Unprecedented surge in trading volumes on HashKey exchange

Beijing-based cryptocurrency mining firm Bitmain has reportedly violated tax regulations in China, with local authorities imposing major fines. According to the reports, Bitmain has failed to pay personal income taxes amounting to $2.4 million, which has led to a penalty of $3.7 million from the Beijing Municipal Office of the State Administration of Taxation. Leading mining equipment manufacturerBitmain Technologies is one of the biggest cryptocurrency mining equipment firms in the world, established in 2013. The company is renowned for its reputation as a manufacturer of crypto mining equipment and solutions. Reports suggest that Bitmain was compelled to end its operations in China in October 2021 as a direct result of the blanket ban on cryptocurrencies that was issued by the Chinese government in September 2021.However, despite these regulatory challenges and the bear market in the cryptocurrency industry in 2022, the company has reportedly continued to achieve success in its business. Bitmain’s latest Antminer product sold out within a minute in December, despite the declining profitability of cryptocurrency mining. On Tuesday, it emerged that North American crypto miner CleanSpark had acquired 45,000 Bitmain Antminers, doubling its mining capacity.The company’s founder, Jihan Wu, established a $250 million fund in September 2022 to help the mining industry during the difficult crypto winter. Following his departure from Bitmain in 2021, Wu established Bitdeer, a new cryptocurrency mining company that served as a spin-off of Bitmain. Crypto crackdownThe fine imposed on Bitmain highlights the continued scrutiny of the crypto industry in China. The country has taken steps to crack down on the crypto market, particularly going after the mining industry. China has banned crypto mining, though it still takes place via underground operations. One major headline in recent weeks related to the fact that a former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) secretary helped a crypto mining operation operate. One China court also ruled that cryptocurrency mining affects the climate negatively.Despite the crackdown, China is making headway with its digital yuan, a central bank digital currency (CBDC). The country continues to run pilots for the CBDC, each more extensive than the last. As China’s digital yuan gains momentum, it has been speculated that the country may use it as a tool to further restrict the use of decentralized cryptocurrencies.Companies operating in China will have to keep a close eye on their operations, especially since the country does not take a favorable stance towards crypto. Hong Kong hubHowever, Hong Kong is opening up to the crypto industry and is attempting to become a crypto hub. The Hong Kong government recently launched a regulatory framework for crypto exchanges, making it easier for crypto businesses to operate within the city. This move has attracted a significant number of crypto firms to relocate to Hong Kong from mainland China.Bitmain’s $3.7 million fine imposed for violating tax regulations in China is a clear sign that the scrutiny of the crypto industry in the country is still prevalent. Despite the challenges and uncertainties, the company has continued to achieve success in its business, and the industry’s regulatory landscape is continuously evolving. Companies in China will have to ensure compliance with all relevant regulations, while also exploring opportunities to operate in crypto-friendly jurisdictions like Hong Kong.

