Bitget works towards goal of Bitcoin ecosystem support

Crypto Winter Halves Korean Bank Fee ProfitsLast year, Korean banks collected only half the amount in fees from crypto exchanges compared to the previous year, according to Korean news agency News1.©Pexels/PixabayDeclining bank fee profitsFiles submitted by the Korean Financial Services Commission to Yun Chang-hyun, a member of the ruling People Power Party, revealed that the five major Korean crypto exchanges paid 20.4 billion KRW (~$15.6 million) in fees to banks last year, which is a 49.4% decrease from the previous year’s 40.3 billion KRW (~$30.7 million). These exchanges (Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax) have established agreements with banks to hold real-name bank accounts, which is a legal requirement for exchanges that wish to conduct trades in Korean won.Banks that have provided real-name accounts to crypto exchanges saw an increase in fee profits from 2019 to 2021. However, due to a decline in market sentiment last year, trade volume decreased, resulting in a reduction of bank fees. Last year’s crypto winter is attributable to various factors, including uncertainties in the global economy and collapses of crypto enterprises such as Terraform Labs and FTX.Fees by exchangesIn terms of fees paid to banks by exchanges last year, the largest exchange, Upbit, paid 13.9 billion KRW (~$10.6 million) in fees to Kbank, a mobile banking service provider. Bithumb and Coinone paid 4.9 billion KRW (~$3.7 million) and 989 million KRW (~$750,000) in fees to NH Bank, respectively. It is worth noting that Coinone switched its bank from NH Bank to Kakao Bank last November, paying 72 million KRW (~$55,000) to Kakao Bank in the fourth quarter. Korbit paid 486 million KRW (~$370,000) and 19 million KRW (~$14,500) to Shinhan Bank and Jeonbuk Bank, respectively. Gopax partnered with Jeonbuk Bank to obtain its real-name accounts in April last year.Lawmaker Yun said it was apparent that partnerships were being forged between only a handful of banks and crypto enterprises. Current regulations have to be reviewed to encourage more banks to participate in various blockchain businesses, he added.

Hong Kong Reiterates Web3 Credentials and CommitmentHong Kong is committed to growing the Web3 industry under appropriate regulations, according to government officials.©Pexels/Andrea PiacquadioAt the four-day Web3 Festival, which is the largest Web3 event that the city has hosted since declaring its intention last year to become a digital asset hub, Financial Secretary Paul Chan stated that the stability of the financial system and investor protection should not be damaged, and that appropriate regulations are a must to create a sustainable development environment and a more ideal space for development.DeFi licensing requirementSome attendees were surprised to learn that the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) believes that decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms for virtual assets need a license under existing rules. Keith Choy, interim head of the intermediaries division at the SFC, stated that people operating or performing DeFi activities should be subject to Hong Kong’s licensing requirements.This means that if Hong Kong really intends to regulate DeFi, it will have a stricter environment than Singapore. The Web3 industry has been closely watching the development of a new regulatory framework for virtual assets in Hong Kong since the city revealed at the end of October its intention to become a cryptocurrency hub. Under new regulations that go into effect in June, cryptocurrency exchanges serving customers in Hong Kong must be licensed by the SFC.10,000 Web3 Festival attendeesThe event attracted more than 10,000 people ahead of the conference, with several big-name speakers and exhibitors looking for new opportunities in the city. OKX and Filecoin were some of the large cryptocurrency firms in attendance, as were traditional tech firms like Tencent Cloud, which had a booth touting its blockchain-related services for corporate clients. Alibaba Cloud was also a co-organiser, along with Amazon Web Services and Hong Kong’s Cyberport.Binance co-founder and CEO Zhao Changpeng (CZ) also dialed in via video for a fireside chat. Last month, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued CZ and Binance over what it alleged was “sham” compliance with domestic regulations. The company has been scrutinized over connections to its local firm Binance.US, which legally is meant to operate as a separate entity. Zhao was not asked and did not address his legal troubles at the conference. However, he did note that Binance is in talks with regulators in many markets.“We are actively engaged with regulators all around the world,” Zhao said. “Many of them are very receptive, some of them are still skeptical, and that’s fine, but we need to engage. We need to have dialogue, we need conversations, and we also need patience.”Singapore comparisonsHong Kong has frequently been compared with Singapore, which had been considered a friendlier market for related activity until Hong Kong’s policy shift. Some attendees had hoped that Hong Kong’s shift would provide some competition for Singapore in the region. “We did see a very obvious trend of people flying to Singapore to make sure their business was part of this space,” said Luke Liu, chief core ecosystem contributor at cross-chain protocol developer Poly Network. “Hong Kong and Singapore can coexist in some sense, but there is definitely a very positive change going on recently because of the Hong Kong policy announcement.”Hong Kong has reaffirmed its commitment to growing the Web3 industry under “appropriate” regulations, with the stability of the financial system and investor protection as a top priority. This has been reiterated during the largest Web3 event in the city since declaring its intention to become a digital asset hub.

Dunamu Loses Lawsuit Seeking $19M in Corporate Tax Refunds After Venture Status RemovalDunamu, the operator of South Korea’s largest cryptocurrency exchange Upbit, lost a 24.8-billion-won (approximately $18.7 million) corporate tax lawsuit, according to local news outlet The Korea Economic Daily. This legal action emerged after Dunamu was removed from the list of registered venture firms in December 2018. The Seoul Administrative Court ruled that since Dunamu was no longer a venture, it was not eligible for the associated tax benefits.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashLosing venture statusIn September 2017, Dunamu obtained certification as a venture company from the Ministry of SMEs and Startups. However, this certification was revoked in December of the following year. This revocation was due to an amendment to the Enforcement Decree of the Venture Businesses Act in October 2018, which resulted in the exclusion of “blockchain-based crypto asset trading and brokerage” from the venture business classification. Consequently, the withdrawal of this certification rendered the company ineligible for government tax incentives.Tax refund request deniedIn August 2020, Dunamu took action by formally requesting a refund of KRW 24.8 billion in taxes previously paid to the tax office. The foundation of its claim rested on its entitlement to venture company tax benefits up until the corporate tax period of 2018. However, its request was turned down, leading Dunamu to escalate the matter by initiating an administrative case against the tax authorities, following an unfavorable decision by the Korean Tax Tribunal.Meanwhile, an amended version of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Taxation Restrictions, which excluded cryptocurrency-related industries from benefiting from tax reductions, went into effect in January 2019. Pointing to the effective date of this act, Dunamu argued that the company should be entitled to benefits applicable up until the corporate tax cycle of 2018. Furthermore, Dunamu highlighted its legal action, which had led the administrative court to suspend the effects of the venture company certification revocation from December 31, 2018, to January 18, 2019.Court’s stanceDespite these arguments, the court rejected Dunamu’s argument and upheld that tax relief could not be granted for the tax year encompassing the date of the removal of its venture status. Additionally, the court affirmed that the tax authorities’ decision was valid since the venture status had been revoked in 2018, regardless of the amended Taxation Act’s implementation.In disagreement with the court’s ruling, Dunamu has filed an appeal against the decision.