Japan’s Aozora Bank Plans Digital Currency Launch

South Korean FIU rejects Hanbitco’s bid to become fiat-to-crypto exchangeWhile numerous cryptocurrency-only exchanges in Korea have been vying for registration as fiat-to-crypto exchanges with the financial regulator, the government has turned down another platform’s attempt to achieve this status.Photo by Dim Hou on UnsplashUnmet standardsAccording to a report from local news provider MoneyToday, the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the Financial Services Commission (FSC) recently convened a committee that decided against approving Hanbitco’s request to change its business status. Industry sources suggest that this decision was based on Hanbitco’s inability to meet the standards set by the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, often referred to as the Financial Transaction Reporting Act.Fine and cautionary orderA person familiar with the matter that the committee started deliberating on Hanbitco’s request to alter its business status about two weeks ago and ultimately decided against it. A significant factor in this decision might have been the KRW 2 billion ($1.49 million) fine levied on Hanbitco, stemming from numerous violations found in recent on-site inspections, the source added.Before approaching the FIU with its request, Hanbitco formed a partnership with Kwangju Bank in June to obtain real-name accounts, facilitating Korean won deposits and withdrawals. Achieving this is quite uncommon for a crypto-only exchange. In Korea, exchanges are legally required to have real-name bank accounts for trading in Korean won. Presently, only five platforms hold registration as fiat-to-crypto exchanges: Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit and Gopax, each having its own banking partnership.As per the details released by the FIU, besides the levied fine, Hanbitco was issued a cautionary order, and five of its employees faced reprimands.The fine of KRW 2 billion is the heaviest handed out to a virtual asset service provider from on-site inspections held between last year and the first half of this year. For perspective, Upbit, the country’s largest crypto exchange, was fined KRW 80 million.An FIU representative noted that during the evaluation of Hanbitco’s application to transition into a fiat-to-crypto exchange, factors such as the firm’s anti-money laundering (AML) protocols, its internal control systems and past sanctions played a role in the decision-making process.

XPLA Teams Up With OLA GG to Build Web3 Ecosystem for Hispanic GamersXPLA, a blockchain project led by major Korean gaming company Com2uS, announced on Tuesday its new partnership with OLA Guild Games (OLA GG) to establish a Web3 ecosystem for Spanish-speaking gamers.Photo by Shubham Dhage on UnsplashAbout OLA GGOLA GG is renowned as the largest Spanish-speaking Web3 gaming community with over 400,000 participants from different Hispanic regions. It is also the subDAO — a decentralized autonomous organization created by another decentralized autonomous organization — of Yield Guild Games (YGG). With the help of YGG’s infrastructure and assets, the guild onboards gamers to the metaverse and offers various opportunities, including creating various Web3 content and winning rewards through events.A thriving Web3 ecosystem for millionsBased on the partnership with OLA GG, XPLA aims to establish a sustainable Web3 ecosystem for over 450 million Spanish-speaking users across Europe and Latin America to expand its influence and user base. XPLA’s mainnet recently onboarded major play-to-own (P2O) games in July, such as Com2uS Group’s globally popular intellectual property games Summoners War: Chronicle, Ace Fishing: Crew, and Minigame Party.“We expect this exciting collaboration will provide new opportunities and possibilities to the OLA GG community. With XPLA, we will lead the era of new Web3-based games,” said Nico del Pino, co-founder of OLA GG.

The Need to Distinguish Between Security and Non-Security Virtual AssetsWith the recent enactment of the Virtual Asset User Protection Bill in South Korea, there is a need to lay out criteria for determining whether virtual assets qualify as securities, says Kim Ja-bong, a senior research fellow at the Korea Institute of Finance, in his report titled “The Implications of Determining Which Virtual Assets Constitute Securities and Investor Protection” released on Saturday.Photo by Shubham Dhage on UnsplashThe implications of the Virtual Asset User Protection ActThe Virtual Asset User Protection Act — which will take effect in July of next year — aims to protect customer assets, establish regulations against unfair trading practices, and enforce penalties. Notably, it will target virtual assets that are not securities, deeming it necessary for regulators to determine if virtual assets qualify as securities or not in order to enforce the bill. Assets with characteristics of securities will fall under the jurisdiction of the Capital Markets Act.Therefore, if the Virtual Asset User Protection Act does not provide sufficient investor protection, issuers may be incentivized to issue non-security assets rather than security assets to avoid the regulations of the Capital Markets Act. This further necessitates the act of distinguishing between virtual assets that are securities versus those that are not.Determining if a virtual asset is a security or notThere are two approaches to do this, according to Kim: the passive approach, which avoids considering a virtual asset as a security whenever possible, and the active approach, which treats a virtual asset as a security whenever applicable.He argues that it is better to focus on whether an investment contract qualifies as a security if it is considered an investment contract, rather than simply selecting a specific approach.Furthermore, the nature of virtual assets renders them unbound by national borders, so it is necessary to establish assessment criteria that correspond with international standards, such as those used in the US and Europe.This is especially important because if the criteria differ from international standards, there is a risk of domestic investors suffering damages due to an issuer’s pursuit of regulatory arbitrage between countries.Equitable recognition and potential for security tokensAccording to Kim, the importance of determining whether virtual assets are securities lies in ensuring that security tokens receive the same recognition and trading treatment as traditional securities such as stocks. With such a measure, security token offerings can serve as an efficient and reliable method for raising funds. Although there may be concerns that such a regulation may hinder the development of virtual assets, it may well be an opportunity for security tokens to be qualified and trusted as high-quality financial instruments just like existing securities, Kim claims.Even for virtual assets that are not considered securities, there are many types of assets that are financial in nature, such as e-money tokens — therefore, it is necessary to actively protect investors in non-security virtual assets through financial regulations such as reinforcing disclosure obligations, which is being done in the EU through the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).Empowering regulators for enhanced investor protection and market integrityKim underscored that investor protection and healthy growth of the virtual asset market are made possible mainly through expanding regulators’ authority to protect economic interests and prevent damages. The author also suggested institutional reforms that grant regulators substantial authority, which would enhance their ability to protect investors effectively and provide compensation for damages.He added that regulators should also have the authority to enforce liability for damages or impose civil penalties for unfair trading practices conducted using classified information.