Blockchain game performance is key to Wemade’s future success

Dispute Embroils Bitget in Legal Battle With Crypto InfluencerBitget, the crypto exchange registered in Seychelles, finds itself entangled in a legal dispute with prominent crypto influencer Evan Luthra.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashAccount freezing allegationsThe conflict stems from Luthra’s allegations of account freezing and loss of funds after a token listing incident in March. Luthra has filed a lawsuit against Bitget, accusing the exchange of withholding $200,000 in Tether (USDT) without adequate explanation, while also freezing his account.The legal drama follows Luthra’s involvement with the Reel Star project, where he served as an advisor for the platform which is aimed at creators. As compensation for his collaboration with the project, Luthra received Reel Token (REELT), the project’s utility token.Bitget alleged market manipulationUpon the listing of REELT tokens, Luthra reportedly sold 1.3 million tokens on Bitget. In response, Bitget claims it faced a manipulative attack orchestrated by a group of traders attempting to profit from market manipulation immediately after the token’s listing. This allegedly caused a significant drop in the token’s price, prompting Bitget’s decision to freeze Luthra’s account.Bitget states that it contacted Luthra seeking an explanation for the suspicious trading behavior. Luthra acknowledged the token sale but failed to provide satisfactory reasons for his actions, according to Bitget’s version of events. The exchange maintains that user protection is its foremost priority and that it takes swift action against illegal or fraudulent behaviors.$16 million damages claimLuthra refutes the allegations, asserting his innocence and citing alleged approval from Reel Star’s Co-Founder Navdeep Sharma for his token sale plans. He seeks a substantial $16 million in damages, in addition to the frozen funds. Luthra claims that Bitget unjustly deprived him of his tokens, asserting his status as a fully KYCed user entitled to access his holdings.In the aftermath of the incident, Bitget conducted an investigation and offered a compensation plan for affected clients. Gracy Chen, Bitget’s Managing Director, emphasized the exchange’s commitment to user protection and its actions against illicit activities on its platform. Addressing the matter on Twitter, Chen didn’t hold back in her commentary on Luthra, stating that he “has a history of fraudulent activities,” which she says were exposed by crypto journalist CoffeeZilla.The legal dispute has ignited debates within the crypto community. Supporters of Luthra contend that his case underscores broader issues faced by users of centralized exchanges, shedding light on the need for improved user rights and protection. On the other hand, some argue that Bitget acted appropriately to safeguard its users and the market integrity.CZ brought into the disputeThe legal battle has attracted attention from influential figures in the crypto industry. Against a backdrop of a very public airing of the dispute on Twitter, in a recent tweet Luthra invited Changpeng Zhao (CZ), the CEO of Binance, to respond to Luthra’s claim that Bitget spreads rumors about other exchanges. CZ was having none of it, writing: “You should talk to them, right? We are not a regulator for other exchanges.”The case highlights the intricate challenges surrounding market manipulation and token listings within the crypto space. As it unfolds, the outcome could potentially set a precedent for similar situations involving token listings, market manipulation, and user protection.

