Seoul and Baobab Partners Face Controversy Over Unpaid Prize Winnings for SWF2023 Hackathon

Despite interest expressed by a Japanese lawmaker earlier this month for Japan to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve, the country’s prime minister has declined to offer support for the idea.Photo by Su San Lee on UnsplashInsufficient informationJapanese crypto media outlet CoinPost reported on Dec. 26 that the country’s prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, refrained from endorsing the notion of a Japanese strategic Bitcoin reserve on the basis that he and his government lack sufficient information on the subject. With that, Ishiba feels that it’s “difficult for the government to express its views” on the matter. The Japanese prime minister was prompted to offer his views on the subject having been queried by Japanese Member of Parliament (MP), Satoshi Hamada. During a question and answer session earlier this month, Hamada cited the United States and Brazil as examples of states that are currently considering the addition of Bitcoin as a reserve asset.  The Japanese lawmaker suggested that policymakers in those countries were leaning towards the consideration of Bitcoin as a hedge against economic risks, and that on that basis, he believed that the Japanese government should give the use of Bitcoin as a national reserve asset consideration. Hamada stated: “I think Japan should follow the example of the United States and consider turning some of its foreign exchange reserves into crypto assets such as Bitcoin.” Ishiba has responded by stating that his government lacks sufficient information relative to this “movement of introducing Bitcoin reserves that the United States and other countries are proceeding with.” Additionally, the Japanese government maintains that stability and liquidity are of paramount importance when it comes to the country’s foreign exchange reserves. With those factors in mind, it believes that Bitcoin is incompatible due to its price volatility. Unsustainable debt levels Some proponents of Bitcoin suggest that it offers a way forward for countries that have developed an unsustainable level of debt. In an X post published on Dec. 27, Thomas Jeegers, chief financial officer (CFO) at Swiss Bitcoin-only app enterprise Relai, set out a case for Bitcoin on that basis. Jeegers outlined that the United States has a debt of $36 trillion, accounting for 120% of gross domestic product (GDP).  He describes the Japanese scenario as being considerably worse, where the country’s debt accounts for 200% of GDP. Jeegers forecasts that the trajectory is unsustainable, with debt having grown “far beyond manageable levels.” The Relai CFO warns that the financial world is at breaking point and “it’s not a matter of 'if' but 'when' the system buckles under its own weight.” Earlier this month, investment manager VanEck published a report claiming that a strategic Bitcoin reserve could facilitate the U.S. in reducing its national debt by up to 36% by 2050. Like Japan, Russia has also decided against a strategic Bitcoin reserve. Although Finance Minister Anton Siluanov pointed towards Bitcoin’s unit price volatility being an issue, he is open to reassessing the matter in the future.

