Taiwan not rushing into CBDC issuance following prototype build

A Korean Lawmaker’s Crypto Holdings Worth $4.5M Spark ControversySouth Korean lawmaker Kim Nam-kuk, a member of the opposition party Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), has recently come under scrutiny due to his reported possession of 800,000 WEMIX tokens from January to February last year, as reported by the Maeil Business Newspaper. These tokens were worth approximately 6 billion KRW or $4.5 million at the time. While Korean lawmakers are obligated to disclose their wealth, virtual assets are an exception. The disclosure of Kim’s ownership of these tokens has ignited controversy, as it unveiled a wealth magnitude significantly greater than previously understood.Photo by Karolina Grabowska on PexelsTravel Rule regulationA central issue in the unfolding dispute is the source of Kim’s investment in the WEMIX tokens. It has been reported that he purchased a significant amount of these tokens between January and February last year and withdrew the entire sum between February and March before the crypto exchange implemented measures to comply with the Travel Rule regulation. This rule requires that financial authorities be informed of transactions over 10 million KRW ($7,500). After the crypto exchange reported the transactions to the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Financial Services Commission, the government agency requested a warrant to search Kim’s account due to the transactions’ abnormality. However, the court dismissed the request.Jeonse deposit to LG Display sharesIn response to the controversy, Kim took to a YouTube channel on Tuesday to explain his WEMIX token investments. He stated that he had retrieved 600 million KRW ($450,000) after his jeonse contract expired and used the money to purchase LG Display shares. Jeonse a housing rental system in Korea where tenants put up a lump-sum refundable deposit on a rental space for a two-year stay. Kim claims that these LG Display shares later rose in value to 985.7 million KRW ($744,000) in January 2021 and that he used this sum to purchase the tokens.Account balance and WEMIX tokensDespite his explanation, there are still questions surrounding Kim’s sudden increase in his bank account balance. His account balance reportedly increased from 100 million KRW ($76,000) at the end of 2020 to 1.12 billion KRW ($850,000) by the end of 2021, which raised suspicions. If Kim had directed all the money withdrawn from the LG Display shares to WEMIX tokens, it is unclear where the additional $774,000 in his account came from. Kim has reportedly explained to his party’s leadership that he retrieved the principal amount of his investment due to the increase in the WEMIX token price. However, this explanation has not satisfied some critics.Insufficient explanationIn an attempt to address these concerns, Kim shared part of his bank transaction records on Monday. However, this disclosure has fallen short of addressing all the questions that have been raised, such as the precise amount invested in the tokens and their purchase prices. There is still significant public scrutiny and skepticism surrounding Kim’s explanation for his crypto holdings, and it remains to be seen if further disclosures will be made.Kim apologized to the Korean public via Facebook for any disappointment caused, especially amid challenging economic conditions. However, he denied accusations of using undisclosed information or unlawfully acquiring wealth. Kim maintained that all transactions were transparently made using only his own wallets through his real-name bank accounts.Potential insider trading and conflict of interestNevertheless, the public’s acceptance of his explanation is yet to be seen, as questions about his $4.5 million virtual assets persist, particularly given his reported total wealth of around $1.1 million. There are concerns surrounding the possibility of insider trading. Furthermore, Kim’s participation in proposing a bill to defer tax implementation on digital assets has triggered suspicions of a potential conflict of interest.Call for an impartial third partyRecent updates indicate that the prosecution is considering requesting a warrant against Kim in relation to the controversy surrounding his crypto holdings. The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission is also examining if his participation in proposing the bill constitutes a conflict of interest. It is evident that an impartial third party will need to investigate and analyze all relevant information to resolve this dispute. Until a thorough and unbiased investigation takes place, the public’s concerns and questions are likely to continue.

