Kazakhstan plans CryptoCity as pilot project for crypto payments

Crypto.com unlocks regulated expansion through UK FCA licensing awardSingapore’s Crypto.com has obtained an Electronic Money Institution (EMI) license from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the United Kingdom. The approval complements the platform’s existing status as a registered crypto-asset business, a milestone achieved in August 2022.Photo by Robert Tudor on UnsplashSet to expand product offeringIn a press release published to its website on Monday, the company outlined that the EMI license represents a pivotal step for the firm, empowering the exchange to issue and manage electronic money. This expansion goes beyond its initial crypto-asset business focus, which concentrated primarily on compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) regulations.The regulatory nod came after Crypto.com underwent a comprehensive examination of its business and compliance practices, ensuring alignment with the stringent AML and CTF requirements in the UK.With this authorization in hand, Crypto.com is poised to introduce a range of e-money products tailored for the UK market. This move aligns the company with other cryptocurrency firms like Coinbase and Gemini, which have previously secured similar licenses.Notwithstanding that, while some other well-known platforms have struggled with recently introduced rules related to the marketing of crypto products and services in the UK, Crypto.com’s UK subsidiary company, FORIS DAX UK LIMITED, had successfully registered with the FCA in October.Building out global expansionWhile a trend has emerged in 2023 for crypto platforms to expand within regional markets around the world beyond the United States, Crypto.com has been following a global strategy for some time already. Last month, CRO DAX Middle East, a subsidiary company of Crypto.com, secured a license from the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) in Dubai to offer regulated virtual asset services.Earlier this year, Patrick Yoon, General Manager of Crypto.com’s Korean business outlined plans for expansion within that market, including the aspiration to obtain the banking relationship required in order to conduct virtual asset trading business in South Korea.Dutch licensing successEarlier in July, Crypto.com received approval from the Dutch central bank, De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), to extend its cryptocurrency services in the Netherlands.This recognition places Crypto.com among the 36 cryptocurrency-related businesses approved by the Dutch central bank, joining major industry players like Coinbase Europe, eToro and Bitstamp. Notably, this approval followed Binance’s inability to secure registration in the Netherlands, leading to its exit from the country.Expressing enthusiasm about this achievement, Kris Marszalek, CEO of Crypto.com, emphasized the importance of the UK market for their business. He stated:“The UK has and continues to be a hugely important market for our business and the greater industry. We look forward to continuing to collaborate with a global regulatory leader in the FCA in our collective pursuit of responsible innovation for crypto.”Crypto.com’s global expansion strategy includes regulatory approvals in Singapore, France, Italy, Dubai and Australia. However, in a strategic shift, the platform discontinued its institutional exchange service for professional customers in the United States in June. Citing a decline in demand, this move aligns with the broader market conditions in the U.S., influenced by ongoing legal actions against major exchanges such as Binance and Coinbase.

