Korean tech firms distance themselves from label 'blockchain' in rebranding efforts

HashKey Report Outlines Risks of Liquid StakingLiquid staking derivatives (LSD) are not without their potential pitfalls according to a report published by Hong Kong’s HashKey Capital.Photo by Shubham Dhage on UnsplashLiquid staking exceeds $22 billionThe report, which was published by the digital asset manager and finance house in July, emphasizes the pressing need for enhanced decentralization to counteract the risks associated with this growing trend of liquid staking.The figures themselves are impressive. This year, the total value locked in the liquid staking derivatives market has surged past the $22 billion mark. Correspondingly, the market capitalization of LSD projects has skyrocketed to $18 billion, indicating a substantial influx of interest and investment.However, the growth that these protocols are witnessing also presents a dual-edged conundrum for the Ethereum ecosystem. HashKey Capital’s report underscores that despite the advantages these protocols might offer their respective communities and token-holders, they could potentially destabilize the Ethereum ecosystem in multifaceted ways.Centralization riskAs evident in HashKey Capital’s overview, several LSD protocols heavily rely on a limited number of node operators, effectively centralizing a significant portion of validator nodes. This centralization trend, as highlighted by the report, is a cause for concern. The concentration of node operators raises red flags, as it contradicts the fundamental tenets of decentralization that underpin blockchain technology.The report articulates the adverse effects of centralization in the realm of liquid staking. It points to the dangers of reduced competition and a heightened risk of censorship.The report raises an important caution: “There is a heightened possibility of censorship with centralized staking players, as they may be subject to incentives or regulatory pressure to censor transactions. This can potentially result in a disruption of the trust within the network.”Security threatsCentralization also ushers in security threats. The dominance of major staking players makes the Ethereum ecosystem more susceptible to 51% attacks. Furthermore, the potential for collusion among centralized stakers looms large, leading to actions that counteract the very essence of decentralization, such as front running and malicious maximal extractable value (MEV) susceptibility.However, amidst these centralization risks, HashKey Capital acknowledges that most protocols are in their nascent stages. Many of them have devised strategies to incorporate distributed validator technology into their protocols, a proactive step towards fostering greater decentralization and resilience.HashKey Exchange awarded retail services licenseIn an unrelated development, HashKey Exchange received approval on Wednesday to upgrade type 1 and type 7 licenses, allowing it to cater to retail investors in Hong Kong. This accomplishment comes a mere two months after the city introduced its Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) licensing framework on June 1.In this evolving landscape, HashKey Capital and OSL were among the pioneer licensed exchanges under the city’s earlier voluntary program. Now, the new regulations stipulate that crypto trading platforms must obtain a license to serve retail investors, further solidifying Hong Kong’s commitment to cultivating a thriving crypto ecosystem.As the HashKey Capital report and recent developments in Hong Kong demonstrate, there’s a lot in play relative to both crypto regulation, protocol design and new product innovation. The challenges posed by centralization in liquid staking underscore the importance of vigilance and corrective action. Meanwhile, Hong Kong’s aspirations to become a crypto stronghold offer a beacon of hope in an ever-evolving regulatory landscape.

SEC Seeks to Question Co-Founder of Singapore’s Terraform LabsThe United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken a step forward in its ongoing case against Singapore’s Terraform Labs by seeking to question Daniel Shin, the Co-Founder of the company.The SEC's intention is to gather evidence related to Chai Corporation, a payments company associated with Terraform and the Terra blockchain. District Judge Jed Rakoff granted the SEC’s request earlier this week, which is part of the regulatory body’s efforts to build a case against Terraform Labs and its Co-Founder, Do Kwon. The decision was based upon a motion originally filed in July.Photo by Bermix Studio on UnsplashRequesting South Korean assistanceThe motion, which was granted on Tuesday, allows the SEC to reach out to South Korea for assistance in questioning Shin and obtaining documents related to Chai Corporation. The regulatory body aims to gain insights into Kwon’s role at Chai, the utilization of the Terra blockchain by Chai, and the disclosures made by Chai regarding its relationship with Terraform.Additionally, the SEC is interested in understanding the reasons behind Chai’s separation from Terraform, as the two companies shared offices and staff until their split in 2020.No opposition filedOn a previous occasion, Kwon unsuccessfully challenged the SEC's attempt to access company records on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction given that Terraform is a Singapore-domiciled company. In June, both Terraform and Kwon attempted unsuccessfully to have the entire action thrown out.On this occasion neither Terraform Labs nor Kwon have opposed the SEC’s motion. In fact, they have even included their own set of questions and document requests. Both the Singaporean firm and its Co-Founder have denied the SEC’s allegations, which were filed earlier this year.The SEC’s lawsuit claims that Terraform’s cryptocurrencies, specifically Terra Luna Classic (LUNC) and Terra ClassicUSD (USTC), were involved in fraudulent activities. The US regulatory body further alleges that Kwon and Terraform falsely promoted the use of the Terra blockchain by Chai for processing and settling transactions.The SEC’s lawsuit also accuses Terraform and Kwon of fabricating transactions involving TerraKRW (KRT), a Korean won-pegged stablecoin, to give the impression that Chai was actively utilizing the Terra blockchain.Collapse falloutTerra, an interconnected crypto ecosystem, faced a collapse in May 2022, resulting in the loss of approximately $40 billion in value and impacting the wider cryptocurrency market. The aftermath of this collapse led to legal actions against individuals associated with Terraform Labs. South Korean prosecutors, for instance, charged Shin with multiple fraud offenses in April, alleging that he had concealed the risks of investing in Terraform’s cryptocurrencies.Kwon’s legal situation is equally complex. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Montenegro for attempting to leave the country using a fake passport. He faces criminal charges in both the United States and South Korea, and both countries have requested his extradition.The ongoing investigation sheds light on the intricate relationships within the Terra ecosystem, having an impact across different jurisdictions. As legal proceedings unfold, the outcome will likely have implications for the regulation and oversight of cryptocurrency and blockchain projects internationally.

