Blockstream partnership & new office announced in Japanese expansion

HKMA reflects on retail CBDC pilot phase one completionHong Kong’s Monetary Authority (HKMA), the Chinese territory’s central bank, recently released a report following the completion of phase one of its central bank digital currency (CBDC) pilot, highlighting the potential benefits of a retail CBDC, commonly referred to as e-HKD (digital Hong Kong dollar).Photo by Ruslan Bardash on UnsplashUndecided on full implementationIn a press release published by the HKMA on Monday, the authority clarified that the report underscores that while a retail CBDC could bring value to the payments ecosystem and unlock new economic transaction possibilities, in-depth investigation and evaluation are essential before considering large-scale implementation.At this stage, Hong Kong’s central bank has not committed to introducing an e-HKD, but the report sheds light on the prospects and challenges associated with such a move. The region has been signaling its intent to position itself as a hub for virtual assets, evident in the regulatory framework introduced in June and the granting of licenses to crypto trading platforms in August.Project e-HKD, initiated by the HKMA in 2021, is a significant step toward assessing the feasibility of a digital Hong Kong dollar. The pilot program was launched in November 2022 as part of the HKMA's “Fintech 2025” strategy. However, the HKMA remains cautious, as reflected in the comments of HKMA CEO Eddie Yue earlier this month. Yue told the South China Morning Post that the central bank is still waiting for greater clarity when it comes to the technological, legal and societal aspects of full implementation.Three core attributes identifiedThe report identifies three primary areas where an e-HKD could provide value: programmability, tokenization and atomic settlement. These attributes could lead to faster, more cost-efficient and more inclusive transactions. However, it’s essential to note that the 14 pilot programs conducted with 16 participating firms during phase one were executed on a small scale within a controlled environment.The phase one review highlights that the true potential and prerequisites for implementing an e-HKD on a larger scale depend on market developments and further investigation. It acknowledges that minor issues identified during the pilot phase could become more prominent or even unacceptable in a production environment.Gearing up for phase twoPhase one of the pilot program delved into various aspects, including full-fledged payments, offline payments, tokenized deposits, programmable payments and the settlement of Web3 transactions and tokenized assets. Hong Kong is now gearing up for phase two of the pilot, with plans to explore new use cases for an e-HKD and engage in more focused pilot initiatives. The goal is to understand how the e-HKD can facilitate innovative methods of transacting goods and services while maintaining financial stability.The HKMA’s stance on a retail CBDC places it at the center of a global debate. While the U.S. remains undecided on the issue, with the topic becoming contentious in presidential elections, India has forged ahead with plans for a retail CBDC. Meanwhile, Thailand’s central bank commenced a pilot project for a retail CBDC earlier this year.

Korean Financial Regulator Reveals Crypto Accounting Guidelines to Prevent Inflated Company ValuationsThe Korean Financial Services Commission (FSC) has announced new regulations to address accounting uncertainties in the blockchain industry, according to local news outlet KBS News. The rapid growth of the industry and the increasing impact of cryptocurrency transactions on corporate accounting have resulted in confusion due to the lack of clear guidelines.Last month, the National Assembly’s plenary session passed the Virtual Asset User Protection Bill, emphasizing the need for improved regulation. In line with this development, the FSC has introduced practical guidelines and measures to resolve accounting uncertainties.The FSC has introduced two measures to achieve this goal: virtual asset accounting guidelines and mandatory disclosure of virtual assets in annotations within financial statements.Photo by Beatriz Pérez Moya on UnsplashAccounting guidelinesThe virtual asset accounting guidelines state that when an issuer sells virtual assets to a customer, they must fulfill all obligations, such as the sales process, in order to recognize it as revenue. Any costs incurred during the issuance of a virtual asset and the creation of its platform should be recognized as expenses, unless there is clear evidence that these activities specifically contribute to the development of the virtual asset. Additionally, any reserved virtual assets after issuance cannot be treated as assets on the company’s balance sheet. These guidelines aim to prevent companies from artificially inflating the value of their companies using virtual assets.When recognizing virtual assets as assets or liabilities, virtual asset service providers (VASPs) must consider the concept of economic control. Economic control refers to the entity’s authority to dispose of a virtual asset without needing customer authorization.Virtual assets in annotationsFurthermore, companies are obligated to disclose their virtual asset transactions and holdings in annotations to the financial statement. This requirement ensures that users of corporate accounting information have sufficient details. Public companies holding virtual assets for investment purposes must state the basis for classifying the assets as assets or liabilities. They must also provide the book and market values of their virtual assets in their financial statements.Companies that have created or issued virtual assets are required to provide comprehensive information about the quantity and characteristics of these assets. They must also explain their revenue recognition methodology in the event of asset sales. Companies must provide disclosure regarding the historical utilization of cryptocurrencies that have been issued but remain unsold. This disclosure includes various factors such as portfolios and volumes.VASPs must disclose the volume and market value of virtual assets entrusted to them by customers for each asset, regardless of whether these assets are recognized as assets or liabilities. VASPs also have to provide information about the level of protection measures they have implemented to mitigate risks such as hacking.The FSC expects that these measures will enable readers of financial statements to make meaningful comparisons between VASPs while ensuring the provision of reliable information.The accounting guidelines, after incorporating industry feedback, are expected to undergo deliberations and resolutions by both the accounting standards review committee and the Korean Securities and Futures Commission, as per local news outlet Kyunghyang Shinmun. Once the guidelines receive final approval, they will be promulgated and implemented immediately. This process is anticipated to take place between October and November.Meanwhile, the inclusion of virtual asset disclosures in the annotations of financial statements will be enforced next January.

