Wemade to unveil upgraded DAO platform Wepublic in February

Laos Halts Crypto Miners’ Electricity Amid Drought and DebtsLaos, a leading producer and exporter of hydroelectricity, has made the decision to suspend electricity supply to cryptocurrency mining operations within its borders.Photo by Ioana Farcas on UnsplashTackling a perfect stormThe decision comes as a result of a perfect storm of challenges, including a struggle to meet escalating power demands due to drought conditions, impending commitments to export electricity to Thailand, and the mounting debts of cryptocurrency mining companies.In a calculated move in 2021, Laos initiated a public-private pilot program aimed at delving into cryptocurrency mining and trading. The context for this move was China’s sweeping crackdown on mining activities, compelling miners to scout for alternative jurisdictions for their operations.In response, Laos granted authorization to a handful of entities, spanning construction conglomerates and a bank, to partake in the mining and trading of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin. This led to a commitment to regulatory collaboration between government ministries, the Bank of Laos, and Electricité du Laos (EDL).Exploiting hydropowerLaos’ abundant and affordable electricity has placed it on the short list of locations for crypto miners to settle in. With an abundance of rivers and waterfalls, hydropower stands as one of the nation’s primary energy sources, offering a renewable source of cost-effective electricity.However, events in 2023 have disrupted that narrative. A persistent drought has hit the country during the first half of the year, which triggered an unprecedented surge in the demand for electricity from sources other than hydro.The dependence on hydropower, constituting 95% of the nation’s energy generation, struggled to keep pace with the demand. As a direct consequence, EDL, a state-owned electricity distributor, announced the cessation of electricity supply to crypto mining operations.The problem has compounded as Laos finds itself committed to exporting substantial quantities of electricity to the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGET), serving as a lifeline for Thailand’s power grid during the forthcoming dry season. This external commitment has, in turn, further strained the local capacity for electricity supply.Another Asian country, Bhutan, has also gotten involved with crypto mining in an effort to exploit its hydropower resources, where 99% of electricity supply comes from hydropower within the kingdom.Unpaid billsAnother dimension to the saga is the growing debt crisis faced by cryptocurrency mining operations. A representative of EDL cited the inability of these mining businesses to settle their accumulating electricity bills as a key factor in the decision for suspension. The Bank of Laos has further escalated matters by deciding to halt loans to cryptocurrency companies in January.Laos has had bold objectives to transform itself into Southeast Asia’s premier exporter of clean electricity. The nation’s topography, featuring mountainous terrain covering 70% of the country, has immense potential for hydropower, with over 26,000 megawatts of installed capacity and ambitious plans to double this figure.Hydroelectric dams like Nam Theun 2 have become conduits for substantial volumes of low-cost electricity, primarily directed towards neighboring Thailand and Vietnam. Meanwhile, projects like the Luang Prabang dam, boasting an installed capacity of 1,460 megawatts, underscore the country’s ambitions to develop hydropower further.Revenues from power exports have become a vital component in Laos’ gross domestic product (GDP), contributing almost 15%, as per a report from October 2022.

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.

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.