Crypto.com adds AED support in the UAE

Further Trials Required Before Determination of eHKD Launch DateThe Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) is taking a cautious approach to the launch of its retail central bank digital currency (CBDC), the e-HKD, stating that it will only go live once key stakeholders have gained sufficient experience to compete effectively in the payment sector.Photo by Jimmy Chan on PexelsAwaiting greater clarityIn an interview with the South China Morning Post (SCMP) earlier this week, Eddie Yue, CEO of the HKMA, revealed that initial experiments with e-HKD have shown promise, but the central bank is still waiting for greater clarity on technological, legal, and societal aspects. The CBDC trial began in May, involving 16 commercial banks, payment providers, and gross settlement platform Ripple, with a focus on exploring various use cases.Yue emphasized that they are still in the early stages of the trial process. The central question remains finding a use case that outperforms current retail payment methods in terms of safety, speed, or convenience.Programmable paymentsAmong the use cases explored in the pilot, programmable payments have stood out. This functionality allows consumer funds to be restricted for specific purposes. Bank of China (Hong Kong) has been at the forefront of this study, allowing select users to make payments using the test CBDC.The potential applications of the CBDC extend to tokenized deposits and tokenized assets, the aspect of the project which Ripple has involved itself with. The HKMA has shown interest in tokenization, especially after the successful completion of Project Evergreen, a blockchain-based bond issuance project.While the domestic use of the CBDC faces challenges, the HKMA is actively considering its role in cross-border payments. The HKMA has been involved in the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) mBridge pilot, which is expected to release a minimum viable product (MVP) by 2024. It’s working alongside the Bank of Thailand and the central bank of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on that project. Hong Kong and the UAE have been working towards strengthening financial cooperation in respect of crypto regulation.Following the achievements of the initial pilot, the HKMA is open to bringing in new participants. Rumors suggest that up to 20 central banks are closely monitoring the project’s developments.Collaboration with mainland ChinaRecent weeks have seen Hong Kong and China working on improving cross-border transactions. In July, it was announced that Chinese tourists visiting Hong Kong would be able to use their digital yuan wallets to pay for goods and services at select locations.Conversely, Hong Kong tourists visiting mainland China could use the digital yuan for retail transactions. A new upgrade will enable tourists to top up their digital yuan wallets using Hong Kong’s Faster Payment System (FPS) or major payment providers like Mastercard and Visa.While the exact launch date for e-HKD remains uncertain, the focus on practical use cases and technological advancements is expected to yield a robust and innovative CBDC for Hong Kong’s future. On the international front, the mBridge project is set to play a pivotal role in the broader adoption of CBDCs across borders, potentially revolutionizing global payment systems.

In a move announced on Friday, OKX, the Seychelles-headquartered cryptocurrency exchange, declared its decision to delist 20 trading pairs by Jan. 5, triggering a notable price fall for major privacy coins such as Monero, Dash and ZCash. The exchange cited that the affected pairs did not align with its listing criteria, though specific details were not disclosed.Photo by Khara Woods on UnsplashPrivacy coin delisting trendWhile OKX did not explicitly articulate the rationale behind this move, industry observers are speculating that it could be part of the exchange’s broader efforts to comply with evolving regulatory measures. Privacy coins have increasingly drawn regulatory scrutiny due to concerns about potential illicit activities within the crypto space. Earlier in the year, Binance had also announced the delisting of several privacy coins to ensure compliance with local laws and regulations. The broader context of regulatory pressures on privacy-focused cryptocurrencies seems to be impacting major exchanges’ decisions. In 2022, Huobi cited regulatory pressures when it took the decision to delist Monero and other privacy coins. Kraken was further ahead of the curve still, delisting Monero for UK customers in November 2021. Downward price actionFollowing OKX’s announcement on Friday, the prices of privacy-focused cryptocurrencies, notably Zcash (ZEC) and Monero (XMR), experienced a decline. The entire sector of “privacy cryptos” has witnessed a 7.1% decrease in overall market capitalization, according to an index of such coins compiled by Malaysian crypto indexing firm CoinGecko. During this period, Monero and Zcash have seen unit price declines of 4.5% and 10.7%, respectively. Other tokens set for delisting, including Dash, Powerpool and Horizen, have recorded declines of up to 14%. OKX has provided guidance to users, advising them to cancel orders related to the affected trading pairs before the delisting date to avoid automatic cancellation, a process that may take 1–3 working days. Concurrently, the exchange has halted deposits for the impacted cryptocurrencies and plans to cease withdrawals by Mar. 5, 2024, affording holders sufficient time to withdraw their assets. However, once the delisting is complete, trading these digital assets on OKX will become impossible. Interestingly, certain privacy coins like MINA continue to be listed on the exchange, experiencing a 7.5% increase following the delisting announcement. It’s crucial to note that OKX’s delisting is not exclusive to privacy tokens, as it also includes other trading pairs associated with digital assets such as Kusama, Flow, Kyber Network and Aragon. The fight for privacySome crypto community members have voiced their concerns on social media, with many fearing that the innovation may be ‘captured’ by the various state authorities over time. However, ex-Monero developer Ricardo Spagni (AKA “Fluffypony”) was nonchalant about the whole thing, judging by his comments. In a post on social media platform X, he wrote: ”Monero users and contributors literally couldn’t care less about delistings at this point.” As the regulatory landscape evolves, cryptocurrency exchanges are navigating these challenges, impacting the availability and value of specific tokens on their platforms. Investors and privacy advocates alike will be closely watching how such regulatory compliance measures continue to shape the crypto market and crypto use.  

