Understanding South Korea’s won-backed stablecoin debate

Dispute Embroils Bitget in Legal Battle With Crypto InfluencerBitget, the crypto exchange registered in Seychelles, finds itself entangled in a legal dispute with prominent crypto influencer Evan Luthra.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashAccount freezing allegationsThe conflict stems from Luthra’s allegations of account freezing and loss of funds after a token listing incident in March. Luthra has filed a lawsuit against Bitget, accusing the exchange of withholding $200,000 in Tether (USDT) without adequate explanation, while also freezing his account.The legal drama follows Luthra’s involvement with the Reel Star project, where he served as an advisor for the platform which is aimed at creators. As compensation for his collaboration with the project, Luthra received Reel Token (REELT), the project’s utility token.Bitget alleged market manipulationUpon the listing of REELT tokens, Luthra reportedly sold 1.3 million tokens on Bitget. In response, Bitget claims it faced a manipulative attack orchestrated by a group of traders attempting to profit from market manipulation immediately after the token’s listing. This allegedly caused a significant drop in the token’s price, prompting Bitget’s decision to freeze Luthra’s account.Bitget states that it contacted Luthra seeking an explanation for the suspicious trading behavior. Luthra acknowledged the token sale but failed to provide satisfactory reasons for his actions, according to Bitget’s version of events. The exchange maintains that user protection is its foremost priority and that it takes swift action against illegal or fraudulent behaviors.$16 million damages claimLuthra refutes the allegations, asserting his innocence and citing alleged approval from Reel Star’s Co-Founder Navdeep Sharma for his token sale plans. He seeks a substantial $16 million in damages, in addition to the frozen funds. Luthra claims that Bitget unjustly deprived him of his tokens, asserting his status as a fully KYCed user entitled to access his holdings.In the aftermath of the incident, Bitget conducted an investigation and offered a compensation plan for affected clients. Gracy Chen, Bitget’s Managing Director, emphasized the exchange’s commitment to user protection and its actions against illicit activities on its platform. Addressing the matter on Twitter, Chen didn’t hold back in her commentary on Luthra, stating that he “has a history of fraudulent activities,” which she says were exposed by crypto journalist CoffeeZilla.The legal dispute has ignited debates within the crypto community. Supporters of Luthra contend that his case underscores broader issues faced by users of centralized exchanges, shedding light on the need for improved user rights and protection. On the other hand, some argue that Bitget acted appropriately to safeguard its users and the market integrity.CZ brought into the disputeThe legal battle has attracted attention from influential figures in the crypto industry. Against a backdrop of a very public airing of the dispute on Twitter, in a recent tweet Luthra invited Changpeng Zhao (CZ), the CEO of Binance, to respond to Luthra’s claim that Bitget spreads rumors about other exchanges. CZ was having none of it, writing: “You should talk to them, right? We are not a regulator for other exchanges.”The case highlights the intricate challenges surrounding market manipulation and token listings within the crypto space. As it unfolds, the outcome could potentially set a precedent for similar situations involving token listings, market manipulation, and user protection.

Phemex, a Singapore-headquartered crypto derivatives trading platform, has halted withdrawals following a multi-million dollar hack.Photo by GuerrillaBuzz on UnsplashHot wallet compromisedIn a message to platform users published to social media, the project stated: “To ensure security, withdrawals have been temporarily suspended while we conduct an emergency inspection and strengthen wallet services. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. Withdrawals will be restored soon.” In further commentary, the project apologized for the disruption, assuring service users that its mission remains to provide a trusted trading environment, while outlining that it is working on putting together a compensation plan. It added that “Our ongoing business operations are fine,” and that “trading services continue as usual.” The digital assets were removed from the platform over multiple blockchains including Polygon, Arbitrum, the Base network and BNB. Blockchain analytics firm Lookonchain itemized some of the assets that are believed to have been stolen. They include 3.48 million USDC stablecoin, 3.42 million USDT stablecoin, 841 ETH valued at $2.7 million, 110,701 LINK valued at $2.69 million, 142 billion PEPE tokens valued at $2.12 million, 1.19 million FET tokens valued at $1.45 million and 29,509 AVAX tokens valued at $1.04 million. Initial reports put the loss at $31 million. However, Web3 security firm Cyvers later claimed that $37  million covers the full extent of the loss. Following deeper analysis, it found that both Bitcoin and TRON blockchains had also been impacted, resulting in the overall loss being increased by a further $6 million. Cold wallet assets are safeThe company’s CEO Federico Variola, published a post on X advising service users that all of the assets held within the company’s cold wallets remain safe. He included a link to the Phemex proof of reserves, encouraging customers to check it. In a follow-up post, he wrote: “We are currently carefully testing our system to reprise withdrawals as soon as possible. Due to the sophistication of the threat actor we cannot rush this stage. The estimated timeline to reprise full operations is within 24h, thank you for your support.” The XNET Foundation, a non-profit entity that develops decentralized wireless networks, said that it is actively working with the Phemex team on the production of an exploit report following the incident. It added that “It has been confirmed that tokens sent to the exchange for a launchpad pool were compromised as part of this exploit.” Ongoing problemCrypto hacking remains a major concern within the digital assets sector. Blockchain security firm PackShield reported recently that $1.3 billion had been laundered from crypto hacks in 2024. That statistic demonstrates that the problem is worsening as it accounts for a $342 million or 280% increase when compared with 2023. In December a Chainalysis report found that 61% of the hacking losses suffered in 2024 implicated the involvement of North Korean hackers. It estimated crypto hacking losses of $2.2 billion for 2024, based on losses associated with 303 hacking incidents.

