Solana faces rising phishing threats in South Korea amid growing adoption

Oman’s Regulator Invites Feedback on Virtual Asset FrameworkProgressing toward the establishment of its own virtual asset regulations, the Sultanate of Oman is embarking on a significant step by soliciting public feedback on its comprehensive framework.The framework, which governs digital assets, is being developed by the Capital Market Authority (CMA) of Oman. The move reflects the country’s commitment to creating a robust regulatory environment for the virtual asset sector.The CMA’s consultation paper, released last week, outlines the agency’s objectives in crafting this regulatory framework. It aims to provide a viable financing and investment avenue for issuers and investors while also addressing the inherent risks associated with the virtual asset class. Central to this initiative is the integration of business requirements and measures to prevent market abuse.Photo by Niklas Weiss on Unsplash26 key questionsAt the heart of this regulatory endeavor are 26 crucial questions presented to industry stakeholders. Their valuable input will help shape the framework’s core components. These include provisions related to regulatory standards and licensing prerequisites for virtual asset service providers (VASPs), corporate governance, risk management, and the issuance of virtual assets.The proposed framework, as disclosed in the consultation paper, encompasses a spectrum of digital assets. This spans utility tokens, security tokens, fiat-backed and asset-backed stablecoins, and other currencies adhering to the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) definition of virtual assets. However, a noteworthy proposal that has garnered attention is the potential prohibition of privacy coins issuance, a decision pending public feedback.Aiming to reinforce accountability and stability, the CMA may mandate that VASPs establish a local presence in Oman through legally recognized entities and physical offices. Additionally, minimum capital requirements could be imposed on these entities. The envisaged framework may also stipulate that virtual asset firms maintain a low percentage of assets in hot wallets, conduct audits of safeguarded assets, and provide evidence of reserves.Shaping regulation through feedbackWith the consultation phase set to conclude on August 17, the public’s valuable feedback will shape the direction of Oman’s virtual asset regulations. The most salient viewpoints may find their place on the CMA’s official website. Following this consultation period, the CMA will proceed to finalize the regulatory framework.Although the public announcement regarding the launch of a regulatory framework was made on February 14, Oman’s journey toward regulating the virtual asset industry began well before. In November 2020, the National Committee for Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing initiated discussions on forming a task force.Comprising officials from the CMA and the Central Bank of Oman, the task force explored whether to permit or prohibit virtual asset activities. Subsequently, in December 2022, consultants were engaged to facilitate the establishment of this new regulatory landscape.The United Arab Emirates, and in particular, the individual emirates of Dubai and Abu Dhabi, have led the way in the Middle East in progressing a workable framework for the digital asset industry. Oman’s proactive approach is following the example set by its regional peer.Shaping its virtual asset framework underlines its desire to foster innovation while ensuring the integrity of its financial landscape. Its latest effort in seeking public feedback is a positive development that should assist it in arriving at a progressive framework.

Gate.io Threatens Legal Action Against SpeculatorsGate.io, the erstwhile legacy Chinese cryptocurrency exchange currently headquartered in the Cayman Islands, has issued a stern warning to individuals spreading rumors of imminent bankruptcy.The exchange intends to take legal action against those responsible for causing panic among investors by disseminating baseless rumors without any concrete source of information. This announcement, originally written in Turkish, was posted on Gate.io’s official Twitter account on June 4.Photo by Kai Pilger on UnsplashInsolvency rumorsThe insolvency rumors surrounding Gate.io emerged following a series of events involving Multichain, a troubled cross-chain protocol. Multichain has been facing technical difficulties since May 24, when a node issue resulted in transaction delays. Several days later, the Multichain team revealed that they were unable to contact their CEO to access the servers and resolve the problem.These circumstances fueled speculation that the protocol’s leadership had been arrested and that Chinese authorities had seized over $1.5 billion in smart contract funds.On May 24, data from blockchain analytics firm Arkham Intelligence indicated a significant inflow of Multichain tokens ($MULTI) from Gate.io’s platform. In response to mounting concerns, Gate.io categorically denied any liquidity issues on May 31. The exchange asserted that its operations were running smoothly and that withdrawals were not a problem. Despite reports on Twitter and Telegram channels of traders withdrawing funds, Gate.io’s trading volume has remained relatively stable in recent days.As of now, Gate.io’s native token, GateToken ($GT), is trading at $4.01, representing a 18% decline over the past week, according to CoinGecko data. Gate.io, which although headquartered in the Cayman Islands, has recently expanded its presence to Hong Kong, Turkey, and Dubai.Multichain falloutThe ongoing issues faced by Multichain have prompted other cryptocurrency exchanges to take action. Binance, for example, suspended deposits for 10 bridged tokens on the BNB Smart Chain, Fantom, Ethereum, and Avalanche blockchain networks on May 25. Furthermore, transaction downtime compelled the Fantom Foundation to remove 449,740 $MULTI ($2.4 million) from liquidity on the decentralized exchange SushiSwap.Gate.io’s firm denial of insolvency rumors coupled with its threat of legal action underscores the exchange’s determination to combat the spread of this speculation. The exchange is seeking to protect the interests of its investors and maintain the stability of its operations.All stakeholders need to rely on continued vigilance in the crypto space. However, if Gate.io is to be afforded the benefit of the doubt in this instance, then it could be interpreted that it is demonstrating a commitment to transparency and swift action in the face of seemingly baseless rumors. On that basis, the firm’s response could be perceived as a demonstration of its resolve to navigate the challenges presented by the Multichain situation and uphold its reputation as a reliable cryptocurrency exchange.

