Terraform Labs civil trial proceeds with confidential filings

The Legal Future of South Korea’s Crypto Industry: Necessary Legislation and SystemsA recent National Assembly symposium organized by South Korea’s Digital Asset Policy Forum brought experts together to discuss the challenges and prospects of the implementation of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act at the National Assembly Members’ Office Building in Seoul on Tuesday.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashInternational modelsReferences were made to global examples, such as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) — the world’s first standalone virtual asset legislation enacted in the EU — which ensures transparency, disclosure, authorization, and supervision of crypto-asset transactions. However, unlike the capital market, MiCA does not impose regular disclosure reporting requirements or corrections on them. Firms in Japan, on the other hand, are asked to provide disclosure under autonomous regulation through the Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association (JVCEA).Notably, in its recent Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets Consultation Report, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) states that it is “seeking to encourage optimal consistency in the way crypto-asset markets and securities markets are regulated within individual IOSCO jurisdictions, in accordance with the principle of ‘same activities, same risks, same regulatory outcomes’.” This principle refers to the concept that any crypto-asset activity that has a similar function and poses similar risks to those in the traditional financial system — such as operating a trading platform or providing custody services — is subject to regulation that ensures equivalent outcomes, as defined by the UK Parliament.The IOSCO report also suggests that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) should disclose information regarding ownership and control of crypto-assets, issuer and business-related information, issuer management teams, transaction history and operational description of crypto-assets, token ownership concentration, transfer protocols, and a given CASP’s treatment of the client crypto-assets and their respective rights and entitlements during events like hard forks and airdrops.Hurdles to overcomeExperts at the forum reflected these considerations in their sentiments. Han Suh-hee, a lawyer at Barun Law Firm, emphasized that it is important to determine what kind of information should be disclosed. She argued that it is necessary to discuss to what extent information about virtual asset issuers should be disclosed and whether mandating firms to disclose their financial and business conditions is efficient.In particular, Han underlined the need to consider the differences between virtual assets and stocks when establishing a framework for the disclosure of virtual assets holdings. Unlike stocks, virtual assets possess distinctive characteristics like their borderless and decentralized nature, unclear issuer backgrounds, and the ability to conduct peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions.Lee Han-jin, a lawyer at Kim & Chang Law Firm, added that the enactment of Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act was aimed at establishing a system directly targeted at regulating virtual assets and virtual asset service operators (VASPs) — a significant development from the Financial Transaction Reporting Act, which had until now been the only legal framework responsible for regulating VASPs along with other entities like casino business operators. Virtual assets are now subject to a more systematized regulatory approach.However, he said that the Virtual Asset User Protection Act still has its setbacks because it is undergoing a two-stage legislative process. Lee criticized the fact that the same definition of VASPs outlined in the Financial Transaction Reporting Act had been brought over, which limits their identity to transaction intermediaries, wallet operators, and custodians while overlooking their other roles like crypto management, crypto deposits, and crypto collective investments.Lee also pointed out another weakness: the scope of prohibition on using undisclosed information and market manipulation is broader in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act than in the Capital Markets Act. He argued that enforcement decrees should stipulate the definition of insiders and exceptional cases when deliberating on the prohibition of insider virtual asset trading.Lee thus emphasized the need for a clear definition of virtual assets in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, as it is yet unclear whether they are objects or assets. All things considered, he believes there must be a law that can encompass blockchain-based decentralization, outline the similarities and differences between digital assets and financial products, and accommodate new services that utilize smart contracts.“We are in the process of creating a regulatory system similar to those being adopted in other countries based on their respective markets,” said Lee Seok-ran, head of the Financial Innovation Bureau at the Financial Services Commission (FSC). “Unlike the stock market, which is equipped with regulations to prevent fraudulent transactions and misconduct, virtual assets are traded on multiple exchanges, so we are considering how to interpret unfair trading activities and conduct market surveillance.”She explained that the commission is prioritizing user protection measures and subordinate regulations. “I believe we will be able to create a system for subordinate regulations on disclosure once an overall global trajectory is established. But before that happens, we are working on guidelines for defining unfair trading activities with regulators and the Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA).” Unfair trading activities associated with virtual assets include not only those conducted on exchanges but also under other circumstances.The FSC officer said that the financial authority is set to establish legal criteria to distinguish cases such as false statements in white papers of crypto projects. She added that enforcement decrees will define both the conditions for restricting deposits and withdrawals on crypto exchanges and the corresponding limits.

