Hana Securities chooses Itcen and INF Consulting as security token platform developers

Terraform Labs fails to halt class action lawsuitThe High Court in Singapore has dismissed an appeal filed by Terraform Labs and its co-founders, marking a significant step forward for the plaintiffs behind a class action initiated against the company.That’s according to a report published by Singaporean publication, the Business Times, on Thursday. The legal development follows the collapse of TerraUSD (UST) tokens in May of 2022, resulting in the loss of billions of dollars in market value. The collapse, in turn, has led to several lawsuits against Terraform, its founders and affiliated entities, with those court actions playing out in courtrooms in Singapore, South Korea, Montenegro and the United States.Photo by Wesley Tingey on UnsplashFraudulent misrepresentation allegedThe class-action suit, initiated in September 2022 by Julian Moreno Beltran and Douglas Gan on behalf of 375 others, alleges fraudulent misrepresentation by Terraform, Co-Founders Do Kwon and Nikolaos Alexandros Platias and the Luna Foundation Guard (LFG). The claimants argue that these misrepresentations induced them to purchase UST, stake the tokens and retain them as their value plummeted.UST had been designed to be pegged to the U.S. dollar with a 1:1 ratio. However, flaws in the tokenomics behind that digital asset meant that it faced a loss of confidence in May 2022, trading at around $0.05 when the court’s decision was released. The claimants collectively suffered losses of nearly $57 million.Terms of use cited in attempt to dismissTerraform attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed by invoking an arbitration clause in its website’s terms of use, asserting that users had waived their rights to a jury trial or participation in a class action. However, the Assistant Registrar (AR) rejected this application, stating that the defendants failed to establish an arbitration agreement.The AR highlighted that the terms of use were inconspicuous on the website, and there was insufficient effort to draw users’ attention to those clauses. Terraform, Kwon and associated entities appealed this decision, which was heard by Justice Hri Kumar Nair on Sept. 25.Despite establishing a prima facie case for an arbitration agreement, the court ruled that Terraform’s participation in the legal proceedings, including filing a defense and counterclaim, meant it could no longer seek a stay in favor of arbitration.Multiple actionsIt’s a busy time for all stakeholders relative to the Terraform collapse. Playing out within the same timeframe is a lawsuit in the United States taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Terraform and Do Kwon, where the SEC claims that crypto asset securities fraud has been carried out.The latest installments in that saga in recent weeks have seen both parties file to seek summary judgment. Last week, a court in New York approved the confidential treatment of specific documentation which had been produced by Jump Crypto, a division of proprietary trading firm Jump Trading.There are also criminal actions underway. In a South Korean court in October, Terraform Labs Co-Founder Daniel Shin denied wrongdoing in the Terra/Luna collapse. Meanwhile, a court in Montenegro has approved the extradition of Do Kwon, with a final decision to be made shortly as regards whether he should be extradited to the United States or South Korea.

Korea to Ban Virtual Asset Deposit Services from Next JulyDuring a recent criminal law seminar held at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, Park Min-woo, Director of the Capital Markets Bureau at the South Korean Financial Services Commission (FSC), underscored that starting next year, virtual asset service providers (VASPs) will no longer be permitted to offer deposit and management services for virtual assets. That’s according to a report by local crypto news outlet Digital Asset.This is seen as a response to the suspension of virtual asset deposits and withdrawals carried out by virtual asset yield platforms Haru Invest and Delio a few months ago.Photo by Mathew Schwartz on UnsplashLegal backgroundDirector Park referred to Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, clarifying that the intention behind this provision is to ensure that VASPs have the ability to fulfill asset withdrawal requests, even in the scenario where all their customers make such requests. This Act is scheduled to go into effect in July of next year, and Article 7 prohibits VASPs from entrusting customer assets to third parties.Deposit service providers receive cryptocurrency deposits and then distribute the resulting yields to their customers. In a bull market, these entities can manage yields on their own. However, in a flat or bear market, these asset managers may face challenges in paying yields unless they can generate profits by handing over customer assets to external custodians.Signs of giving upIn fact, centralized finance (CeFi) company HeyBit made an announcement last month, stating that it will discontinue its virtual asset deposit service starting from October 2. They cited this specific provision as the reason for their decision.Fraud chargesBoth Haru and Delio have been indicted by the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office on fraud charges.As an unregistered VASP, Haru suspended its deposit and withdrawal services on multiple occasions in June, causing substantial financial losses to numerous investors. This suspension was triggered by significant losses incurred at B&S Holdings, another unregistered entity to which Haru had entrusted virtual assets.Similarly, Delio, although registered, entrusted a considerable amount of virtual assets to Haru and Traum Info Tech but was unable to recover them.

Meme coin project Floki Inu has implemented restrictions on users in Hong Kong from accessing its staking programs following a warning from the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC). Last week, the regulatory body labeled Floki's staking initiatives as "suspicious investment products'' and urged caution among investors. On Jan. 26, it specifically cautioned Hong Kong users about the Floki and TokenFi staking programs, emphasizing the promised annualized returns ranging from 30% to over 100%. The Commission expressed concern over investment products that make claims of returns deemed "too good to be true."Photo by Jie Yeu Teoh on UnsplashStaking program access block in Hong KongResponding to the SFC's warning, Floki Inu took proactive steps to prevent users in Hong Kong from participating in its staking programs. In an official blog post which was published on Tuesday, the project's team announced the implementation of "practical measures" to block Hong Kong-based users from joining the staking programs. Additionally, prominent warnings have been placed on the Floki and TokenFi staking websites, clearly stating the ineligibility of Hong Kong users to participate. The SFC emphasized that neither of the mentioned investment products holds authorization in Hong Kong, warning that unauthorized schemes provide limited to no protection under its Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO). Investors engaging in such unauthorized schemes may face the risk of losing their entire investments. Addressing regulatory concernsFloki Inu's team has responded to the regulatory concerns by actively collaborating with legal advisers to address potential regulatory issues associated with the staking project. The team committed to responsible community practices, while affirming its dedication to implementing measures to prevent Hong Kong users from participating in the staking program until regulatory concerns are resolved. As of Jan. 29, there is no record of Hong Kong users joining the staking programs, according to the Floki team. Furthermore, the team revealed that offline marketing activities in Hong Kong had already been halted before the project's launch in December 2023. Clarifying high yieldAddressing the SFC's primary concern regarding the high annual percentage yield (APY), the Floki team provided explanations. They clarified that the rewards are subject to volatility influenced by market dynamics and the value of staking rewards may fluctuate based on the market valuation of the token rewards. The team attributed the high APY for its staking programs to the allocation of the majority of TokenFi's token supply to token stakers, highlighting that the project had not raised venture capital funds or conducted a presale. They noted that market forces beyond their control had significantly increased the TokenFi price from its initial market cap at launch. In response to potential user confusion, the Floki team emphasized the complete decentralization of the staking programs for Floki and TokenFi, assuring users of a clear understanding of how the programs operate. They concluded by expressing their commitment to ongoing collaboration with regulatory bodies to ensure compliance and foster a responsible and transparent environment for users. Community response has been largely positive with one crypto influencer claiming: “You will not find a more legit team in #Crypto than $FLOKI. I’ve known about them for years and everyday they continue to handle themselves in the most informative, structured, and professional way.”