UAE signs on to OECD crypto-tax reporting pact, sets 2027 launch

China's highest judicial authorities, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, have released a judicial interpretation that includes the use of virtual assets to transfer illicit funds as a recognized method of money laundering. This move aims to strengthen the legal basis for investigating and prosecuting cases linked to cryptocurrency and money laundering activities.Photo by Vidar Nordli-Mathisen on UnsplashClarifying the legal status of crypto transactionsThe new judicial interpretation classifies virtual asset trading as a potential channel for money laundering. It specifies that using virtual-asset transactions or financial-asset exchanges to transfer or convert the proceeds of crime falls under the act of “disguising or concealing the source and nature of criminal proceeds and their gains by other means” as outlined in the country’s criminal law. Liu Honglin, founder of the Shanghai-based Man Kun law firm, clarified in a social media post that the interpretation does not equate all cryptocurrency trading with money laundering. According to Liu, the directive is not intended to criminalize the possession or trading of cryptocurrencies domestically but to provide clear legal guidelines for prosecuting specific illegal activities linked to crypto transactions. Impact on crypto trading and enforcementShao Shiwei, a fintech lawyer based in Shanghai, suggested that this interpretation could pose challenges for stablecoin merchants and increase legal risks for those involved in receiving illicit funds through crypto trading. The interpretation is part of broader efforts to regulate the virtual asset space, following the comprehensive ban on crypto trading activities by the People’s Bank of China and other authorities in September 2021. Despite the ban, many investors have continued to find ways to engage in crypto trading, sometimes circumventing capital control measures. For example, in May, Chinese police dismantled an underground bank that utilized the USDT stablecoin for foreign currency exchanges involving over 13.8 billion yuan ($1.9 billion). This incident underscores the ongoing challenges in enforcing existing regulations against the backdrop of innovative methods to bypass legal restrictions. 

Hong Kong Analyzes Web3 Approach of Regional PeersHong Kong’s ambitions in Web3 are on the rise as it strives to establish itself as a global hub for digital assets. The Research Unit of the Legislative Council Secretariat of Hong Kong has recently released a summary of a document titled “Development of Selected Regional Web3 Technologies,” shedding light on the city’s involvement in Web3.According to the report summary which was published on June 14, the Hong Kong government is actively promoting the development and utilization of Web3. In the fiscal budget for 2023–2024, the Financial Secretary announced accelerated efforts to build Hong Kong’s Web3 ecosystem, along with the establishment of a dedicated development task force focused on virtual assets.Photo by Jimmy Chan on PexelsPace of developmentHowever, concerns have emerged about Hong Kong’s comparatively slower pace of development in contrast to other regions. Various regions across the globe, particularly in Asia and the Gulf region, have implemented measures to expedite the progress of Web3 and its associated technologies and applications.To address these concerns, the report suggests that Hong Kong should broaden its focus beyond financial services and virtual assets. Instead, it should actively promote innovation in other areas of Web3 technology, such as blockchain and metaverse technology.Scrutinizing regional Web3 developmentIn response to a request from Councilor Wu Kit Ching, the research group has conducted a study on leading regions in Web3 technology and application development, examining their strategies.The study primarily highlights Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as these regions have demonstrated proactive approaches in developing Web3 technologies, and they have become global or regional innovation hubs. Japan, for instance, has established high-level policy guidance and dedicated offices to coordinate Web3 policies across various government departments.Other regions covered in the study have focused on specific areas of Web3. Singapore and the UAE, for example, are exploring blockchain technology through industry collaborations and the establishment of incubation centers. Meanwhile, South Korea is actively launching metaverse strategies to foster innovation across multiple sectors.The summary also provides an overview of the key characteristics, foundational technologies, and applications of Web3. It outlines recent developments in Web3 within Hong Kong and analyzes the development scenarios of selected regions, including Japan’s comprehensive approach and the application-focused initiatives of other regions.The document emphasizes that Web3 represents a decentralized network that empowers users with greater autonomy and control over their digital lives. While the Hong Kong government has introduced measures to support the development of the Web3 ecosystem, particularly in the virtual asset market and related financial services, concerns persist regarding Hong Kong’s slower progress in other areas of Web3 technology compared to its counterparts in Asia and the Gulf region. These regions are capitalizing on their strengths and exploring broader applications of Web3.Hong Kong’s engagement in Web3 and its ambition to thrive in this domain is becoming more evident with each passing day. The summary of the document sheds light on the Chinese autonomous territory’s efforts, while also highlighting the need to expand its focus and foster innovation in various areas of Web3 technology. By doing so, Hong Kong can position itself as a prominent global center for Web3 and leverage the advantages it offers for digital asset development and beyond.

BitMEX CEO Calls for an End to Internal Market MakersIn a recent interview, Stephan Lutz, the acting CEO and group CFO of 100x Group, the parent company of Seychelles-headquartered global crypto exchange BitMEX, expressed his belief that crypto exchanges should phase out their internal market-making teams.Photo by Joe Roberts on UnsplashProp trading desks unnecessarySpeaking with The Block, Lutz argued that with the growth of institutional liquidity providers and high-frequency traders (HFTs) in the market, proprietary trading desks are becoming unnecessary.Lutz stated: “You have enough HFTs out there and prop shops that can perform that function.” He was referring to the role of liquidity providers in filling gaps in the market. He made these comments in response to the emergence of information earlier this week that raised questions about internal trading practices at Crypto.com, a Singapore-based exchange.BitMEX, once the world’s largest crypto derivatives exchange, also used to employ internal traders who acted as market makers. However, Lutz explained that BitMEX’s internal trading team, named Arrakis Capital, now functions primarily as a “treasury desk.” He sees this transition as a natural evolution for crypto exchanges in a market that has matured and attracted more institutional liquidity providers.Arrakis Capital currently performs limited functions, including converting commission fees earned in Bitcoin into fiat currency for operational purposes, hedging BitMEX’s exposure to tokens held as inventory, and making markets for BitMEX’s token $BMEX. Lutz clarified that Arrakis’s market-making activities are limited because external market makers find the token’s liquidity insufficient.Regarding profitability, Lutz stated that Arrakis earns “very minor returns” of up to $100,000 per month from holding T-Bills, but it incurred losses last year. He noted that Arrakis used to play a more significant market-making role when BitMEX dominated the crypto futures market. However, he assured that the trading desk was always segregated, despite accusations in the past.Fee structuresLutz acknowledged that exchanges with internal trading teams have faced increased scrutiny since the controversies surrounding Alameda Research and FTX. To differentiate between benign internal trading teams and hedge fund-like operations, Lutz highlighted several factors, including the separation of client funds and house funds, access to sensitive data, and the ability to move markets on their own exchange. Fee structures also play a role, with low or no transaction fees potentially signaling a market-making motive rather than serving as a counterparty.Lutz’s perspective suggests that crypto exchanges should rely on external liquidity providers and HFTs rather than maintaining internal market-making teams. He argues that the market has evolved. At this point he feels that these teams are no longer necessary, due to the presence of established players within the digital assets space.As regulatory scrutiny grows, ensuring transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest become crucial for maintaining trust within the crypto exchange ecosystem. The digital assets industry is far from arriving at a mature stage in its development. While many in the industry have found the stance taken by regulators to be unhelpful, the industry itself must also demonstrate its ability to iteratively move towards best practice, without that being a knee-jerk response to regulatory enforcement.