Terraform Labs civil trial proceeds with confidential filingsSingaporean blockchain development firm Terraform Labs, the creator of the failed Terra blockchain protocol, has reached an agreement on a protective order in their ongoing civil case with the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).Photo by Thomas Habr on UnsplashData shielded from public disclosureThe decision, sanctioned by the U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York on Wednesday, ensures that materials marked as confidential by the involved parties will remain shielded from public disclosure. The court is obligated to seal any discovery filings labeled confidential ahead of the trial.Judge Rakoff conveyed his likelihood of denying requests to unseal these confidential documents, although the order did not delve into the specific rationale for maintaining their confidential status beyond citing “good cause.” The finalized agreement on this protective order took place on Dec. 18, with legal representatives from both the SEC and Terraform Labs, including co-founder Do Kwon, giving their consent. Kwon, presently detained in Montenegro, faces potential extradition to the United States or South Korea.Pivotal momentThe depegging of Terraform’s stablecoin TerraUSD (UST) from the U.S. dollar marked a turning point in the cryptocurrency sector. This event is believed to have significantly contributed to the crypto market downturn in 2022, as it had a knock-on effect on countless other crypto businesses and platforms that were over-exposed to the flawed algorithmic currency.That chain of events led to the SEC taking action after the fact. However, it has subsequently also pursued a much criticized “regulation by enforcement” policy relative to the crypto sector. To that end, the Commission has pending cases against Coinbase, Ripple, Kraken and Binance, among others.In February, the SEC accused Terraform Labs and Do Kwon of conducting a multi-billion dollar crypto asset securities fraud by offering and selling unregistered securities. As proceedings have unfolded, both Terraform and the SEC have traded unsuccessful attempts to obtain summary judgment.Far-reaching consequencesThe ongoing SEC vs. Terraform civil case carries potential far-reaching consequences in terms of legal precedents within the cryptocurrency sector. In a separate ruling in August, the court allowed Terra to issue subpoenas to FTX entities as part of FTX’s bankruptcy proceedings. Judge Rakoff, in November, accepted confidential materials from Jump Crypto Holdings for discovery in this case.Troubled crypto lender Genesis Trading has also been tangled up in the proceedings with the courts directing it to comply with a subpoena initiated by Terraform Labs. The outcome of this case is poised to offer essential legal guidance for numerous companies operating in the crypto space.The SEC’s regulatory approach toward cryptocurrency firms in the United States has been subject to considerable debate and criticism. The commission’s alleged “regulation by enforcement” strategy, especially in dealings with major players in the crypto industry, has drawn accusations.While many in the U.S. have been unhappy with “regulation by enforcement,” the upside is that over the longer haul, the courts will be able to eventually furnish the regulatory clarity that the SEC refuses to provide. The ongoing scrutiny of regulatory approaches and the outcomes of cases like Terraform Labs vs. SEC will undoubtedly shape the future legal landscape of the cryptocurrency industry.

Singapore Judge Says Crypto Not MoneyIn recent years, legal processes in various jurisdictions worldwide have seen judges comment on whether cryptocurrency is actually money. The latest such determination has been made by Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy who outlined in a Singapore court that while being a component of financial transactions, cryptocurrencies are not money.The consideration emerged in a recent court hearing at Singapore’s High Court in a case involving the Algorand Foundation and failed Singapore-based hedge fund, Three Arrows Capital (3AC). Justice Coomaraswamy’s comments arose due to a discussion in the midst of the court proceedings involving the Judge and counsel representing the Algorand Foundation.©Pexels/EKATERINA BOLOVTSOVASeashells as moneyIn setting out his rationale for the need for 3AC to be wound up, Daniel Chan, a lawyer for the WongPartnership law firm that was representing the Algorand Foundation in the proceedings, told the judge that despite foreign currencies not being recognized as legal tender in Singapore, or used broadly as a medium of exchange within the city state, those foreign currencies are recognized by Singapore law as money. Using that analogy Chan suggested that by implication, the same scenario should be considered where cryptocurrencies are concerned.The judge provided a counterpoint: “What if you had a [community] in the world that used seashells as its internal medium of exchange? Would the Singapore courts have to recognize that as money.” Chan claimed that the judge had used an extreme example although Coomaraswamy remained steadfast in his view, pointing out that seashells had indeed been used as a form of money in the distant past.Coomaraswamy proceeded to dismiss the Algorand Foundation’s winding up application. He acknowledged that the Foundation did have standing in bringing the application. However, as he determined that cryptocurrency couldn’t be classed as money, on that basis he dismissed the application. In conveying his decision, he stated: “The word indebtedness, in my view, must require a debt which is in fiat currency. Determining whether or not a particular intangible, such as cryptocurrency, is money would require a detailed examination of evidence which is not appropriate in the context of insolvency.”Legal tenderThus far, bitcoin has been recognized as legal tender in two countries — El Salvador and the Central African Republic. In 2020, a French court referred to the leading cryptocurrency as money, agreeing that Bitcoin loans can be recognized as customer loans in the same way as loans denominated in fiat currencies. Earlier that year, an Australian court recognized bitcoin as a legally legitimate form of investment. In the United States, a Federal court recognized bitcoin as “money” or “funds” in a prosecution taken against Silk Road website operator Ross Ulbricht.There have been many similar instances in courts globally where judges have had to grapple with the consideration of whether bitcoin and crypto more generally can be regarded as money. Similar to the difficulty authorities are having in regulating cryptocurrency, it’s an issue that in most cases lacks complete clarity and in which we can expect further discussions on, similar to this most recent consideration in the Singaporean high court.