South Korean Prosecutors Fail to Recover Do Kwon’s Assets

Suspected Malicious Activity Drains AnySwap Tokens via Multichain ExecutorAccording to an on-chain sleuth known as Spreek, a person is using the Multichain Executor to drain tokens associated with the AnySwap bridging protocol.Multichain is a cross-chain routing network, established and maintained by a Chinese developer team. It supports in excess of 25 blockchains and more than 1,100 tokens.Photo by Marek Piwnicki on Unsplash$100 million outflowThis revelation comes after abnormal outflows of over $100 million from Multichain bridges on July 7, which were flagged by the Multichain team. Spreek’s report via Twitter on July 10 states that the Multichain Executor address has been draining anyToken addresses across multiple chains and transferring them to a new externally owned account (EOA).Evidence provided in the report includes an Ethereum transaction, 0x53ede4462d90978b992b0a88727de19afe4e96f0374aa1a221b8ff65fda5a6fe, which called the “anySwapFeeTo” method on the Multichain Router: V4 contract. This transaction resulted in approximately $15,275.90 worth of anyDAI being minted on Ethereum, sent to the Multichain Executor, burned, and exchanged for the underlying DAI backing the asset.The funds from these transactions were sent to the following address:0x1eed63efba5f81d95bfe37d82c8e736b974f477b. Similarly, on the BNB Smart Chain (BSC), the Multichain Executor used the anySwapFeeTo function to convert $208,997 worth of anyUSDC into Binance-pegged USDC and sent them to the same address. Additionally, 50.80 anyBTC, equivalent to $39,251.43 at the time, was converted into Binance-pegged Bitcoin and sent to the address.In total, approximately $263,524.33 worth of tokens were sent to this address through the anySwapFeeTo method. Spreek suggests that this behavior could be part of the protocol’s normal functioning. However, a different account engaged in similar activity the day before and ultimately sold the drained tokens, indicating malicious intent.Potential exploitSpreek theorizes that the attacker may be exploiting the anySwapFeeTo function by setting fees to an arbitrarily large amount, allowing them to drain users’ funds. The function apparently permits setting any value, enabling the address to choose the total value of the token held in that anyToken.The Multichain incident has puzzled blockchain analysts, as it remains unclear whether it resulted from an exploit or if it was simply large token-holders moving their funds between networks. The mystery began on July 7 when over $100 million worth of tokens were withdrawn from the Ethereum side of Multichain’s bridges and transferred to wallet addresses with no prior transactions. This represented the majority of funds held on each bridge.Hack or rug pullThe Multichain team labeled these withdrawals as “abnormal” and advised users to stop using the protocol. However, they have not disclosed the source or nature of the anomaly. In response to the incident, stablecoin issuers Circle and Tether froze some of the addresses involved in the suspicious transactions. Chainanalysis, a blockchain analytics firm, has commented that the incident appears more like a hack or rug pull rather than a migration.Adding to the complexity, the Multichain team has reported that their CEO is missing, and they have shut down certain bridges due to losing access to some of the network’s multi-party computation network servers. There have been various concerns relative to Multichain since May. The situation continues to evolve, with ongoing investigations and efforts to mitigate any potential damage caused by the suspected malicious activity.