Bithumb and Korbit Struggle to Gain Traction Despite Zero Trading FeesSouth Korean cryptocurrency exchanges Bithumb and Korbit have recently eliminated trading fees, but their bold decision hasn’t yielded much results. Bithumb was the first to implement this change and attracted users for about a week, but it is now seeing a loss in market share. Korbit, following Bithumb’s example, is also struggling to achieve meaningful outcomes.Photo by Alexander Grey on UnsplashLimited impactLocal media outlet Chosun Biz used data from crypto data platform CoinGecko to draw this conclusion. On October 26, Korbit’s daily trading volume represented 0.19% of the total trading volume among South Korea’s top five crypto exchanges (Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax). This figure marked a 0.14 percentage point increase compared to the 0.05% recorded on October 19. Korbit had implemented a zero trading fee policy at 9 a.m. (KST) on October 20. Additionally, they launched a promotion offering KRW 5,000 ($3.69) worth of bitcoin to users who transferred virtual assets totaling KRW 1 million or more from Travel Rule-compliant exchanges to Korbit. While the promotion did contribute to Korbit’s market share, it still remains below 1%.Bithumb’s performance showed some improvement, albeit briefly. As of October 26, Bithumb’s market share stood at 18%, marking a 4.7 percentage point increase from its 13.3% share on October 3, the day before it eliminated trading fees. However, it’s worth noting that its market share had reached almost 30% shortly after the promotion’s launch. This indicates that its strategy is losing efficacy over time.The less-than-enthusiastic results from their daring marketing endeavors can be attributed to their inability to draw in retail investors. To begin with, Upbit, the leading player in the market, had already been providing a relatively low fee of 0.05%. Furthermore, adapting to new user interfaces on these exchanges posed a challenge. Zero trading fees weren’t attractive enough for crypto investors to leave their current platforms.Trading volume mattersIn the case of Korbit, its lower trading volume was a disadvantage when it came to attracting users. On crypto exchanges, a higher trading volume typically translates to faster trade executions. As a result, users of Korbit might experience delays in executing trades at their preferred price.Jeong Hye-won, a research associate at crypto data analytics platform Xangle, told Chosun Biz that users on exchanges with lower trading volumes tend to experience slippages due to slower transaction speeds and sparsely populated order books. A slippage means the difference between the initially placed order price and the executed order price. Jeong further explained that Korbit’s zero trading fee policy didn’t have a significant impact because it offers fewer listed tokens compared to Upbit and Bithumb.There is speculation that the free-trading fee promotions introduced by Bithumb and Korbit, despite their revenue sacrifices, might conclude sooner than initially anticipated due to their perceived ineffectiveness. Bithumb derives 99.95% of its revenue from trading fees, while Korbit relies on trading fees for 99.79% of its income. An industry insider has commented that trading fees play a vital role in an exchange’s revenue, and given Bithumb’s reported loss in earnings during the second quarter, there are concerns about their capacity to sustain this strategy.