The Legal Future of South Korea’s Crypto Industry: Necessary Legislation and SystemsA recent National Assembly symposium organized by South Korea’s Digital Asset Policy Forum brought experts together to discuss the challenges and prospects of the implementation of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act at the National Assembly Members’ Office Building in Seoul on Tuesday.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashInternational modelsReferences were made to global examples, such as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) — the world’s first standalone virtual asset legislation enacted in the EU — which ensures transparency, disclosure, authorization, and supervision of crypto-asset transactions. However, unlike the capital market, MiCA does not impose regular disclosure reporting requirements or corrections on them. Firms in Japan, on the other hand, are asked to provide disclosure under autonomous regulation through the Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association (JVCEA).Notably, in its recent Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets Consultation Report, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) states that it is “seeking to encourage optimal consistency in the way crypto-asset markets and securities markets are regulated within individual IOSCO jurisdictions, in accordance with the principle of ‘same activities, same risks, same regulatory outcomes’.” This principle refers to the concept that any crypto-asset activity that has a similar function and poses similar risks to those in the traditional financial system — such as operating a trading platform or providing custody services — is subject to regulation that ensures equivalent outcomes, as defined by the UK Parliament.The IOSCO report also suggests that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) should disclose information regarding ownership and control of crypto-assets, issuer and business-related information, issuer management teams, transaction history and operational description of crypto-assets, token ownership concentration, transfer protocols, and a given CASP’s treatment of the client crypto-assets and their respective rights and entitlements during events like hard forks and airdrops.Hurdles to overcomeExperts at the forum reflected these considerations in their sentiments. Han Suh-hee, a lawyer at Barun Law Firm, emphasized that it is important to determine what kind of information should be disclosed. She argued that it is necessary to discuss to what extent information about virtual asset issuers should be disclosed and whether mandating firms to disclose their financial and business conditions is efficient.In particular, Han underlined the need to consider the differences between virtual assets and stocks when establishing a framework for the disclosure of virtual assets holdings. Unlike stocks, virtual assets possess distinctive characteristics like their borderless and decentralized nature, unclear issuer backgrounds, and the ability to conduct peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions.Lee Han-jin, a lawyer at Kim & Chang Law Firm, added that the enactment of Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act was aimed at establishing a system directly targeted at regulating virtual assets and virtual asset service operators (VASPs) — a significant development from the Financial Transaction Reporting Act, which had until now been the only legal framework responsible for regulating VASPs along with other entities like casino business operators. Virtual assets are now subject to a more systematized regulatory approach.However, he said that the Virtual Asset User Protection Act still has its setbacks because it is undergoing a two-stage legislative process. Lee criticized the fact that the same definition of VASPs outlined in the Financial Transaction Reporting Act had been brought over, which limits their identity to transaction intermediaries, wallet operators, and custodians while overlooking their other roles like crypto management, crypto deposits, and crypto collective investments.Lee also pointed out another weakness: the scope of prohibition on using undisclosed information and market manipulation is broader in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act than in the Capital Markets Act. He argued that enforcement decrees should stipulate the definition of insiders and exceptional cases when deliberating on the prohibition of insider virtual asset trading.Lee thus emphasized the need for a clear definition of virtual assets in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, as it is yet unclear whether they are objects or assets. All things considered, he believes there must be a law that can encompass blockchain-based decentralization, outline the similarities and differences between digital assets and financial products, and accommodate new services that utilize smart contracts.“We are in the process of creating a regulatory system similar to those being adopted in other countries based on their respective markets,” said Lee Seok-ran, head of the Financial Innovation Bureau at the Financial Services Commission (FSC). “Unlike the stock market, which is equipped with regulations to prevent fraudulent transactions and misconduct, virtual assets are traded on multiple exchanges, so we are considering how to interpret unfair trading activities and conduct market surveillance.”She explained that the commission is prioritizing user protection measures and subordinate regulations. “I believe we will be able to create a system for subordinate regulations on disclosure once an overall global trajectory is established. But before that happens, we are working on guidelines for defining unfair trading activities with regulators and the Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA).” Unfair trading activities associated with virtual assets include not only those conducted on exchanges but also under other circumstances.The FSC officer said that the financial authority is set to establish legal criteria to distinguish cases such as false statements in white papers of crypto projects. She added that enforcement decrees will define both the conditions for restricting deposits and withdrawals on crypto exchanges and the corresponding limits.