BitGo CEO Emphasizes Separation of Trading and Custody to Prevent Crypto Bankruptcies

Report: Can Bitcoin Replace Gold As a Safe Asset?In light of the substantial increase in Bitcoin (BTC) prices this year, a report from KB Financial Group in South Korea examined the potential for BTC to replace gold as a safe asset.©Pexels/Michael SteinbergThe study delves into the factors behind the recent BTC price surge and emphasizes the need for caution when considering BTC as an alternative to traditional safe assets.3 drivers behind BTC surgeFrom January 1 to March 31 this year, BTC experienced an impressive return of 71%. This surge can be attributed to three main factors: an anticipated increase in liquidity due to market expectations of unchanged or falling interest rates; central banks supplying liquidity to mitigate risks in the traditional banking system; and concerns over the potential delisting of cryptocurrencies should the US court’s decision on the Ripple-SEC case classify XRP, Ripple’s native token, as securities, prompting investors to shift their focus to BTC.The report suggests that the current BTC boom is more likely a result of short-term arbitrages and social conformity, given the greater information asymmetry in the crypto market, which lacks the disclosure system present in traditional stock markets.Persisting risk factorsLast month, blockchain tracker Whale Alert spotted a transfer of 11,125 BTC from an anonymous address to Binance. The primary reason for moving assets from a private address to an exchange address is to sell them, indicating that investors should keep a watchful eye on Bitcoin trading volumes, particularly for any signs of large sell-offs.Data from the crypto data analysis platform Glassnode revealed that the percentage of the BTC supply that was active over a year ago reached an all-time high of 68% in late March. Historically, such an increase has been associated with falling BTC prices.This year, the BTC supply is set to grow due to the US government’s liquidation of seized BTC. As detailed in a March 31 Cointelegraph article, the US government seized 51,352 BTC in a case related to Ross Ulbricht, the creator of the online black market Silk Road. The government has already sold 9,861 BTC, with the remaining amount expected to be liquidated in four additional portions throughout the year.Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange by trading volume, has been struggling to find banks in the US to store client funds after crypto-friendly banks Silvergate and Signature closed their doors.Need for cautionAlthough various media sources often portray BTC as a safe asset, the report advises caution in accepting these claims. Although some liken BTC to “digital gold,” the two assets share little in common beyond their finite and scarce nature. In fact, gold and BTC diverge significantly in terms of social consensus, intrinsic value, price volatility, and investor protection.Gold serves as a highly liquid asset with applications in both jewelry and industrial goods, in addition to its role as an investment vehicle. In contrast, BTC’s intrinsic value is still debatable. The price volatility of BTC is also a concern, as evidenced by its 71% spike in the first quarter of 2023, compared to gold’s modest 8% increase. Additionally, gold investment products are regulated by law, whereas BTC is not. The report thus recommends treating BTC as a high-risk product and incorporating it into a diverse investment portfolio.It is worth noting that since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the crypto market has demonstrated a stronger correlation with the global stock market in response to negative signals. This trend can be partially attributed to the growing presence of institutional investors in the crypto market, who often sell risky assets first to secure liquidity in the face of unexpected shocks.