CoinFLEX founder: creditors not to interfere with OPNXMark Lamb, the co-founder of failed crypto derivatives and yield platform CoinFLEX, has asserted that creditors of the company cannot interfere with OPNX, a Seychelles-incorporated company that Lamb has co-founded with Kyle Davies and Su Zhu, the founders of failed Singaporean crypto hedge fund, Three Arrows Capital (3AC).Photo by Chapman Chow on UnsplashFallout following writIt emerged in October that a group of CoinFLEX creditors had filed a writ of summons in the High Court of Hong Kong, claiming that OPNX, a new crypto bankruptcy claims trading platform linked to CoinFLEX, was established using CoinFLEX assets without their consent. While incorporated in the Seychelles, CoinFLEX ran its operations from Hong Kong.The writ alleges that Mark Lamb misappropriated assets, diverted clients and business opportunities and engaged in actions harmful to creditors during his tenure.The creditors argue that Lamb, while serving as CoinFLEX’s CEO, simultaneously devoted time and effort to setting up OPNX, contrary to his responsibilities. The allegations include diverting assets, falsely representing OPNX’s association with CoinFLEX creditors, disclosing confidential trade secrets and soliciting employees to move to OPNX.The legal action — filed by two companies, Liquidity Technologies and Liquidity Technologies Software — claims that OPNX’s formation was unauthorized and harmful to CoinFLEX creditors. Despite CoinFLEX’s terms of service requiring dispute resolution through arbitration in Hong Kong, the allegations have not been proven in the High Court of Hong Kong.Lamb addresses ‘Twitter FUD’In response to these creditor actions, earlier this week, Lamb took to X (formerly Twitter) to address what he termed as “Twitter FUD.” Lamb wrote:“The Hong Kong court ruled that the few CoinFLEX creditors behind recent ‘FUD’ must not disrupt or interfere with OPNX in any way — and their legal counsel has subsequently stopped representing them.”Lamb added that he hoped that CoinFLEX’s 4,800 creditors would choose the path that he has proposed on the basis that it “maximizes value.”OPNX has defended its position, emphasizing that it provided an opportunity for creditors to sell their claims on the exchange for quick cash, benefiting them. Davies and Zhu have pledged to donate their share of the profit to 3AC creditors.In February, OPNX CEO Leslie Lamb, Mark Lamb’s wife, announced the rebranding of CoinFLEX to Open Exchange (OPNX). However, the writ of summons claims that OPNX is a separate entity not authorized by CoinFLEX creditors. Leslie Lamb followed up in April by claiming backing from well-known entities in crypto venture capital, only for many of those mentioned to immediately refute such claims.The dispute has also implicated Roger Ver, a well-known character in the crypto space otherwise referred to as “Bitcoin Jesus.” Ver, a significant individual customer, was accused of defaulting by CoinFLEX. Ver denied defaulting and claimed that CoinFLEX used his trading positions against him, leading to a court-ordered arbitration.OPNX, since its launch in April, has obtained a Lithuanian license for spot trading in the EU and currently processes substantial daily trading volumes. Criminal and civil proceedings against OPNX co-founders Davies and Zhu are ongoing. The situation remains fluid as the legal dispute unfolds.