FTX Seeks Exclusion of Dubai Unit from Bankruptcy ProceedingsFailed crypto exchange FTX, which filed for bankruptcy in November, is now aiming to exclude its Dubai unit from the ongoing restructuring proceedings unfolding in the United States.Photo by Roman Logov on UnsplashNo previous business activityThe motion, filed with the bankruptcy court in Delaware on Wednesday, comes as FTX contends that its Dubai branch had not engaged in any business activities prior to the bankruptcy declaration, making its participation in the rehabilitation efforts unlikely.In the recent court filing on August 2, FTX put forth its argument that its Dubai unit, FTX Dubai, held a balance sheet that was solvent. Consequently, the exchange proposed that initiating a voluntary liquidation process in line with the laws of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) would expedite the distribution of its positive cash balance, settling liabilities, and liquidating assets.FTX Dubai, a wholly-owned subsidiary of FTX’s European arm, holds a sum of approximately $4.5 million across various accounts. However, $4 million of this amount remains restricted by the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) of Dubai, serving as a security measure for its license as a virtual asset service provider.Expired licensingFTX Dubai was originally awarded a license by VARA in July 2022, although it never got to a point where it offered any crypto-related services based on that license. On May 31 of this year, FTX Dubai management was informed by VARA that the regulator would not seek to renew the license if FTX Dubai didn’t act to terminate it. The license was subsequently suspended on July 12 by VARA.Licensing could have been useful to a new operator coming in to run the business. Earlier this week, the FTX Debtor filed a restructuring plan that leaves a path open towards relaunching the FTX International business outside of the United States. It’s clear that the current regulatory environment in the US is such that it’s simply not an attractive option to establish a restructured FTX business there.The FTX Debtor and its advisors are engaging with bidders for the business. In establishing a business on the right footing, it may be just as well that licensing will start afresh. To settle market doubts, the new entity will need to achieve a high level of compliance and industry-leading customer protections.FTX Dubai is now anticipated to collaborate with the designated liquidator to carry out essential administrative procedures, ensuring a systematic and efficient execution of the liquidation process. The company’s decision to file for bankruptcy on November 11, 2022, initiated bankruptcy proceedings for a total of 102 associated entities worldwide, reflecting the substantial impact of its financial turmoil.The matter is scheduled to be addressed in the court’s first hearing on August 23, shedding light on how the court will respond to FTX’s motion to remove its Dubai unit from the overarching bankruptcy proceedings in the US. This development underscores the complexities of a cross-border crypto bankruptcy, highlighting the intricacies of global regulatory frameworks in this evolving sector.

The Philippines Forging Crypto Reg. Path US Could Learn FromThe Philippines has demonstrated best practice in operating a sensible regulatory framework relative to cryptocurrency while the United States has erred by engaging in regulation via enforcement while responding after the horse has bolted in relation to a string of crypto company collapses. That’s according to Robert De Guzman, Head of Legal Compliance at Philippines-based cryptocurrency exchange Coins.ph.©Unsplash/C BuezaIn an opinion piece published in Forkcast News on Tuesday, De Guzman lays out his view as to what’s required in terms of regulation, while drawing comparisons between the application of regulation relative to crypto in both jurisdictions.The need for “sensible” regulationDe Guzman believes that the crypto industry’s recent failures are a wake-up call for the whole sector. Losses of billions of dollars affected Celsius Network, BlockFi, Voyager Digital, Genesis, and FTX, and led to Silvergate, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), and Signature banks’ collapse in a week. To maintain consumers’ trust, he believes that sensible regulation is necessary for the crypto exchanges dealing with digital assets.The legal compliance expert cites the FTX collapse. FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried’s empire was among the largest collapses. FTX pretended to support regulation, but its true nature was an offshore exchange for global clients. Nonetheless, some businesses act on their regulation support by acquiring licenses and complying with central bank audits in the countries of operation.State-level and industry-level regulationThe crypto industry being open to self regulation is one element of the solution, he says. Regulators must proactively protect their consumers from scams and business failures, not just clean up the mess after millions of people have been harmed.Regulatory failuresDe Guzman points the finger at reactionary regulatory action. Regulators filed charges against crypto industry founders after their collapse. Previously, they missed the problems of the largest companies. FTX, based in the Bahamas, was mismanaged, and American regulators only responded after customer issues. Regulations by enforcement, preferred in several countries, wait for failure to happen before taking action. Over-regulation through enforcement pushes platforms offshore, where Wild West-type environments thrive, with clear consequences.Regulators in some countries focus on surface-level questions, like which tokens should be considered securities, while others, like in the Philippines, prioritize execution-level details to protect consumers. Anti-money laundering measures and custody are core issues, with the G-7’s Financial Action Task Force’s Travel Rule likely to be more strictly applied. Active regulation and audits are needed to ensure financial platforms act responsibly with customer deposits. Basic rules need to be put in place through a licensing regime, followed by regulation of market practices like commingling of assets, self-dealing, and trading against customers.The Philippines sensible approach to regulationThe Coins.ph legal guru holds out his home country as exemplary in terms of its approach to regulation. The Philippines’ regulatory regime requires a virtual asset service provider (VASP) license to operate a crypto exchange, as well as additional licenses for other services. The country’s central bank, BSP, directly regulates all crypto exchanges and expands its crypto regulations to adapt to market needs. KYC processes in the Philippines require recognition of valid ID documents from across 82 provinces.Additionally, the BSP expects the industry to cooperate in quarterly audits where they share balance sheet information and disclose digital assets in hot and cold wallets. Regulators in the Philippines are proactive and knowledgeable about the crypto space, which sets a sensible framework based on customer protection.