South Korea’s top asset manager halts trading for bitcoin ETFs

The Dubai Court of First Instance in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has notched up another milestone relative to the continuing rollout of the use of and legal status of cryptocurrency by recognizing crypto as a legitimate means of payment where salaries are concerned. The groundbreaking decision, which was revealed in the court via case number 1739 of 2024, gives confirmed legal recognition to the validity of crypto as a means of payment for salaries, which may be stipulated in an employment contract.Photo by David Rodrigo on UnsplashRuling reflecting a progressive approach to cryptoThe outcome hit the radar of a number of crypto-centric UAE-based lawyers, with Web3 lawyer Irina Heaver, a partner at NeosLegal, pointing out that the decision marks a shift from previous relevant case law in the UAE in 2023 when a similar set of circumstances led to crypto not being recognized for the purposes of salary payment. Commenting on the ruling of that previous case, she stated: “This decision reflected a traditional viewpoint, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence when dealing with unconventional payment forms.” Ecowatt (EWT) tokensIn this latest case, the circumstances revolved around a dispute whereby an employee claimed for unpaid salary, termination compensation and further benefits. The employee’s contract of employment outlined a payment in both fiat currency, alongside 5,250 Ecowatt (EWT) tokens.  Ecowatt is a renewable energy blockchain project which claims to serve a purpose in reducing carbon impact on a global basis through the tokenization of green energy. It was the failure of the employer to pay out the tokenized portion of the employee’s salary that led to the dispute and the subsequent lawsuit. The court ultimately sided with the employee, agreeing that the employer must fulfill its contractual obligation and pay out the remainder of the employee’s salary and benefits in Ecowatt tokens. The judgement stated: “As the respondent did not provide evidence of payment in EcoWatt tokens, the court orders the respondent to pay the claimant the value of her wages in EcoWatt tokens.” In weighing up this latest adjudication, Heaver concludes that the move is congruent with the progressive approach that is being taken to digital assets within the UAE. “This decision reflects a broader acceptance of cryptocurrency in employment contracts and highlights the court’s recognition of the evolving nature of financial transactions within the Web3 economy,” she stated. Mahmoud Abuwasel, partner at Wasel & Wasel, an international firm with a presence in Abu Dhabi, also noted the relevance of the ruling, posting on the matter on legal update database, Lexology.  Greater legal clarityLittle by little, greater clarity is emerging in jurisdictions worldwide with regard to the status of cryptocurrency and digital assets within the context of international legal systems. In 2023, a Chinese court recognized virtual assets as legal property, affirming the legal status of virtual assets as protected property under Chinese law.Earlier in 2023, the courts in the Chinese autonomous territory of Hong Kong determined cryptocurrency to be property “capable of being held in trust.” Not all decisions have been positive however, with a Singaporean court determining in April 2023 that crypto is not money, albeit that the judge did acknowledge that the matter would require a more detailed examination of evidence in another court. 

Suspected Malicious Activity Drains AnySwap Tokens via Multichain ExecutorAccording to an on-chain sleuth known as Spreek, a person is using the Multichain Executor to drain tokens associated with the AnySwap bridging protocol.Multichain is a cross-chain routing network, established and maintained by a Chinese developer team. It supports in excess of 25 blockchains and more than 1,100 tokens.Photo by Marek Piwnicki on Unsplash$100 million outflowThis revelation comes after abnormal outflows of over $100 million from Multichain bridges on July 7, which were flagged by the Multichain team. Spreek’s report via Twitter on July 10 states that the Multichain Executor address has been draining anyToken addresses across multiple chains and transferring them to a new externally owned account (EOA).Evidence provided in the report includes an Ethereum transaction, 0x53ede4462d90978b992b0a88727de19afe4e96f0374aa1a221b8ff65fda5a6fe, which called the “anySwapFeeTo” method on the Multichain Router: V4 contract. This transaction resulted in approximately $15,275.90 worth of anyDAI being minted on Ethereum, sent to the Multichain Executor, burned, and exchanged for the underlying DAI backing the asset.The funds from these transactions were sent to the following address:0x1eed63efba5f81d95bfe37d82c8e736b974f477b. Similarly, on the BNB Smart Chain (BSC), the Multichain Executor used the anySwapFeeTo function to convert $208,997 worth of anyUSDC into Binance-pegged USDC and sent them to the same address. Additionally, 50.80 anyBTC, equivalent to $39,251.43 at the time, was converted into Binance-pegged Bitcoin and sent to the address.In total, approximately $263,524.33 worth of tokens were sent to this address through the anySwapFeeTo method. Spreek suggests that this behavior could be part of the protocol’s normal functioning. However, a different account engaged in similar activity the day before and ultimately sold the drained tokens, indicating malicious intent.Potential exploitSpreek theorizes that the attacker may be exploiting the anySwapFeeTo function by setting fees to an arbitrarily large amount, allowing them to drain users’ funds. The function apparently permits setting any value, enabling the address to choose the total value of the token held in that anyToken.The Multichain incident has puzzled blockchain analysts, as it remains unclear whether it resulted from an exploit or if it was simply large token-holders moving their funds between networks. The mystery began on July 7 when over $100 million worth of tokens were withdrawn from the Ethereum side of Multichain’s bridges and transferred to wallet addresses with no prior transactions. This represented the majority of funds held on each bridge.Hack or rug pullThe Multichain team labeled these withdrawals as “abnormal” and advised users to stop using the protocol. However, they have not disclosed the source or nature of the anomaly. In response to the incident, stablecoin issuers Circle and Tether froze some of the addresses involved in the suspicious transactions. Chainanalysis, a blockchain analytics firm, has commented that the incident appears more like a hack or rug pull rather than a migration.Adding to the complexity, the Multichain team has reported that their CEO is missing, and they have shut down certain bridges due to losing access to some of the network’s multi-party computation network servers. There have been various concerns relative to Multichain since May. The situation continues to evolve, with ongoing investigations and efforts to mitigate any potential damage caused by the suspected malicious activity.

