Korean Firms Join Forces to Expand the Security Token Market

Korea ST Exchange, an enterprise founded by financial experts for the management and support of security tokens, has signed a business deal with Canadian fintech company Finhaven to revitalize the South Korean security token industry, according to an article published by local news outlet Financial News on Wednesday (KST).Photo by Medienstürmer on Unsplash"Through our collaboration with a global company like Finhaven, we expect to expand and revitalize the local security token ecosystem," said Cho Won-dong, CEO of Korea ST Exchange. "We plan to do our best to create a platform where domestic investors can invest in various products more safely and conveniently." Revolutionizing security token managementFounded in 2017, Finhaven is a Canadian government-approved blockchain platform operator that simplifies the process of managing, issuing, trading and tracking security tokens and digital assets. Meanwhile, Korea ST Exchange has been building a platform for security token trading brokerage that prioritizes investor protection based on relevant legal regulations. Fostering global expansionUnder their agreement, Finhaven and Korea ST Exchange vowed to work together on several fronts. This includes supporting Asset Alliance members in their efforts to issue and distribute security tokens overseas. The Asset Alliance is a functional group created by Korea ST Exchange to accelerate the South Korean security token market while monitoring legal developments in the management of such assets. Conversely, the firms will also support overseas operators in the issuance and distribution of security tokens in the South Korean market. They have also agreed to exchange information and networks and converge their respective platforms to distribute security tokens and tokenized securities. The partnership is mainly an active effort on the part of Korea ST Exchange to help holders of promising underlying assets issue and distribute security tokens overseas since legislation for token securities is not yet in place in South Korea. Once this legislation is established, the enterprise then plans to aid foreign issuers in distributing security tokens in South Korea, enabling domestic investors to look into promising global products.

Banking Difficulties Remain in Hong Kong for Crypto Start-UpsWhile Hong Kong has demonstrated a very clear crypto-friendly stance over the course of the past six months, crypto start-ups are still struggling with banking in the Chinese autonomous territory.Photo by Manson Yim on UnsplashLicensing backlogAll the signs are that Hong Kong is striving to develop itself as a regional hub for crypto and blockchain related business. Encouraged by that stance, against a background of the United States becoming openly hostile to crypto over that very same time frame, applications are streaming in from international firms to be licensed to operate their businesses in the city.In discussion with crypto start-up applicants, CoinDesk has established that the issue extends to firms that have already obtained a license to operate. To compound matters, the Hong Kong regulator, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), has a shortage of manpower, with just eight officials currently working on the applications of eighty crypto firms.Speaking to that backlog, Amy Yu, APAC CEO for Swiss crypto financial services company, SEBA Bank, stated: “This probably would have been a different story six or nine months ago.”A known problemIt appears that both the SFC and its regulatory peer, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) were aware of the issue and tried to get out ahead of it. Late last month, both regulators convened a meeting with bank officials and virtual asset service providers (VASPs).The objective was to try to forge a path forward such that banks could amend their approach, enabling greater facilitation and acceptance of crypto businesses such that the banks would be more inclined to approve bank account applications from those fledgling businesses.Arthur Yuen, Deputy CEO of the HKMA addressed the matter in a blog post published to the regulator’s website on April 27. Yuen was clear in calling on the banks to enable banking for VASPs:“With the implementation of the regulatory regime for VA [virtual assets] activities in Hong Kong and the strengthening of supervisory regimes in different jurisdictions according to the international standards, and as the banking industry develops a better understanding of the VA industry over time, we expect that regulated virtual asset service providers (VASPs) will be able to successfully apply for a bank account through a reasonable process.”Banker resistanceElaborating on the matter further, it’s clear that Yuen and his colleagues understand the importance of banking in enabling this nascent business sector such that the broader strategy of a pro-crypto business environment is affected in Hong Kong. “To attract businesses from new markets, it is crucial to have high quality financial services, while enhancing corporate access to bank accounts would be one of the key priorities,”he stated.An attendee at that regulator-organized round-table last month said that “It was more like a wish list from the regulator,” and that “whether the banks fully embrace it is another matter.” The issue remains as a major impediment to the ability of crypto start-up companies to operate, Some are being forced to try and work around the stumbling block, relying instead on overseas banking partners.

Korean Lawmakers Complete First Rough Draft of Virtual Asset User Protection BillKorean lawmakers have completed the first rough draft of the virtual asset user protection bill at a National Policy Committee meeting held later last month.©Pexels/Matthias ZomerAgreeing on term usage ‘virtual assets’So far, 18 bills have been proposed to regulate cryptocurrencies, and the lawmakers and the Financial Services Commission (FSC) agreed to use the term “virtual assets” to encompass similar terms such as digital assets and crypto assets.Phased enactment of billsThe bills are likely to be reviewed under the title “Virtual Asset User Protection Act.” The bipartisan group agreed to enact the bills in phases, introducing the user protection bill in the first phase and the virtual asset listing and issuance bill in the second phase.Meanwhile, there were mixed opinions on the content of the bills. In particular, there was debate over whether the bills should stipulate that the central bank digital currency (CBDC) is excluded from virtual assets, and whether the bills should include a standard for determining if a virtual asset is a security.Debate over stipulating CBDC’s statusThe stipulation of excluding CBDC from virtual assets was the most divisive topic since it would lead to defining the conditions for other assets such as non-fungible tokens. Moreover, the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, which currently regulates virtual asset service providers (VASPs), does not contain any stipulation on CBDC. Some raised concerns that such discrepancies could later cause confusion. In the end, assembly members decided to discuss the matter again in April after consulting with the Bank of Korea and the Ministry of Government Legislation.Criteria for classifying virtual assets as securitiesRegarding whether to include criteria for classifying virtual assets as securities, the lawmakers and financial regulators took different sides.Lee Yong-woo, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, underlined that a clear statement of the relationship between the issuer and the recipient of virtual assets in a whitepaper can determine their security status. He added that such provisions should be included in the bills.Park Min-woo, an FSC official, on the other hand, commented on a cautious note that in case virtual assets fall under the category of securities, they may not be applicable to the virtual asset act. He explained that VASPs might deal with both securities and virtual assets, and in such cases, there could be a misunderstanding that VASPs are not subject to the virtual asset act simply because they trade securities.