Kbank’s Upbit Customer Deposits Total $2.2BKbank, an internet-only bank in South Korea, is facing criticism due to its relatively high proportion of cryptocurrency customer deposits compared to other banks. Kbank reportedly manages approximately KRW 3 trillion (equivalent to $2.2 billion) in deposits from customers of cryptocurrency exchange Upbit, which accounts for about 18% of its total customer deposits.This percentage stands out, being notably higher than other banks that provide accounts to the other four crypto-to-fiat exchanges in Korea. That is according to a report by Maeil Business Newspaper, which obtained documents submitted to lawmaker Kim Hee-gon by the Financial Services Commission (FSC).According to Korean law, crypto exchanges must secure real-name bank accounts from banks to offer crypto trading services against the Korean won. Kbank offers its accounts to Upbit, the dominant player in the Korean crypto market.Photo by David McBee on PexelsNotable exposure to crypto exchangeThe FSC documents showed that Kbank’s Upbit customer deposits totaled KRW 3.09 trillion, making up 18% of its total deposits, which amount to KRW 17.2 trillion.In a striking contrast, Nonghyup Bank had 0.2% of its deposits, equivalent to KRW 557.8 billion, in Bithumb, which is the nation’s second-largest cryptocurrency exchange. Kakaobank, another internet-only bank, had 0.3% (KRW 112.2 billion) of its deposits in Coinone. Shinhan Bank held 0.01% (KRW 43 billion) in Korbit, and Jeonbuk Bank had a similarly small 0.02% (KRW 4.2 billion) in Gopax.Lawmaker Kim pointed out that Kbank has become a bank dedicated to crypto trading. Kim proposed that financial authorities take proactive measures to assess the potential risks that may emerge when Kbank utilizes Upbit customer deposits as a basis for offering credit loans. Such risky financial practices could potentially result in higher loan defaults and the emergence of a greater number of individuals with poor credit histories, which could ultimately jeopardize the stability of the financial market.Regulatory gapThe current Financial Transaction Reporting Act mandates that virtual asset service providers (VASPs) segregate customer deposits from their own assets as a measure to combat money laundering. However, it has been noted that there are regulatory gaps stemming from the absence of specific guidelines for the custody of these deposits.According to the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), Nonghyup and Kakaobank store deposits in separate accounts within the bank. On the other hand, Kbank and Jeonbuk Bank keep deposits in corporate accounts under their respective exchange partners’ names.When deposits are stored in separate accounts within the bank, only the bank has access to those funds, and they are essentially operated in a manner similar to a trust, preventing the bank from using the funds arbitrarily. In contrast, funds held in corporate accounts can be used by the bank as a source for lending. Lawmaker Kim warned that in scenarios such as exchange bankruptcies or similar situations, banks holding customer funds in corporate accounts could face difficulties in ensuring customer protection.Each of these banks receives reserve funds from crypto exchanges in anticipation of potential compensation requirements in the event of unforeseen losses. The FSS states that as of the end of last month, the reserve amounts held by each bank were as follows: Kbank had KRW 200 billion, Nonghyup Bank had KRW 100 billion, Kakao Bank had KRW 73 billion, and both Shinhan Bank and Jeonbuk Bank had KRW 30 billion.Kbank’s Upbit customer deposits are approximately 72 times larger than Shinhan Bank’s Korbit customer deposits. However, the reserve amounts held by Kbank are only 6.7 times greater than those held by Shinhan. Lawmaker Kim emphasized the importance of banks maintaining reserve funds that are proportional to the customer deposits held in their partner crypto exchanges.Signs of recoveryMeanwhile, the Korean cryptocurrency industry, which faced a downturn in the latter half of last year due to events like the Terra collapse and FTX’s bankruptcy, has exhibited signs of recovery in the first half of this year.The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the FSC recently reported that the cryptocurrency market cap in South Korea has reached KRW 28.4 trillion as of the end of June this year. This reflects a 46% increase compared to the end of last year when it stood at KRW 19.4 trillion. Additionally, the total operating profit of domestic exchanges surged by 82% to KRW 227.3 billion over the past six months, compared to the previous figure of KRW 124.9 billion.The total market’s max drawdown (MDD) was 62%. MDD assesses the extent to which an asset has declined in value from its highest point to its lowest point within a specific time frame, before experiencing a recovery. The FIU considers this MDD to be high, urging investor caution.

Korean Lawmakers Complete First Rough Draft of Virtual Asset User Protection BillKorean lawmakers have completed the first rough draft of the virtual asset user protection bill at a National Policy Committee meeting held later last month.©Pexels/Matthias ZomerAgreeing on term usage ‘virtual assets’So far, 18 bills have been proposed to regulate cryptocurrencies, and the lawmakers and the Financial Services Commission (FSC) agreed to use the term “virtual assets” to encompass similar terms such as digital assets and crypto assets.Phased enactment of billsThe bills are likely to be reviewed under the title “Virtual Asset User Protection Act.” The bipartisan group agreed to enact the bills in phases, introducing the user protection bill in the first phase and the virtual asset listing and issuance bill in the second phase.Meanwhile, there were mixed opinions on the content of the bills. In particular, there was debate over whether the bills should stipulate that the central bank digital currency (CBDC) is excluded from virtual assets, and whether the bills should include a standard for determining if a virtual asset is a security.Debate over stipulating CBDC’s statusThe stipulation of excluding CBDC from virtual assets was the most divisive topic since it would lead to defining the conditions for other assets such as non-fungible tokens. Moreover, the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, which currently regulates virtual asset service providers (VASPs), does not contain any stipulation on CBDC. Some raised concerns that such discrepancies could later cause confusion. In the end, assembly members decided to discuss the matter again in April after consulting with the Bank of Korea and the Ministry of Government Legislation.Criteria for classifying virtual assets as securitiesRegarding whether to include criteria for classifying virtual assets as securities, the lawmakers and financial regulators took different sides.Lee Yong-woo, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, underlined that a clear statement of the relationship between the issuer and the recipient of virtual assets in a whitepaper can determine their security status. He added that such provisions should be included in the bills.Park Min-woo, an FSC official, on the other hand, commented on a cautious note that in case virtual assets fall under the category of securities, they may not be applicable to the virtual asset act. He explained that VASPs might deal with both securities and virtual assets, and in such cases, there could be a misunderstanding that VASPs are not subject to the virtual asset act simply because they trade securities.