Upbit opens staking quiz event with ETH prizes

New Kazakh Platform Underscores Binance’s Push EastwardsGlobal cryptocurrency exchange Binance is making a significant move towards the East in response to mounting regulatory challenges in Western markets. The exchange has recently launched a regulated digital asset platform in Kazakhstan, marking a milestone in its expansion strategy.The announcement was made during a press conference held on June 20, attended by distinguished guests including representatives from Kazakhstan’s banking sector and Binance Kazakhstan’s leadership. The company followed up with a blog post detailing the development, published to its website on Wednesday.This milestone achievement follows Binance’s preliminary approval for operations in Kazakhstan received last August. By October, the Astana Financial Services Authority (AIFC) granted the exchange a permanent license to establish a digital asset platform and provide custodial services at the Astana International Financial Center.Photo by Engin Akyurt on PexelsBespoke platformThe newly established Binance platform in Kazakhstan aims to cater specifically to the needs of Kazakhstani users. It offers a comprehensive suite of services encompassing cryptocurrency exchange, conversion, fiat currency deposits and withdrawals, as well as custody of crypto assets.These financial services will be facilitated through a partnership with Freedom Finance Bank, Kazakhstan’s banking partner for Binance. Users of the platform will be able to transfer fiat funds to their accounts, with deposits and withdrawals currently supported through bank transfers or bank cards via Freedom Finance Bank.Adverse Western market conditionsBinance’s expansion into Kazakhstan comes at a time when the exchange is grappling with legal challenges in the United States and several European countries. In the US, Binance is currently embroiled in a lawsuit with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).Last month, Binance announced its withdrawal from the Canadian market, citing regulatory changes which the company described as “untenable.” Meanwhile, in Europe, the company has faced regulatory pushback, including an investigation into alleged “aggravated money laundering” in France and its exit from the Dutch market due to the absence of a virtual asset service provider license.Binance’s withdrawal from European markets has been attributed to its efforts to comply with the European Union’s approved Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regulations, although there are reports indicating collaboration between European regulators and the SEC in their investigations into Binance.Eastern expansionWhile Binance has been facing ongoing setbacks in Western markets, it continues to expand eastwards. Late last month, the firm announced plans to establish a dedicated platform in Japan. Around the same time, it secured a trading license through its Thai joint venture company.Binance is not the only major crypto firm making a strategic shift towards Asia. Other global cryptocurrency exchanges such as Gemini and Coinbase, have also expressed their intention to strengthen their presence in the Asia Pacific region. This trend highlights a broader pattern of the crypto exchange landscape gradually shifting towards the East, reflecting a reconfiguration of the global market.As Binance expands its regulated operations in Kazakhstan, it aims to navigate the complex regulatory environment and continue providing secure and compliant services to users in a key market. The move not only positions Binance strategically but also underscores the evolving dynamics that may well be playing into a regional shift in leadership where the development of digital assets is concerned.

Civic Group Files Embezzlement Complaint Against Former Kakao Chairman Over KLAY TokensA South Korean civic group, known as Economic Democracy 21, filed on Wednesday a prosecution complaint against Kim Beom-soo, the former chairman of the internet giant Kakao, and several executives from Kakao’s affiliated companies. The allegations at hand pertain to embezzlement, specifically revolving around the virtual asset known as KLAY.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashKlaytn’s native tokenKLAY represents the native token of the Klaytn blockchain, which was developed by GroundX, a blockchain subsidiary of Kakao.Legal breach claimsThe complaint, formally submitted to the joint crypto-crime investigation division of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office, asserts that Kakao executives have breached the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes and the Capital Markets Act.Clandestine pre-salesWithin the detailed complaint, Economic Democracy 21 alleges that following the issuance of KLAY, Kakao’s executives conducted private pre-sales of KLAY tokens before their official listing. These pre-sales activities reportedly raised between KRW 150 billion and 300 billion ($113 million and $226 million). The accusation is that these funds were not channeled into business endeavors, but rather diverted for personal use.The complaint also contends that Kim and other executives withdrew KLAY tokens from the company under the guise of investments, compensation, and service fees related to “overseas investment business” since 2022. The civic group further asserted that these corporate leaders employed a program to manipulate transaction records, presumably with the intent of preventing third parties from discovering the nature of these transactions.

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.