Filipino legislator proposes bill to establish Bitcoin reserve

India Offers Suggestions in the Development of G20 Crypto GuidelinesIndia submitted its Presidency Note on Tuesday, contributing to the global framework for cryptocurrency regulation under the auspices of the G20, a forum comprising the world’s 20 largest economies.The document aligns itself with the guidance provided by prominent entities including the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).Photo by Swapnil Deshpandey on UnsplashKey Summit topicMany months in advance of September’s G20 Summit in New Delhi, it was clear that crypto regulation would be a key subject for discussion. The FSB’s guidelines, released in July, offer a comprehensive framework for regulating various crypto assets, particularly stablecoins, based on existing standards and principles. These guidelines encompass crucial aspects such as governance, risk management, disclosure, supervision, and cross-border collaboration.In May, the FSB’s Regional Consultative Group for Asia met in Cebu, in the Philippines. During that meeting, the FSB highlighted the risks implicated by digital assets.Published in June, the FATF guidelines put forth a universally applicable set of rules to combat money laundering and counter the risks of terrorist financing linked to cryptocurrencies. One of the main provisions is the “travel rule,” compelling crypto service providers to share customer information when conducting fund transfers.While the IMF guidelines are expected to be unveiled in August, they will encompass a synthesis paper that offers a comprehensive roadmap for crypto regulation. This roadmap is designed to reflect input from multiple stakeholders and jurisdictions.India’s supplementary additionsAmidst endorsing these global crypto guidelines, India also proposes supplementary additions, particularly highlighting the challenges faced by developing economies in the crypto realm. The document underlines that these nations may grapple with capacity and resource constraints when implementing effective crypto regulation and supervision.Furthermore, they might require more extensive access to reliable data regarding crypto activities and associated risks. Developing economies are also at a heightened risk of falling victim to illicit crypto use, including money laundering, tax evasion, and cyber-crime.In light of these concerns, India advocates for the inclusion of developing economy-specific considerations in the FSB’s guidelines. The country also urges for technical assistance and capacity-building support to be extended to these nations. Additionally, it proposes a global outreach initiative to raise awareness of the risks, commencing with nations experiencing higher levels of crypto adoption.Broadening the scopeAnother noteworthy suggestion from India is an extension of the regulatory approach beyond the G20’s scope, encompassing the broader digital economy. While recognizing that crypto is merely one facet of the sweeping digital transformation reshaping multiple sectors, India’s document underscores the need for enhanced cooperation and coordination among various stakeholders and authorities at both national and international levels.In this vein, India proposes that the G20 contemplate formulating a comprehensive framework for the digital economy. This framework should encompass a wide array of concerns, including data governance, digital taxation, digital identity, digital inclusion, and fostering digital innovation, according to the document.India’s exploration of diverse aspects related to cryptocurrency — ranging from legal status to taxation implications, central bank digital currency (CBDC) potential, and innovation possibilities — further underlines its desire to see greater international cohesion in relation to the regulation of digital assets.

Hong Kong Deems Crypto as PropertyIn dealing with a case involving defunct Hong Kong-based cryptocurrency exchange Gatecoin, a Hong Kong judge has determined cryptocurrency as being property “capable of being held in trust.” Presiding over the case, Justice Linda Chan stated recently that Hong Kong takes a broad definition of what constitutes property.©Pexels/mitbg000Digital assets held in trustHaving expended efforts to try and recover funds from a former payments service provider that the company had partnered with, Gatecoin announced that it would shut down the business and commence the liquidation of the business in 2019. With bankruptcy proceedings being notoriously slow, that process continues today, resulting in Justice Chan’s recent determination.The notion of property held in trust is a common theme that has been explored in a number of cryptocurrency business bankruptcy processes recently, including the BlockFi, Celsius and FTX processes.Gatecoin has not proven to be any different in this regard. Liquidators had turned to the Hong Kong courts for direction as to how creditors’ digital assets, as held on the platform, should be defined. If property is deemed to have been held “in trust”, then that determination has implications for the owner of those assets relative to the bankruptcy proceedings.In the case of BlockFi, a determination was made in a US court that those who had simply custodied digital assets with the platform without earning any yield were property owners and that they should have their assets returned.The importance of Terms of Service (ToS)Alex Mashinsky, the founder and CEO of failed crypto lending competitor Celsius outlined to service users on a number of occasions that the assets remained their property even though his company used customer assets for various trading activities. The bankruptcy judge reached a different determination based on the terms of service. Service users had acknowledged in signing off on Celsius’ terms of service that assets held on the platform that accessed yield-bearing products became the property of Celsius when deposited within those products on the Celsius platform.Although it has not been dealt with yet, 1.4 million creditors relative to the bankruptcy process of failed cryptocurrency exchange FTX are likely to discover later this year if they can claim “in trust” property rights. An ad hoc group of creditors has taken legal action for the return of their digital assets on the basis of an assertion that the assets remained their property when transferred onto the platform.ImplicationsWhilst a seemingly uninteresting determination to anyone less informed about such bankruptcy proceedings, such decisions can have profound consequences. In a bankruptcy process, there is a hierarchy of creditors, with some having greater rights than others when it comes to the distribution of bankruptcy estate funds. Recognition of assets being held in trust as property would likely take those property owners out of the bankruptcy process, allowing the return of their funds (where available) while others who are classified as creditors get a distribution of whatever funds are left in the bankruptcy estate thereafter.Additional complexityGatecoin’s case was further complicated by the existence of various sets of terms of service. In two of the three instances, the court found that no trust language existed. There is one subset of creditors who may have the ability to claim their digital assets as property. The liquidators have agreed to identify them and contact them in that regard.While the process may be proving to be a minefield for Gatecoin’s creditors, it has served a broader purpose in crypto more generally as it has provided yet another opportunity for another jurisdiction, in this instance Hong Kong, to provide some more clarity with regard to the legal status and standing of cryptocurrency.