Hong Kong unveils comprehensive tokenization regulationsChristopher Hui, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, shared a roadmap for upcoming regulations within the tokenization sector during his address at the Hong Kong Fintech Week 2023.Photo by Simon Zhu on UnsplashJPEX no hindrance to Web3 growthHui’s announcement at the event on Thursday comes on the heels of the JPEX scandal, a Dubai-based crypto exchange that collapsed amid allegations of having defrauded Hong Kong-based platform users. Hui emphatically stated that the JPEX incident would not deter Hong Kong’s commitment to expanding the Web3 market. Hui stated:“We’ve been asked many times whether JPEX will affect our determination to grow the Web3 market — the answer is a clear ‘no.’”In June, Hong Kong implemented new regulations for cryptocurrency exchanges, opening up locally regulated crypto trading services to retail customers via virtual asset service providers (VASPs). However, the majority of the forthcoming regulatory efforts will extend beyond the crypto sector, focusing on areas such as token issuance, wallets and other related components.Regulatory impact on TradFi and DeFiHui indicated the intention to expand virtual asset regulations, suggesting a potential impact on decentralized finance (DeFi). The planned regulations within the tokenization domain are poised to influence not only the crypto industry but also traditional finance (TradFi).These regulations include the issuance of a circular concerning intermediaries engaging in tokenized securities. Additionally, they entail a circular regarding the tokenization of Securities and Futures Commission (SFC)-authorized investment products. Lastly, they’re inclusive of consultations with banks on digital asset custody services with the involvement of the banking regulator. Furthermore, a joint consultation on stablecoin regulations will be issued by the Treasury and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA).Focus on positive impact of tokenizationEddie Yue, CEO of the HKMA, echoed Hui’s sentiments by discussing the positive impact of tokenization. He anticipates that tokenization will fuel the adoption of blockchain payments, particularly involving stablecoins and tokenized deposits. Yue believes that central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will serve as the foundation and a crucial element for achieving interoperability within this ecosystem.He emphasized the need to tackle crucial questions, such as the legal definitions of tokenized securities and whether Delivery versus Payment (DvP) can be successfully implemented for tokenized securities. Additionally, Yue pointed out the intricate legal considerations and interoperability challenges that are currently being discussed within the central bank community.First tokenized green bond issuanceYue also highlighted Hong Kong’s first-of-its-kind issuance of tokenized green bonds in February and revealed that discussions with the industry are already underway for the next bond.“We, ourselves, assisted the government to issue the world’s first-ever tokenized government green bond earlier this year in order to demonstrate the compatibility of Hong Kong’s legal and regulatory environment with this very new issuance format,” he stated. However, despite the promising outlook, Yue remained grounded on the subject, acknowledging the significant challenges in the tokenization landscape.In a related development, HSBC recently disclosed that it is conducting experiments with tokenized deposits in collaboration with Ant Group as part of the HKMA sandbox.

BitMEX CEO Calls for an End to Internal Market MakersIn a recent interview, Stephan Lutz, the acting CEO and group CFO of 100x Group, the parent company of Seychelles-headquartered global crypto exchange BitMEX, expressed his belief that crypto exchanges should phase out their internal market-making teams.Photo by Joe Roberts on UnsplashProp trading desks unnecessarySpeaking with The Block, Lutz argued that with the growth of institutional liquidity providers and high-frequency traders (HFTs) in the market, proprietary trading desks are becoming unnecessary.Lutz stated: “You have enough HFTs out there and prop shops that can perform that function.” He was referring to the role of liquidity providers in filling gaps in the market. He made these comments in response to the emergence of information earlier this week that raised questions about internal trading practices at Crypto.com, a Singapore-based exchange.BitMEX, once the world’s largest crypto derivatives exchange, also used to employ internal traders who acted as market makers. However, Lutz explained that BitMEX’s internal trading team, named Arrakis Capital, now functions primarily as a “treasury desk.” He sees this transition as a natural evolution for crypto exchanges in a market that has matured and attracted more institutional liquidity providers.Arrakis Capital currently performs limited functions, including converting commission fees earned in Bitcoin into fiat currency for operational purposes, hedging BitMEX’s exposure to tokens held as inventory, and making markets for BitMEX’s token $BMEX. Lutz clarified that Arrakis’s market-making activities are limited because external market makers find the token’s liquidity insufficient.Regarding profitability, Lutz stated that Arrakis earns “very minor returns” of up to $100,000 per month from holding T-Bills, but it incurred losses last year. He noted that Arrakis used to play a more significant market-making role when BitMEX dominated the crypto futures market. However, he assured that the trading desk was always segregated, despite accusations in the past.Fee structuresLutz acknowledged that exchanges with internal trading teams have faced increased scrutiny since the controversies surrounding Alameda Research and FTX. To differentiate between benign internal trading teams and hedge fund-like operations, Lutz highlighted several factors, including the separation of client funds and house funds, access to sensitive data, and the ability to move markets on their own exchange. Fee structures also play a role, with low or no transaction fees potentially signaling a market-making motive rather than serving as a counterparty.Lutz’s perspective suggests that crypto exchanges should rely on external liquidity providers and HFTs rather than maintaining internal market-making teams. He argues that the market has evolved. At this point he feels that these teams are no longer necessary, due to the presence of established players within the digital assets space.As regulatory scrutiny grows, ensuring transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest become crucial for maintaining trust within the crypto exchange ecosystem. The digital assets industry is far from arriving at a mature stage in its development. While many in the industry have found the stance taken by regulators to be unhelpful, the industry itself must also demonstrate its ability to iteratively move towards best practice, without that being a knee-jerk response to regulatory enforcement.