Indonesia witnessed a striking decline in cryptocurrency tax revenue for the year 2023, according to local media. 63% decreaseA report by Indonesian business and financial publication Kontan detailed a tax take drop to $31.7 million (Indonesian rupiah 467.27 billion). That tax collection is in sharp contrast to the partial collection period in 2022 when the crypto tax regime was initially introduced. It represents a drop of around 63%. The decline is part of a broader tax reform targeting the "digital economy" implemented in 2022, with the Indonesian government expressing the expectation that the reform would enhance tax collection, fostering a "healthy and fair taxation system."Photo by Nick Agus Arya on UnsplashDeclining transaction volumesDespite bitcoin's impressive surge of approximately 160% throughout 2023, the dip in crypto tax revenue was notable. The decrease is closely tied to a drop in transaction volumes over the same period compared to 2022. A report by CoinDesk Indonesia last week put that trading volume decrease at around 60%. Crypto transactions in Indonesia face dual taxation – a 0.1% income tax and a 0.11% value-added tax (VAT). Additionally, local crypto exchanges are subject to a special tax of approximately 0.04%, contributing to the national digital asset bourse. Disadvantaging local exchangesLocal exchanges in Indonesia, including prominent ones like Indodax, have voiced discontent with the high tax rates, contending that these levies are driving users towards unregulated offshore exchanges. Earlier this month Indodax CEO Oscar Darmawan called on the Indonesian government to review crypto tax rates. Darmawan highlighted that the cumulative taxes on crypto transactions often surpass the trading fees paid by users, posing a risk of users seeking more cost-effective alternatives. Local exchanges suggest that crypto transactions should only be subject to income tax, eliminating the VAT component. This proposal comes as Indonesia's Financial Services Authority (OJK) prepares to implement cryptocurrency regulations in early 2025. The aim is to align the taxation of cryptocurrencies with their market nature, possibly redefining them more as securities than commodities. Inadequate tax regulation can lead to a decline in local market activities, potentially resulting in capital flight to more favorable jurisdictions. Indonesia's situation serves as a reminder of the crucial need for policies that understand and adapt to the dynamic nature of the cryptocurrency sector. India is being similarly challenged. Local exchanges there have also complained of punitive taxation, which resulted in Indian users migrating to offshore exchanges. That scenario led indigenous exchanges to lobby the government to take action. The authorities have duly acted, flagging a number of global exchanges for operating illegally within India. It’s not all bad news for the development of digital assets within Indonesia. The country still ranks highly in terms of crypto adoption within the Asian region. Crypto was also floated as an election issue recently by Gibran Rakabuming Raka, a vice-presidential candidate in the upcoming election. The politician expressed his commitment to accelerating the country's position as a leader in the digital revolution. 

Singapore-regulated Telcoin, a developer of financial applications for mobile users, has successfully restored user balances following an exploit that saw approximately $1.2 million worth of funds transferred from affected accounts.Photo by Martin Sanchez on UnsplashUnauthorized withdrawal of assetsThe incident, which occurred in late December, was attributed to an error in the interaction between Telcoin's digital wallet and a proxy contract on Polygon. In a blog post which was published on Wednesday, the company shared a full post-mortem analysis report which it commissioned Hong Kong-based blockchain security firm BlockSec to carry out, relative to the exploit. The fault in the proxy contract's implementation caused a technical conflict that allowed for the unauthorized withdrawal of assets. Fortunately, no admin keys were compromised, ensuring that the broader Telcoin ecosystem remained unaffected. In response to the security breach, Telcoin took action by immediately freezing the use of its application as a precautionary measure. The team initiated an investigation and committed to releasing updates promptly to address the issue and restore normalcy. The identified address associated with the exploit was 0x35d2775e5f95596509951b140d68fc5b9185ff98. TEL token freefallDespite the initial market turbulence, with the price of the Telcoin (TEL) token plummeting, the cryptocurrency has demonstrated resilience. On Dec. 25, TEL fell from a peak price of $0.00235146 to $0.00122535, representing a 48% decrease. At the time of writing, the price has slightly rebounded, trading at $0.001335. Nevertheless, it's still down 40% over the course of the past month's trading. In a social media direct message to CoinDesk recently, Telcoin's founder and CEO, Paul Neuner, expressed pride in how his team responded to the issue, stating: “Making the decision to preemptively restore affected user wallets from our company treasury was a no-brainer, and I’m proud of the team for making that happen in record time.” Regulatory standingTelcoin's regulatory standing played a crucial role in instilling confidence during this challenging time. Although headquartered in Tokyo, the company is regulated in Singapore as a Major Payment Institution (MPI) by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). The firm is also registered and regulated in other global markets, including Canada and Australia. Telcoin maintains offices in Singapore, Tokyo, Dubai and Los Angeles. The company had been active in trying to shape regulation in the United States in 2023, with company executives having made repeated visits to Washington D.C. to meet with Financial Services Committee members and staffers on Capitol Hill. In April of last year, the company extended its service offering to the European market, starting out initially in Lithuania.It appears that the restoration of Telcoin's application services led to a significant boost in user confidence. The company reported a 400% increase in deposits compared to the previous month. Users responded favorably to Telcoin's swift resolution of the security breach, with a ratio of $3.60 being deposited for every $1 withdrawn in the first day since the service restoration. Telcoin's measures, collaboration with security experts and the surge in user deposits appear to have resulted in a resilient recovery. The saga highlights the importance of prompt and transparent responses in maintaining trust in the face of crypto security issues.