Report paints bright picture of India’s Web3 development

Bitcoin’s long-standing four-year market cycle tied to halving events may be losing influence, according to a new outlook from crypto exchange Bybit and research firm Block Scholes that examines market conditions through 2026. The report suggests that Bitcoin price action may be increasingly influenced by macroeconomic policy, institutional participation, and market structure rather than by new supply reductions. It says historical cycles have tended to track changes in global liquidity, often measured by global M2, and that this relationship has become more visible, while Bitcoin continues to respond to shifts in expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts.Photo by Pawel Czerwinski on UnsplashETFs reshaping demand dynamicsThe analysis points to structural changes in demand, citing the launch of spot Bitcoin ETFs and the growth of corporate digital asset treasuries (DATs). The report says ETF flows and corporate balance-sheet allocations are playing a larger role in price formation than retail trading. That shift is disrupting the traditional capital rotation from Bitcoin into Ethereum and then into smaller altcoins and memecoins. As a result, the report suggests broad altcoin rallies may be harder to ignite, with gains depending on whether assets can be incorporated into institutional products such as ETFs. On the macro front, the report says markets are pricing in further Federal Reserve easing, with looser financial conditions potentially supporting a closer relationship between Bitcoin and major stock indexes despite recent underperformance versus U.S. equities. Based on options pricing, the report estimates a 10.3% implied probability that Bitcoin reaches $150,000 by the end of 2026. At present, Bitcoin is trading slightly above $91,000. Index criteria and Japan policy in viewThe analysis also highlights policy risks, including potential volatility tied to concerns over the possible exclusion of Strategy from major stock indexes, which could affect companies holding digital assets on their balance sheets. That risk has since eased after MSCI paused a proposal that would have excluded firms with digital asset reserves, though Benchmark analyst Mark Palmer cautioned that the issue could resurface in future rule reviews. The Bybit-Block Scholes report also cites potential policy tightening by the Bank of Japan later this year as another source of cross-asset risk, following its December rate hike of 25 basis points to a 30-year high of 0.75%. RWA and stablecoinsOne area of focus in the report for 2026 is real-world asset (RWA) tokenization, which it describes as building on the stablecoin adoption that gathered pace last year. That view is echoed in a separate outlook from Moody’s, cited by Cointelegraph, which says fiat-backed stablecoins and tokenized bank deposits are functioning as “digital cash” for settlement, liquidity management, and collateral movement. Moody’s estimates stablecoins processed about $9 trillion in on-chain settlement volume in 2025 and projects banks, asset managers, and infrastructure providers could invest more than $300 billion in digital finance by 2030. As an example, Moody’s cited JPMorgan’s U.S. dollar–denominated deposit token, JPM Coin, as a way digital-cash layers can operate on top of existing banking systems. The bank’s Kinexys unit plans to work with Digital Asset to bring JPM Coin to Digital Asset’s Canton Network in a phased rollout during 2026. This follows JPMorgan’s expansion of the project onto Coinbase’s Ethereum layer-2 network Base for institutional clients. 

Several South Korean crypto-only exchanges have long been struggling to keep their business afloat due to their prolonged weak performances. The local news outlet Etoday reported that the persistent underperformance of these local crypto exchanges is mounting pressure on their corporate operation and management, resulting in them shutting down their businesses. The situation hinders them from meeting the requirements set by the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the Financial Services Commission (FSC).  Their inability to generate sufficient revenue, due to faltering token trading volumes, makes complying with the FIU guidelines a daunting task.Photo by Anne Nygård on UnsplashCascading closure of crypto exchanges According to crypto industry insiders, local crypto-only exchanges including Cashierest, Coinbit, Huobi Korea, Probit and Tennten have announced their service closure as early as the second half of last year. On Nov. 6, Cashierest announced it was shutting down its services, with Coinbit following suit in the same month. The cascading closure announcements from crypto exchanges raised concerns about their potential harm on investors.  In an effort to protect crypto investors, the FIU has released a statement that local crypto exchanges are obliged to meet the requirements of the FIU in compliance with the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, despite their closing of services. Furthermore, the regulator said finalizing business closure requires due assessment by the FIU.  "Virtual asset service providers (VASPs) must notify their users of the closure and explain how to reclaim their assets at least one month before the business closing date. They must also support users to withdraw their assets for at least three months before closing," the FIU stated.  Struggling to meet FIU requirements However, some point out that it would be challenging for near-bankrupt crypto exchanges to run a customer service center for more than three months. Some exchanges allow users to deposit and withdraw their assets until their closure, as they would under normal conditions, but charge additional fees afterward. "It is very demanding to operate customer services when we're seeing no actual gains," one exchange official said.  It has been found that some crypto exchanges failed to register a change in their business state with the FIU, which is mandatory in the event of business location or contact changes, under the Financial Transaction Reports Act.  When Etoday reporters visited the offices of some of these crypto exchanges, they were met with empty rooms. One person who is familiar with the matter said, "The exchange has moved its office to another location and is scheduled to resume service in March." 

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.