South Korea's crypto market cap shrinks 8% in H2 2025

Chinese financial industry groups have warned that illegal fundraising and fraud are increasingly emerging through stablecoins, airdrops, real-world asset (RWA) tokens, and crypto mining schemes, according to a Dec. 5 notice carried by the state-run Xinhua News Agency.Photo by Othman Alghanmi on UnsplashThe joint warning was issued by seven major bodies: the National Internet Finance Association of China, the China Banking Association, the Securities Association of China, the Asset Management Association of China, the China Futures Association, the China Association for Public Companies, and the Payment & Clearing Association of China. These groups stated that such products are being used to drive speculative trading, pyramid schemes, and other illicit activities that threaten financial stability. They stressed that cryptocurrencies are not legal tender in China and do not share the legal status of fiat currency, further noting that regulators have not approved any RWA tokenization activities. Crypto and RWA offerings prohibitedConsequently, the notice bars member institutions from directly or indirectly providing services related to the issuance or trading of cryptocurrencies or RWA tokens. The associations also urged members to intensify risk warnings and investor education, while encouraging the public to report suspected violations. This industry alert follows the central bank’s recent reiteration of its concerns regarding speculative crypto activity. According to Reuters, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) last month restated its ban on crypto-related business, citing a resurgence in speculation and compliance gaps in stablecoins that complicate risk management. The central bank plans to tighten enforcement against unlawful operations, reinforcing the blanket ban on crypto transactions and mining imposed in September 2021. Old Bitcoin loan feud resurfacesDespite this restrictive framework, disputes tied to legacy crypto dealings continue to surface. Cryptopolitan reported that a long-running controversy has re-emerged surrounding Li Feng, a co-founder of Moore Threads, a Chinese GPU designer widely viewed as a homegrown rival to Nvidia. According to Cryptopolitan, the scrutiny follows the company's Dec. 5 debut on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, where it raised 8 billion yuan ($1.1 billion). Reportedly, Li faces accusations of failing to repay 1,500 Bitcoin allegedly borrowed from OKX founder Xu Mingxing. Citing a Foresight News post referenced by analyst AB Kuai.Dong on X, the report indicates that Li and angel investor Xue Manzi launched a cryptocurrency in 2017, raising 5,000 ETH. According to the outlet, Li has been accused of failing to repay 1,500 Bitcoin that he purportedly borrowed from OKX founder Xu Mingxing. Xu is said to have raised the issue publicly and sought resolution through legal proceedings in both China and the U.S. However, the legal ambiguity surrounding cryptocurrencies at the time was viewed as a major obstacle to settlement. Li, for his part, has characterized Xu’s contribution as a failed investment. The situation took a constructive turn when Xu reposted AB Kuai.Dong’s post, saying observers should look past old disputes. Xu encouraged a focus on constructive industry growth and stated that debt matters should be left to legal channels, offering goodwill toward fellow entrepreneurs. The timing of the renewed dispute alongside recent industry warnings highlights a consistent focus on risk control and legal clarity within China’s digital asset space. Authorities continue to emphasize investor protection and formal reporting channels to curb speculation, while market participants are increasingly turning to legal avenues to resolve legacy issues. These developments point to a sector still wrestling with unresolved disputes and regulatory gaps, underscoring the need for clearer rules for both regulators and entrepreneurs. 

Philippines Regulator Collaborates with US Counterpart to Tackle Crypto FraudThe Philippines Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken a step towards addressing the escalating issue of crypto scams, seeking assistance from its namesake and international counterpart, the US SEC.The international partnership was announced via a Philippines SEC press release, published last Friday. The collaboration highlights the severity of a growing problem in terms of crypto-related fraud, underscoring the importance of inter-agency cooperation in tackling the issue.Photo by Krisia on PexelsJoint training effortsBoth SECs will engage in joint training sessions. The collaboration also involves cooperation with the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and it has been established under the umbrella of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). Notably, the Philippines SEC has also signed IOSCO’s Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) aimed at addressing crypto scams.The motivation behind these collaborative efforts is readily apparent given the scale of the cryptocurrency fraud that has occurred recently in the Philippines. Recent instances have captured the attention of the authorities, emphasizing the urgent need for regulatory action.Drawing on overseas enforcement experienceMost in the crypto sector are not enamored with US SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s stance relative to digital assets. Notwithstanding that, it may be that his assertive approach to enforcement may have a place in the Philippine context, given the extent of the issue of crypto fraud in the Southeast Asian country. For example, Gensler’s call for “more cops on the beat” to police the crypto industry, expressed in a Bloomberg Daybreak Podcast interview in July, resonates with the Philippines’ current predicament.Though Gensler’s remarks have been met with resistance from some quarters within the crypto industry, they may serve as sage advice in a climate where crypto-related crimes proliferate.Philippines SEC Chair Emilio Aquino outlined that the collaborative workshop involving the two securities commissions was aimed towards strengthening the capability of the Philippines’ SEC enforcement personnel in conducting investigations on securities-related crimes like insider trading, market manipulation, off-market fraud, and crypto scams.Aquino stated: “Scammers are becoming more advanced and sophisticated in their techniques as new technologies arise. As such, the SEC must constantly improve its investigation and enforcement capabilities to ensure that we are always one step ahead in preventing scams.”The Philippines, in particular, could benefit from a more robust regulatory presence to combat human trafficking networks and quash scams that tarnish the reputation of the crypto sector. These criminal activities have unfortunately led many to associate cryptocurrencies with fraud.The Philippines SEC Chair added that collaboration with US regulators and other enforcement agencies would likely guide the country in its pursuit of initiatives that lead towards the protection of the investing public.While expert training is essential, bolstering regulatory oversight, as suggested by Gensler, may be the key to mitigating the pervasive problem of crypto-related crime and protecting the integrity of the cryptocurrency sector.

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.