The blockchain network underpinning Bitcoin, the world’s largest cryptocurrency, requires an energy volume comparable to the annual consumption of Thailand. According to Digiconomist’s Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index, the protocol utilized roughly 204.44 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity between Nov. 18, 2024, and Nov. 18, 2025.Photo by Fré Sonneveld on UnsplashFiscal losses drive Malaysian oversightAmid these intense energy demands, Malaysia’s primary electricity utility has recorded substantial financial impairments attributed to illicit activities. Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) reported losses totaling 4.57 billion ringgit ($1.1 billion) from illegal crypto-mining operations over a five-year span. In a Nov. 19 report by The Edge Malaysia, the Ministry of Energy Transition and Water Transformation (Petra) disclosed these figures to parliament, specifying that the unauthorized mining occurred at 13,827 locations between 2020 and August of this year. To counter these infractions through regulatory channels, Petra has formed a special committee scheduled to convene before year-end. This body aims to recommend enhancements to the Electricity Supply Act, which currently delineates penalties based on the offender's classification. Domestic violators face fines ranging from 1,000 to 50,000 ringgit ($240 to $12,000), imprisonment of up to one year, or both. Penalties escalate for non-domestic entities, involving fines between 20,000 and one million ringgit ($480 to $240,000) and potential prison terms of up to five years. Despite these provisions regarding electricity theft, a specific legal code regulating the act of crypto mining remains absent, creating a jurisdictional void. International bans and grid reallocationStrategies to curtail electricity usage by crypto miners are becoming evident elsewhere in Southeast Asia as well. Laotian Deputy Energy Minister Chanthaboun Soukaloun told Reuters last month that the nation intends to suspend electricity supplies to crypto miners by early 2026. He cited the sector's minimal economic contribution and low job creation as primary factors. Consequently, the state plans to redirect power to high-priority sectors, including AI data centers, metals processing, and electric-vehicle manufacturing. Parallel restrictions are emerging globally. In October, the government of British Columbia enacted a permanent prohibition on new BC Hydro connections for crypto miners to safeguard the Canadian province’s energy reserves. Officials pointed to the industry’s "disproportionate energy consumption and limited economic benefit" as the rationale for the policy. The debate over thermal innovationConversely, some enterprises are exploring methods to capture thermal output from Bitcoin mining to heat residential and commercial properties. If viable, such repurposing could utilize the considerable thermal byproducts of mining. A K33 Research study cited by CNBC indicates the industry generates roughly 100 TWh of heat annually, a figure sufficient to warm the entirety of Finland. However, industry consensus on the feasibility of these applications remains elusive. Proponents suggest that mining infrastructure could be situated in proximity to heat consumers. Skeptics, however, contend that the reliance on application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chips makes this impractical, arguing that the technical difficulty of mining a block renders household participation unfeasible. Despite these differing views, the concept continues to attract attention as a potential avenue for innovation in energy distribution. As jurisdictions like Malaysia and British Columbia tighten regulatory oversight, the cryptocurrency sector faces mounting pressure to address its energy footprint. The divergence between government restrictions and industry-led efficiency proposals underscores the complex relationship between digital asset infrastructure and global energy resources. Given the shifting landscape of policy and technology, the outlook for sustainable large-scale crypto mining remains uncertain, as governments weigh energy demands against economic benefits and the industry searches for more efficient ways to operate.