CoinFLEX’s Creditors Sue CEO and OPNX in Legal DisputeCreditors of Seychelles-incorporated crypto platform CoinFLEX have taken legal action against its CEO, Mark Lamb, alleging that his involvement in launching the claims trading platform OPNX violated his fiduciary duties to CoinFLEX.Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on UnsplashDissatisfied CoinFLEX creditorsAccording to the civil action, which was filed in a Hong Kong court earlier this month, they view OPNX as a competing business to CoinFLEX. The lawsuit also implicates CoinFLEX investor Roger Ver.Lamb joined forces with Su Zhu and Kyle Davies, the founders of the now-defunct Singaporean crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital (3AC), to introduce a platform for trading bankruptcy claims, initially named GTX (later rebranded as OPNX). CoinFLEX co-founder Sudhu Arumugam also backed the project, with Leslie Lamb, Mark Lamb’s wife, installed as CEO.Lamb and CoinFLEX defended the project, claiming it would enhance transparency in financial markets and benefit CoinFLEX creditors. However, creditors argue that Lamb’s actions indicate a strategic move to distance himself and his associates from CoinFLEX. With that, they’re seeking to prevent him from representing CoinFLEX in the future.Complaint detailsThe creditors of CoinFLEX assert that OPNX was not authorized by CoinFLEX’s board or creditors and that Mark Lamb independently appropriated CoinFLEX’s intellectual property, technology, customer base, and employees to create the claims exchange.They accuse Lamb of entering into a harmful licensing and purchase agreement with OPNX’s parent companies, Open Technologies Holding LTD and Open Technology Markets LTD. Through their lawsuit, the creditors are aiming to nullify these agreements and place OPNX’s assets and profits into a trust.OPNX’s strugglesOPNX has faced difficulties from the point at which it was launched. While Zhu and Davies were once leading figures in the digital assets space, their reputations have been severely tarnished due to the manner of the 3AC collapse and its profound impact on the broader crypto market.In April the platform confirmed backing from various venture capital (VC) entities only for many of the VCs to turn around and deny any such involvement with the project. Having issued an investor and marketplace alert in relation to the firm in April, a short time later the Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority (VARA) in Dubai issued a formal reprimand to the business' founders.VARA followed up in August, applying a $2.7 million fine. OPNX had entered a bid for troubled Singaporean crypto lender Hodlnaut as part of that business restructuring process. The offer was turned down on the basis that the deal involved OPNX’s native OX token, which was deemed to be far too illiquid. A short time later, the OX unit price plummeted.Zhu was arrested in Singapore last month in connection with non-compliance related to 3AC’s bankruptcy, while Davies’ whereabouts remain undisclosed.CoinFLEX’s creditors also accuse Lamb of reaching a settlement agreement with Roger Ver, known as “Bitcoin Jesus.” Ver was one of CoinFLEX’s initial investors but later became entangled in a dispute over an $84 million debt he allegedly incurred on the platform due to market volatility. The lawsuit seeks to recover any benefits Ver received from the settlement.On X, a user called @CoinFLEXReal suggested that it has uncovered evidence that Lamb, Zhu, and Davies “used creditor assets as their personal piggy bank.”