UK startups move to expand into Asia

Japan’s largest bank, MUFG, has teamed up with KlimaDAO Japan, the provider of a digital reserve currency backed by carbon credits, to explore the use of the JPYC stablecoin for settling tokenized carbon credit transactions on the Progmat blockchain platform. Settlement on ProgmatProgmat provides the infrastructure to enable the issuance of various stablecoins. Last September, MUFG announced a collaboration with Binance geared towards stablecoin issuance. The JPYC stablecoin, operational since 2021, functions as a prepaid money instrument, similar to a prepaid card, due to its existence before Japan’s stablecoin legislation. Under new regulations, JPYC can either obtain a money transmitter license or issue a trust-style stablecoin with a bank like MUFG acting as the trustee for the stablecoin's reserves. Last year, JPYC formed a partnership with MUFG implicating the use of the Progmat platform.  This partnership, along with the involvement of Kansai Electric subsidiary Optage as the integration partner, sets the stage for the KlimaDAO stablecoin experiments. Optage will provide the corporate infrastructure required to manage the carbon credits added to the blockchain and provide a means for funds settlement to be achieved via bank transfer. Through the use of various local stablecoins for the purpose of settlement, it’s hoped that improved liquidity on a global basis may be achieved.Photo by Dan Meyers on UnsplashInitially recognized for making tokenized carbon credits accessible on public blockchains, KlimaDAO's functionality extends beyond this. The organization also offers the capability to retire credits. Last year, KlimaDAO expanded its reach by launching Carbonmark, an enterprise-focused marketplace.  This platform, which utilizes blockchain technology, namely Polygon, and smart contracts, offers a user-friendly experience by integrating traditional payment methods like bank transfers and SAP integration.  J-CreditsJapan operates a national scheme known as J-credits, and the Tokyo Stock Exchange has introduced a secondary market for these credits. J-credits are designed to certify the amount by which greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced through the use of carbon sinks in Japan. However, the volume of J-credit transactions remains low, reflecting the broader state of Japan's voluntary carbon market.  KlimaDAO aims to address this by launching the KlimaDAO Japan Market, simplifying the process for domestic companies to purchase and utilize carbon credits. This initiative will involve tokenizing J-credits, referred to as D-Carbons.  Andrew Bonneau, KlimaDAO co-founder, outlined on X that “@KlimaDAO is in a unique position to facilitate an efficient J-Credit market on chain, while serving as the base infrastructure for integrating these assets with 3rd party services.” While the initial phase will use traditional bank payments, the ultimate goal is to transition to using stablecoins, particularly the JPYC stablecoin. Norbert Gehrke, an observer of developments within the Japanese fintech scene, outlined on Medium that the Japanese carbon credit market is likely to reach three trillion yen ($19.15 billion) by 2030. Meanwhile, the global carbon credit market has a current value of 39 trillion yen ($249 billion). KlimaDAO Japan has mentioned the use of a permissionless blockchain for this initiative but has fallen short of confirming that the Polygon network will be relied upon. Japan has several homegrown blockchains, which might be considered for this project.  At the time of writing, the KLIMA token had risen 31% over the course of the previous 24 hours, with a unit price of $3.53 according to CoinGecko. 

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.

BOK Staffers Assess Crypto Market Vulnerabilities and Their ImplicationsOn Thursday, the Bank of Korea’s (BOK) staff members published an assessment of the vulnerabilities in the cryptocurrency market and their potential implications. Here is the summary of the report.Photo by D Tan on Unsplash2022 crypto winterThroughout 2022, the worldwide crypto market faced a series of adverse occurrences, such as significant drops in the prices of major crypto-assets and the collapse of prominent crypto companies. These events shed light on the vulnerabilities that had accumulated during the rapid growth of the market.The first major event occurred in May 2022 when the algorithmic stablecoin TerraUSD experienced a sharp decline, resulting in substantial losses and bankruptcies for numerous retail investors and crypto firms. This incident significantly eroded confidence in the overall crypto market. The subsequent bankruptcies of prominent crypto lender Celsius and hedge fund Three Arrows Capital (3AC) further highlighted the realization of risks commonly associated with traditional financial markets, such as multiple collateral loans and maturity and liquidity mismatches, within the crypto market.In November 2022, the well-known crypto exchange FTX filed for bankruptcy, demonstrating that the activities of a large crypto company can propagate risks through moral hazard and excessive profit-seeking behavior when it operates outside the realm of regulatory oversight.Similarities with TradFiThese negative events that unfolded in the global crypto market in 2022 share similarities with issues previously observed in financial markets, such as unsustainable business models, liquidity risk, leverage, and lack of transparency in financial conditions. These parallels suggest that if the crypto markets were subjected to comparable levels of regulation as traditional financial markets, it is plausible that the triggering of these risks could have been avoided altogether, or at the very least, the resulting damage could have been mitigated to some extent.Implications for the Korean marketAt present, it is deemed unlikely that events akin to those witnessed in overseas crypto markets will transpire in the Korean market. The Korean crypto-asset market has primarily evolved through exchanges, with limited influence from other enterprises such as crypto issuers and decentralized lending platforms. In addition, Korean crypto exchanges are subject to regulation under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information. This mandates the separation of customer deposits from exchange assets and the strict management of custodial crypto-assets through secure wallets. Additionally, Korean exchanges are prohibited from listing their own tokens on their platforms.However, there remains a dearth of information regarding the business structures of crypto companies that offer services similar to those in the traditional financial industry. This lack of information poses challenges in accurately assessing risk and providing adequate investor protection. Meanwhile, there is a potential for a deeper integration between the crypto market and users’ daily lives, particularly through major technology companies, gaming companies, and security tokens.SuggestionsIt is vital to ensure that crypto-assets are regulated based on the principle of “same activity, same risk, same regulation” through the ongoing development of crypto-asset-related legislation. The Financial Stability Board, an international body monitoring the global financial system, explained this principle in a 2022 paper: “Where crypto-assets and intermediaries perform an equivalent economic function to one performed by instruments and intermediaries of the traditional financial sector, they should be subject to equivalent regulation.”Additionally, it is necessary to stay aligned with major countries in terms of the speed and comprehensiveness of regulatory measures to prevent regulatory discrepancies across borders due to the global nature of crypto risks.Enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of regulation requires the establishment and maintenance of a close cooperation system between authorities. This collaborative effort should encompass various aspects, including monitoring, information gathering, and supervision of the crypto-asset market. Notably, the widespread adoption of stablecoins can affect the stability of the overall financial system, including monetary systems and payment and settlement systems. Hence, it is necessary to strengthen the involvement of central banks in the monitoring and supervision framework for crypto-assets, including stablecoins, as demonstrated by legislative approaches adopted by major economies like the EU. Furthermore, imposing disclosure requirements, external audits, and documentation submission obligations on crypto-asset operators is advisable.