Japan’s Financial Services Agency (FSA) plans to ban insider trading in the cryptocurrency market, according to an Oct. 15 report in Nikkei, cited by CoinPost. The forthcoming rules would amend the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act to explicitly bar trading based on nonpublic information, with violators subject to administrative fines.Photo by Louie Martinez on UnsplashTightening oversight through the SESCThe FSA intends to hammer out the details through a working group by year’s end and aims to submit a bill amending the securities law during the 2026 ordinary session of the Diet. Under the proposal, the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission (SESC) would gain authority to investigate suspected violations and could recommend fines or criminal charges in cases of alleged insider trading. Experts say Japan’s system of self-regulation, led by cryptocurrency exchanges and the Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association (JVCEA), lacks sufficient data monitoring. The government hopes that granting the SESC oversight of crypto transactions will help ensure fairer trading and make the market more attractive to investors. The new rules would target the use of confidential information, such as advance knowledge of a token listing or a major security flaw. Yet applying insider-trading standards to crypto may prove difficult. Many tokens have no clear issuer, making it harder to determine whose information could move markets or who should be held accountable. Crypto investing has surged in Japan, with domestic trading accounts quadrupling in five years. The FSA now aims to update its rules to reflect that digital assets are traded mainly as investments, not as payment instruments. Leadership transition brings policy uncertaintyJapan’s plan to strengthen oversight of cryptocurrencies coincides with a period of political transition. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has announced his intention to step down but remains in office for now. According to CNBC, Sanae Takaichi, newly elected president of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), would typically be expected to assume the premiership, but the coalition’s collapse has upended what would otherwise be a routine transition. The parliamentary vote to choose Japan’s next leader, initially slated for Oct. 15, has been postponed to Oct. 21. In the wake of the split, the main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP) is reportedly seeking Komeito’s support for a joint prime ministerial candidate. Yuichiro Tamaki, leader of the Democratic Party for the People (DPP), is seen as a potential consensus choice. The ruling LDP currently holds 196 seats in the lower house, but a united opposition could command a larger bloc. Tamaki has also drawn attention in crypto circles. About a year ago, he proposed cutting taxes on cryptocurrency gains to 20%, a flat rate similar to that on stock profits, during his campaign against Ishiba. At present, crypto gains in Japan are classified as miscellaneous income and taxed at progressive rates that can exceed 50% when local levies are included. Metaplanet’s Bitcoin strategy tested amid market shiftsAgainst that backdrop, Metaplanet, often dubbed Japan’s answer to the U.S. firm Strategy for its aggressive Bitcoin (BTC) accumulation, is under pressure as its valuation slips below the value of its crypto holdings. The company’s market-to-BTC net asset value (mNAV) ratio fell to 0.99 on Oct. 14, dropping below 1 for the first time. The metric compares the company’s market value with its BTC holdings, and a reading below 1 means the stock is trading at a discount to its BTC reserves. The decline comes after Metaplanet paused BTC purchases for the past two weeks. As of Oct. 1, the company held 30,823 BTC on its balance sheet. 

SEC seeks summary judgment against Terraform LabsThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is making a strong push for a summary judgment in its ongoing legal battle against Singapore’s Terraform Labs and its co-founder Do Kwon. Such an outcome would spare the need for a protracted trial.According to a motion filed by the SEC on Thursday, the record shows that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”Photo by Caleb Fisher on UnsplashRelying on the Howey TestThe SEC’s filing underscores its central argument that Kwon and Terraform Labs were involved in the sale of securities. The document categorically states:“There is no dispute that purchasers made an investment of money, either through fiat currency or crypto assets, for each crypto asset — LUNA, wLUNA, MIR, and UST, thereby satisfying the first prong of Howey.” The Howey Test refers back to a U.S. Supreme Court case — SEC v. Howey — which took place in 1946. The case set a precedent and has subsequently become the cornerstone of determining what is or is not a security in the United States.This argument hinges on the idea that funds were pooled in a common enterprise with the expectation of profits primarily derived from the efforts of the promoters.Citing fraud as well as unregistered securitiesThe SEC’s assertion is two-fold, contending that not only did Terraform and Kwon engage in selling securities, but they also engaged in fraudulent activities and disseminated misleading information. The SEC reiterates these claims in its filing, emphasizing that the defendants committed fraud by duping investors about the stability of UST.They allegedly falsely attributed the algorithm for price stabilization while orchestrating clandestine third-party interventions. This purported deception made their claims regarding the algorithm’s effectiveness deceptive and involved the omission of crucial information. The fallout from Terra’s collapse in May of the previous year resulted in the destruction of substantial investor wealth, totaling billions of dollars.Similar defense team filingThe SEC’s move to seek summary judgment comes in the wake of a similar filing by Kwon’s defense team last Friday. Kwon is currently serving a sentence for document forgery in Montenegro, a situation stemming from his arrest at an airport with forged passports.Notably, Terraform’s co-founder, Daniel Shin, who is currently on trial in South Korea, has attributed the collapse of Terraform Labs to Kwon’s mismanagement. Shin has claimed his separation from the company and its activities occurred two years before its eventual collapse.In this legal battle that holds significant implications for the cryptocurrency and blockchain space, the SEC continues to emphasize its position, asserting that Kwon and Terraform Labs engaged in the sale of securities through deceptive means. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences, setting precedents for future regulatory actions in the industry.