Huobi Aims for Hong Kong License Within 6–12 MonthsAccording to Justin Sun, the founder of layer one blockchain Tron and advisor to Huobi, the cryptocurrency exchange could have obtained a crypto trading license in Hong Kong by the end of the year.Photo by Pixabay on PexelsApplication submissionIn an interview with CoinDesk TV on Friday, Sun revealed that Huobi recently submitted an application to become a virtual asset service provider (VASP) in Hong Kong. While the approval process typically takes up to 18 months, Sun expressed optimism that a decision could be reached within the next six to twelve months.A legacy Chinese cryptocurrency exchange was driven out of the country a few years ago following the implementation of a crypto trading ban, and is now a Seychelles-headquartered company which currently has offices in Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.It had been previously understood that at least 10 companies with Chinese founders, including OKX, Bybit, and Huobi, had either announced or were known to be planning to announce their bid for licenses in Hong Kong. Sun’s comments today add clarity to the matter.Sun highlighted that during this grace period, which spans the next 18 months, the specific details of regulations will be developed. This includes guidelines on compliance with customer withdrawals and anti-money laundering requirements. He further explained that with the approval, Huobi Hong Kong will be able to operate, onboard customers, establish banking relationships, and serve its user base effectively.In a strategic move, Huobi relocated its headquarters from Singapore to Hong Kong, driven by the city’s aspirations to become a leading virtual asset hub as early as this summer. The exchange’s decision to establish a presence in Hong Kong positions it favorably to leverage the emerging opportunities in the region.Expectations of more applicantsWhile it’s not entirely clear who else has applied, Sun speculated that five to six other major players could follow suit. Among the potential contenders mentioned were OKX, Gate.io, Bitget, and ByBit. This suggests a potential wave of interest in Hong Kong as a regulatory-friendly jurisdiction for virtual asset trading.When asked about Huobi’s plans to enter the Canadian market and compete with established players like Coinbase and Kraken, Sun made it clear that Huobi has no immediate intentions to operate in Canada. He emphasized the importance of prioritizing friendly jurisdictions, with a specific focus on regions like the Caribbean, Hong Kong, and Japan.Hong Kong’s regulatory approach towards cryptocurrencies and virtual asset service providers has gained attention in recent months. The city’s commitment to establishing a robust framework for digital asset trading and ensuring compliance with international standards has drawn interest from industry players seeking regulatory clarity and stability.As Huobi progresses through the application process and awaits a decision on its VASP license, the outcome will have significant implications not only for the exchange itself but also for the broader crypto ecosystem in Hong Kong. The successful acquisition of a license by Huobi could set a positive precedent, attracting more exchanges to establish a presence in the region and further solidifying Hong Kong’s position as a leading virtual asset hub in Asia.The developments in Hong Kong’s regulatory landscape will be closely monitored by industry participants as they shape the future of virtual asset trading in the city.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the city-state’s central bank and primary financial regulator, has set a deadline of June 30 for unlicensed digital token service providers (DTSPs) working out of Singapore to cease offering their services to clients in overseas markets.Photo by Hu Chen on UnsplashResponding to feedbackThe deadline emerged by way of a process MAS has followed as part of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 (FSM Act). Last October, the regulator invited feedback from stakeholders related to the authority’s approach to the regulation of DTSPs. MAS published its response to that feedback on May 30.  It stated:”DTSPs which are subject to a licensing requirement under section 137 of the FSM Act must suspend or cease carrying on a business of providing DT services outside Singapore by 30 June 2025.” It added that it was not including any transitional arrangement for DTSPs despite MAS receiving such a suggestion from a number of feedback respondents. Instead, unlicensed DTSPs will need to abide by the June 30 deadline and have acquired a license by then or cease unlicensed activity.The regulator defines DTSPs as individuals, partnerships or Singapore corporations operating from a place of business in Singapore, including those formed or incorporated in Singapore who offer digital token services outside Singapore. Those found in breach of the regulation could face up to three years in prison and fines of up to S$250,000 ($195,000). Companies who have already obtained licensing or those exempted by way of the Securities and Futures Act, Payment Services Act and the Financial Advisers Act are free to continue trading. Challenging licensing requirementsThose who wish to become compliant will have to satisfy some challenging requirements. For those granted a license, an annual license fee of S$10,000 ($7,780) applies. Small-scale DTSPs need to satisfy a $150,000 ($116,670) ongoing capital requirement, while larger, well-established DTSPs must comply with a S$250,000 ($195,000) capital requirement. Additionally, MAS has put in place competency requirements related to a DTSP's CEO, directors, partners and managers. Hagen Rooke, a partner at law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, outlined on LinkedIn that while it's possible for unlicensed operators to obtain licensing, it will be very difficult to get a license. In its feedback response document, the regulator stated: “MAS will approach the licensing of DTSPs in a prudent and cautious manner and there will be extremely limited circumstances under which MAS will consider granting an applicant a licence under section 138 of the FSM Act.” Rooke advised crypto companies that may be affected to act swiftly in order to derisk through an operational restructuring or removing the businesses' Singapore touchpoints. He suggested that firms need to consider if it has customers outside of Singapore or front-office functions located outside of the city-state to determine if they could be affected by this regulatory measure. A number of Asian countries have moved to take action against unlicensed foreign firms that have engaged with local investors, with Thailand becoming the latest country to do so recently. However, the Singaporean authorities have approached the issue from the opposite perspective, citing the potential reputational risk that unlicensed DTSPs pose for Singapore.