Qatar Criticized for Regulatory Inaction Against Crypto CompaniesThe Qatari Central Bank (QCB) has come under fire from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for its lack of efforts in enforcing regulations that prohibit virtual asset service providers.In a report released earlier this week, the global watchdog for money laundering and terrorist financing highlighted the need for Qatar to enhance its capabilities in effectively combating evolving forms of criminal activity, including taking action against virtual asset service providers.Photo by Akbar Nemati on PexelsContinuous improvement neededAlthough acknowledging “substantive improvements” applied to its control system, the FATF report emphasized that Qatar must further improve its understanding of more complex forms of money laundering and terrorist financing.While Qatar has shown positive progress in gathering beneficial ownership information through its unified register, which consolidates data on its citizens, the FATF report emphasized the need for stronger controls to ensure the accuracy and currency of the collected information. The report also criticized Qatar’s authorities for underutilizing their sophisticated analysis capabilities in identifying instances of money laundering.Lack of control despite VASP banDespite the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority’s (QFCRA) announcement in December 2019 that virtual asset service providers (VASPs) are not allowed within or from the Qatar Financial Centre, the country’s regulatory authority has made little progress in penalizing firms that facilitate or provide crypto asset services.Interestingly, while Qatar has banned virtual asset service providers, it has expressed interest in exploring the potential use cases of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). In June 2022, it was reported that the QCB is in the early stages of developing a CBDC.Sheikh Bandar bin Mohammed bin Saoud Al Thani, the governor of Qatar’s central bank, revealed that the QCB is evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of CBDCs and determining the appropriate technology and platform.As the country explores the potential of a CBDC, it must ensure that its regulatory framework aligns with international standards and best practices. By doing so, Qatar can strike a balance between fostering innovation in the digital currency space and safeguarding its financial system from illicit activities.Global coordinationThrough the Paris-based money-laundering watchdog, and calls from the G7, the European Central Bank, and others to regulate on a global basis, the official response to controlling digital assets and VASPs is becoming more globally coordinated. Central bankers and government officials have learned that decentralized finance has the ability to be borderless.FATF has been active in getting more countries on board. Effective from Thursday, Japan now implements FATF’s “travel rule” with respect to digital assets. That action was taken following a FATF finding that Japan wasn’t following best practice relative to anti-money laundering (AML) measures. Pakistan recently banned cryptocurrencies in an effort that appears to have been motivated by wanting to stay off the FATF’s gray list of non-compliant countries.While Pakistan managed to get itself off that list, the United Arab Emirates found itself on the gray list. The UAE’s Central Bank issued guidance on AML relative to virtual asset companies, in an effort to come back into FATF compliance.It remains to be seen how Qatar will respond to the FATF’s critique and whether it will take concrete actions to address the concerns raised. The international community will be closely monitoring Qatar’s efforts to combat financial crimes in the virtual asset sector and to establish a robust regulatory framework for its future CBDC endeavors.

HKMA Issues Warning Against Crypto Firm MisrepresentationThe Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), the central bank for the Chinese autonomous territory, has taken a stand against cryptocurrency businesses that falsely present themselves as “banks” and market their products as “deposits,” issuing a public advisory to raise awareness about the issue.Photo by Marcel Eberle on UnsplashBanking ordinance violationsIn a press release published to its website on Friday, the HKMA said that instances had arisen where crypto firms had labeled themselves as “crypto banks,” “crypto asset banks,” and “digital trading banks.” The regulatory authority underscored that such misrepresentations could be in violation of the Banking Ordinance in Hong Kong.In addition to adopting misleading bank-related titles, these crypto firms have been advertising “savings plans” as “low risk” with “high return,” potentially misleading the public into believing that these entities are authorized banks in Hong Kong, where they can securely deposit their funds.The HKMA stressed that only entities such as licensed banks, restricted license banks, and deposit-taking companies, collectively referred to as “authorized institutions” and holding a license granted by the HKMA, are legally permitted to engage in banking or deposit-taking activities in Hong Kong.Furthermore, funds held on crypto exchanges are not covered by Hong Kong’s Deposit Protection Scheme. “Under the Banking Ordinance, only licensed banks, restricted license banks and deposit-taking companies, which have been granted a license by the HKMA can carry out banking or deposit-taking business in Hong Kong,” the HKMA stated.Misuse of banking termsAny entity using the term “bank” in its business name or implying that it offers banking services in Hong Kong is committing an offense, according to the central bank. The same rule applies to any entity engaging in deposit-taking activities in Hong Kong or soliciting the public to make deposits.It’s important to note that crypto firms not officially recognized as banks in Hong Kong are not subject to the oversight of the HKMA.The HKMA advised the public to exercise caution. In cases of uncertainty regarding an entity claiming to be a bank or soliciting deposits in Hong Kong, individuals are encouraged to consult the register of authorized institutions on the HKMA’s website, and if doubts persist, it suggests that they should contact the authority via its Public Enquiry Service hotline.According to section 97 of the Banking Ordinance, only a bank or a central bank can use the term “bank” or its derivatives in its business name in Hong Kong without the written consent of the HKMA.Additionally, sections 11 and 12 of the Banking Ordinance stipulate that only entities possessing a valid banking license or recognized as authorized institutions are permitted to engage in banking or deposit-taking activities in Hong Kong. As per section 92 of the Banking Ordinance, only an authorized institution is authorized to issue advertisements inviting the public to make deposits, with certain exceptions.The HKMA’s advisory serves as a stern reminder to the crypto industry that regulatory compliance and transparency are essential, particularly when using terms associated with traditional banking, to protect the interests of the public.