BingX signs sponsorship deal with English Premier League club

The Need to Distinguish Between Security and Non-Security Virtual AssetsWith the recent enactment of the Virtual Asset User Protection Bill in South Korea, there is a need to lay out criteria for determining whether virtual assets qualify as securities, says Kim Ja-bong, a senior research fellow at the Korea Institute of Finance, in his report titled “The Implications of Determining Which Virtual Assets Constitute Securities and Investor Protection” released on Saturday.Photo by Shubham Dhage on UnsplashThe implications of the Virtual Asset User Protection ActThe Virtual Asset User Protection Act — which will take effect in July of next year — aims to protect customer assets, establish regulations against unfair trading practices, and enforce penalties. Notably, it will target virtual assets that are not securities, deeming it necessary for regulators to determine if virtual assets qualify as securities or not in order to enforce the bill. Assets with characteristics of securities will fall under the jurisdiction of the Capital Markets Act.Therefore, if the Virtual Asset User Protection Act does not provide sufficient investor protection, issuers may be incentivized to issue non-security assets rather than security assets to avoid the regulations of the Capital Markets Act. This further necessitates the act of distinguishing between virtual assets that are securities versus those that are not.Determining if a virtual asset is a security or notThere are two approaches to do this, according to Kim: the passive approach, which avoids considering a virtual asset as a security whenever possible, and the active approach, which treats a virtual asset as a security whenever applicable.He argues that it is better to focus on whether an investment contract qualifies as a security if it is considered an investment contract, rather than simply selecting a specific approach.Furthermore, the nature of virtual assets renders them unbound by national borders, so it is necessary to establish assessment criteria that correspond with international standards, such as those used in the US and Europe.This is especially important because if the criteria differ from international standards, there is a risk of domestic investors suffering damages due to an issuer’s pursuit of regulatory arbitrage between countries.Equitable recognition and potential for security tokensAccording to Kim, the importance of determining whether virtual assets are securities lies in ensuring that security tokens receive the same recognition and trading treatment as traditional securities such as stocks. With such a measure, security token offerings can serve as an efficient and reliable method for raising funds. Although there may be concerns that such a regulation may hinder the development of virtual assets, it may well be an opportunity for security tokens to be qualified and trusted as high-quality financial instruments just like existing securities, Kim claims.Even for virtual assets that are not considered securities, there are many types of assets that are financial in nature, such as e-money tokens — therefore, it is necessary to actively protect investors in non-security virtual assets through financial regulations such as reinforcing disclosure obligations, which is being done in the EU through the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).Empowering regulators for enhanced investor protection and market integrityKim underscored that investor protection and healthy growth of the virtual asset market are made possible mainly through expanding regulators’ authority to protect economic interests and prevent damages. The author also suggested institutional reforms that grant regulators substantial authority, which would enhance their ability to protect investors effectively and provide compensation for damages.He added that regulators should also have the authority to enforce liability for damages or impose civil penalties for unfair trading practices conducted using classified information.