Japan is preparing to shift oversight of crypto assets from its payments rulebook to its main securities law, a move that would treat digital tokens more squarely as investment products rather than payment tools, according to a new report from the country’s financial regulator. In a working-group paper on crypto asset regulation released Dec. 10, the Financial Services Agency (FSA) said it plans to bring “crypto assets” under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA) instead of the Payment Services Act (PSA), as reported by local outlet CoinPost. The agency framed the change as an effort to strengthen investor protection as more households buy digital assets for investment purposes.Photo by Alessio Ferretti on UnsplashCrypto distinct from traditional securitiesThe regulatory perimeter itself would not expand. The FSA intends to keep using the PSA’s existing definition of “crypto assets,” while leaving non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and stablecoins outside the scope of the new framework. Under FIEA, crypto assets would be carved out as a distinct class separate from traditional securities, reflecting the fact that they generally do not confer legal claims such as dividends or interest payments. That distinction is already shaping how firms attempt to expand the economic utility of crypto assets. The move toward a clearer rulebook also arrives as market participants look for ways to construct return-generating mechanisms for assets that do not produce steady income on their own. Hong Kong–based Animoca Brands has partnered with Solv Protocol to provide Japanese institutions access to a Bitcoin-backed wrapper, according to Cointelegraph. The product is structured to generate returns in the 4% to 12% range for large holders, effectively layering yield on top of a token that otherwise provides no ongoing income. Rising retail demandThe regulator's report also details how deeply crypto has penetrated Japan’s retail market. As of October 2025, accounts at domestically registered crypto-asset exchanges had climbed past 13 million, with user deposits topping 5 trillion yen (about $32 billion). Roughly 70% of account holders fell into annual income brackets below 7 million yen (around $45,000), and more than 80% of individual accounts held less than 100,000 yen (about $640). The FSA said 86.6% of trading was driven by expectations of long-term price gains, indicating that most users view crypto primarily as an investment vehicle rather than a means of payment. Against that backdrop, the working group concluded that FIEA is a better fit than the PSA, which is geared toward payment services and anti-money-laundering (AML) controls. Shifting to the securities law would give regulators clearer authority to impose disclosure standards, govern conduct in the market, and levy penalties for unfair trading practices, the report said. The proposed framework would place heavier disclosure obligations on token issuances and initial exchange offerings (IEOs). Issuers or the listing exchanges would be required to provide key information to investors, and, in cases where an issuer does not have audited financial statements, offerings would be subject to investment limits. Crypto exchanges would face stronger due diligence requirements, tighter cybersecurity expectations, and broader insider-trading restrictions. Those rules would not only apply to employees at trading platforms but also to issuers and other insiders around listing events. Rules split for CEXs and DEXsCentralized exchanges (CEXs) would be supervised largely in line with securities firms. That would include requirements to maintain reserves or insurance to protect customer assets and expanded oversight of wallet-service providers connected to those platforms. Decentralized exchanges (DEXs), which have no central operator, would not be brought under the same regime. Instead, the FSA is proposing lighter, perimeter-based rules focused on disclosures by wallet providers and interface operators, coupled with efforts to warn users about the specific risks of trading on DEXs.  Industry participants, meanwhile, have raised concerns that licensed exchanges may face higher compliance costs in the near term as they adapt to the new regime.  Moving forward, the FSA is expected to refine the framework with an eye toward submitting a bill to the ordinary Diet session in the new year.