.com has not been widely known since the company’s launch in 2016. The FT’s sources claim that Crypto.com executives provided sworn statements to external trading houses denying the company’s involvement in trading activities.Employees were allegedly instructed to deny the existence of an internal market-making operation. In response to inquiries, Crypto.com denied that employees were asked to lie, stating that their internal market maker functioned similarly to third-party market makers, ensuring tight spreads and efficient markets on their platform.The majority of Crypto.com’s revenue reportedly comes from its app for retail traders, where the company acts as the counterparty for transactions and operates as a broker model. The company’s trading team hedges these positions on various venues, including their own exchange, to maintain risk neutrality. Crypto.com emphasized that their exchange provides a level playing field for institutional traders.According to insiders, Crypto.com’s proprietary trading desk engages in trading activities on the company’s exchange and other platforms, solely focused on generating profits rather than facilitating an exchange. The market making desk, on the other hand, aims to enhance liquidity on the platform.Not a revenue sourceCrypto.com defended its practices by stating that comparing trading volumes to competitors is common in the industry. It said that the company’s priority is to continuously improve order book liquidity and reduce spreads, benefiting all participants. The firm told Decrypt that trading is not a source of revenue: “While we do have some market making activity, for example, we have internal market makers for our CFTC-regulated product Up/Downs in the United States.”As a private company, Crypto.com publishes accounts in different countries, but revenue breakdown by business line is not disclosed.Closure of institutional tradingFollowing the SEC’s enforcement actions, earlier this month Crypto.com announced the closure of its exchange for institutional US traders due to limited demand in the current market landscape, effective from June 21.In any marketplace transparency and fairness are crucial. It’s fair to say that there has been some level of sharp practice among some actors in the marketplace while regulators have been lacking in getting up to speed with the emergent sector, and moving to protect consumers. With the major crypto platform failures of 2022 has come renewed interest in resolving these issues. That may make for some short-term difficulty, but in the longer term, it should mean greater protections for market participants so long as a common sense approach is pursued.

Do Kwon Loses Fight to Conceal Singapore RecordsDo Kwon, the founder of Terraform Labs has failed in his attempt to deny the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from accessing company records in Singapore.©Pexels/George BeckerIn February, the SEC filed a complaint against Terraform Labs and its founder in a US court. The move followed an investigation that the agency had carried out into the collapse of a number of digital assets established by the company. The lawsuit claims that both the company and Do Kwon had engaged in fraud, together with the sale of unregistered securities to US citizens.Jurisdictional challengeLawyers for Do Kwon had claimed that in trying to access documents related to the Singapore-domiciled company, the SEC was acting far beyond its jurisdiction. According to court filings, his defense team argued that Do Kwon is a Singapore resident while Terraform Labs is a Singapore-based company that operates on a global basis and not specifically in the United States.The filing pointed to the fact that the Terraform Labs CEO had “limited contact with the US.” “Most of the company’s business is essentially global, and it’s not specifically aimed at the United States,” it stated.His lawyers had filed a request for the SEC to withdraw its documentation request. In a recent hearing, US District Judge Jed Rokoff turned down Terraform’s request. The documents are understood to be held by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) although the specific nature of the documentation sought remains unclear.The SEC claims that in founding the Terra US dollar stablecoin (TUSD) and associated cryptocurrency LUNA, Terraform Labs and Do Kwon were responsible for wiping out more than $40 billion dollars in value following their collapse. The Luna Foundation Guard (LFG), which was established to provide funds to keep the TUSD stablecoin at a $1 value, is another entity that the SEC intends to access documents from with the court’s permission. Singaporean police had stated last month that they had launched an investigation into the collapse of the TUSD stablecoin.Meanwhile, both the South Korean and US authorities are seeking the extradition of Do Kwon to face related charges. He was arrested last month in the southeastern European country of Montenegro where he was charged with having used forged documentation to enter the country. Although he had denied it on social media, in effect Do Kwon had been on the run from the reach of South Korean authorities over the course of a number of months, spending a portion of that time in Montenegro.Asset huntAn investigation by authorities in South Korea in recent weeks revealed that they were unable to find any assets held in the country owned by the Terraform Labs founder. The trail in chasing down any such assets has led to the United States. It is understood that Do Kwon bought real estate in the United States under his mother’s name. This is a common tactic for those who attempt to evade future confiscation of assets.Earlier this week, South Korean prosecutors confirmed that they are investigating a transfer of funds by Do Kwon to a leading law firm based in Seoul.