A Chinese creditor of failed crypto exchange FTX has filed an objection on his own behalf and that of 300 others, with a U.S. bankruptcy court against a motion lodged with a view towards excluding payouts to creditors resident in China, Russia and 47 other foreign jurisdictions.Photo by Mariia Shalabaieva on UnsplashPotential distribution forfeitureThe FTX Recovery Trust, an entity formed in January to oversee the FTX bankruptcy estate following the adoption of a plan of reorganization, filed a motion last week seeking the approval of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in the United States to adhere to new parameters related to the claims of creditors residing in restricted overseas jurisdictions. Besides China and Russia, the list of restricted jurisdictions also includes many within the Asian region, including  Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Macau, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Qatar, Bangladesh and Cambodia. The FTX estate claims that these jurisdictions have regulations and laws restricting cryptocurrency transactions. In such cases, the FTX Recovery Trust claims that it cannot break local laws.  The difficulty for creditors resident in these countries is that if it's deemed illegal to reimburse them, they won’t qualify for the next scheduled distribution from the estate. In that instance, distribution forfeiture will be triggered. Taking to X on July 7, FTXcreditor.com, an entity that has been buying up bankruptcy claims from FTX creditors over the course of the FTX bankruptcy process, highlighted the peril that creditors residing in these restricted countries may face. It stated: “Distribution forfeiture is triggered at every distribution record date. The first record date already passed, if your claim is still tied to a local KYC when the stamp drops, that tranche is potentially gone.” Short timeframe for objectionsMr. Purple, a pseudonymous distressed assets bankruptcy professional who has been advocating for FTX creditors since the collapse of the business in November 2022, concurred with this view in a subsequent post on X. He pointed out that an extremely short timeframe has been given to affected creditors to respond. The motion was filed on July 2 and objections are due by July 15. $500 million in claims are at stake which accounts for 5% of all creditor claims. Of this, 82% of these claims belong to Chinese creditors. In a series of follow-up posts, the bankruptcy professional describes several procedural issues that he believes will result in it being incredibly difficult for affected creditors to have their funds reimbursed.Mr. Purple concludes:”The incentives are designed to be extremely risk averse in finding [a legal opinion] that paying creditors is legal! [The estate’s lawyers will] take the fees and say its not legal.” In his court filing, the Chinese creditor, who is resident in Singapore, stated: “My family holds four KYC-verified accounts with aggregate claims exceeding $15 million USD.” . . . “We have fully complied with every procedural requirement under the Plan. The proposed motion now jeopardizes our right to distribution in an arbitrary and inequitable manner.” On X, he asserted that the FTX Recovery Trust’s motion “constitutes an impermissible and material modification of the Plan.” Aside from legal action, the only other potential solution for creditors residing in restricted countries is to sell their claims. However, claims buyers are pricing in greater risk with lower rates and less favorable terms.