Taiwan Proposes New Crypto Business CategoryWith regulation having trailed the crypto innovation, more recently it seems like every day brings further developments, with the latest installment seeing Taiwan take a significant step forward. Officials in Taipei are proposing the classification of crypto regulations within their own novel business category.Photo by Jack Brind on UnsplashFostering self-regulationThe move aims to potentially allow cryptocurrency-related companies to establish industry associations, ultimately fostering the creation of self-regulatory guidelines. The Ministry of Economic Affairs, in a recent announcement, unveiled its draft amendment to the Standards of Classification of Commercial Group regulations. This proposed amendment centers on the inclusion of a distinct category for digital asset services.An official from the economic ministry informed The Block that the freshly introduced business category outlines the scope of operations within the cryptocurrency sector. This encompasses various activities, such as cryptocurrency to fiat or digital token exchanges, facilitating cryptocurrency transfers, offering services for crypto storage and management, and providing assistance related to cryptocurrency issuance or sales.The official further elaborated that cryptocurrency firms will be permitted to form industry associations once the proposed business category is successfully incorporated into the relevant regulations. Seeking public input, the ministry anticipates finalizing the amendment in collaboration with the Ministry of the Interior in either mid- or late-October.Encouraging trade associationsBy allowing the establishment of industry associations, cryptocurrency companies can proactively devise self-supervisory rules that address industry-specific challenges and concerns. This move is anticipated to bolster transparency, security, and responsible conduct within the cryptocurrency ecosystem.Taiwan’s approach to virtual asset services providers (VASPs) has mandated compliance with anti-money laundering laws since the implementation of anti-money laundering regulations by the Financial Supervisory Commission in July 2021. However, the overall industry remains relatively unregulated within the country.Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, has recently embarked on the process of obtaining registration for anti-money laundering compliance under the FSC.Regulatory guidelines being draftedAs the regulatory landscape evolves, Taiwan’s FSC, which assumed its role as the principal regulator overseeing the crypto industry in March, is actively formulating comprehensive guidelines. These guidelines will cover trading and payment aspects associated with cryptocurrencies for VASPs.An FSC official revealed that the agency plans to unveil the VASP guidelines by the end of September. It’s understood that the guidelines will comprise thirteen regulatory principles. It’s believed that the issuance of crypto assets will be permitted but that stablecoin issuance will be prohibited. One prerequisite for the issuance of digital assets will be a requirement to accompany that issuance with a comprehensive whitepaper, detailing fundamental and necessary information that investors can review, relative to the token offering.Taiwan’s proposition of a novel business category signifies a pivotal move towards enhanced self-regulation and industry cohesion within the cryptocurrency sector. As the regulatory framework takes shape, the introduction of self-regulatory guidelines is poised to contribute to the responsible growth of the cryptocurrency industry in Taiwan.

Bitcoin is facing growing uncertainty as it trades near $90,000, down nearly 30% from its October peak of $126,000. While the cryptocurrency remains under pressure, investors are increasingly focused on Tokyo, where a potential change in monetary policy could tighten global liquidity. According to CoinDesk, which cited a report from Nikkei, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) is expected to raise its policy rate by 25 basis points to 0.75%, a move that would push borrowing costs to their highest level in nearly three decades. Historically, a stronger yen has often been associated with weaker Bitcoin performance amid tighter global liquidity.Photo by Kanchanara on UnsplashYen carry trade in focusThe report suggested that higher rates could unwind the yen carry trade, a strategy in which investors borrow cheap yen to fund positions in higher-yielding assets such as stocks and U.S. Treasuries. A similar dynamic played out following the Japanese central bank’s July hike, which precipitated a market-wide selloff that dragged Bitcoin from roughly $65,000 down to $50,000. However, CoinDesk noted that a recurrence of such volatility cannot be assumed. It added that speculative positioning is already skewed toward yen strength, while steadily rising Japanese bond yields suggest monetary policy is adjusting to prevailing market realities. Institutional skepticism toward BitcoinBeyond the macroeconomic landscape, fundamental skepticism remains entrenched among traditional finance heavyweights. John Ameriks, Vanguard’s global head of quantitative equity, said at Bloomberg’s ETFs in Depth conference that the asset behaves more like a speculative digital collectible, comparable to a Labubu toy, than a conventional investment, citing its lack of income generation, compounding, and cash-flow characteristics. Ameriks’ comments follow Vanguard’s move earlier this month to permit trading of select third-party crypto ETFs. He said the decision was based in part on the funds’ ability to establish a track record since their January 2024 launch. While acknowledging that Bitcoin could theoretically offer value during periods of high inflation or political instability, he maintained that its history remains too short to draw conclusions. Bullish case for BitcoinA contrasting view was offered by Katherine Dowling, president of the Bitcoin Standard Treasury Company. Speaking with DL News, Dowling projected that Bitcoin would surge to $150,000 by the end of 2026. She pinned this bullish outlook on favorable U.S. regulatory shifts, increased liquidity from Federal Reserve rate cuts, and sustained institutional adoption via ETFs.The perceived influence of institutional flows was also underscored by a recent weekly survey of 2,000 South Korean investors conducted by CoinNess and Cratos. The data showed that 42.3% of respondents view flows into and out of spot Bitcoin ETFs as the primary price driver. Monetary policies in major economies like the U.S. and Japan ranked second at 26.7%, while 16.3% pointed to shifts in equity markets. Another 11.5% attributed price action to the halving cycle, and 3.4% said they could identify no specific catalyst.