Sejong Telecom to Collaborate with KOREIT for Security Token Products

BitMEX CEO Calls for an End to Internal Market MakersIn a recent interview, Stephan Lutz, the acting CEO and group CFO of 100x Group, the parent company of Seychelles-headquartered global crypto exchange BitMEX, expressed his belief that crypto exchanges should phase out their internal market-making teams.Photo by Joe Roberts on UnsplashProp trading desks unnecessarySpeaking with The Block, Lutz argued that with the growth of institutional liquidity providers and high-frequency traders (HFTs) in the market, proprietary trading desks are becoming unnecessary.Lutz stated: “You have enough HFTs out there and prop shops that can perform that function.” He was referring to the role of liquidity providers in filling gaps in the market. He made these comments in response to the emergence of information earlier this week that raised questions about internal trading practices at Crypto.com, a Singapore-based exchange.BitMEX, once the world’s largest crypto derivatives exchange, also used to employ internal traders who acted as market makers. However, Lutz explained that BitMEX’s internal trading team, named Arrakis Capital, now functions primarily as a “treasury desk.” He sees this transition as a natural evolution for crypto exchanges in a market that has matured and attracted more institutional liquidity providers.Arrakis Capital currently performs limited functions, including converting commission fees earned in Bitcoin into fiat currency for operational purposes, hedging BitMEX’s exposure to tokens held as inventory, and making markets for BitMEX’s token $BMEX. Lutz clarified that Arrakis’s market-making activities are limited because external market makers find the token’s liquidity insufficient.Regarding profitability, Lutz stated that Arrakis earns “very minor returns” of up to $100,000 per month from holding T-Bills, but it incurred losses last year. He noted that Arrakis used to play a more significant market-making role when BitMEX dominated the crypto futures market. However, he assured that the trading desk was always segregated, despite accusations in the past.Fee structuresLutz acknowledged that exchanges with internal trading teams have faced increased scrutiny since the controversies surrounding Alameda Research and FTX. To differentiate between benign internal trading teams and hedge fund-like operations, Lutz highlighted several factors, including the separation of client funds and house funds, access to sensitive data, and the ability to move markets on their own exchange. Fee structures also play a role, with low or no transaction fees potentially signaling a market-making motive rather than serving as a counterparty.Lutz’s perspective suggests that crypto exchanges should rely on external liquidity providers and HFTs rather than maintaining internal market-making teams. He argues that the market has evolved. At this point he feels that these teams are no longer necessary, due to the presence of established players within the digital assets space.As regulatory scrutiny grows, ensuring transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest become crucial for maintaining trust within the crypto exchange ecosystem. The digital assets industry is far from arriving at a mature stage in its development. While many in the industry have found the stance taken by regulators to be unhelpful, the industry itself must also demonstrate its ability to iteratively move towards best practice, without that being a knee-jerk response to regulatory enforcement.

Several South Korean crypto-only exchanges have long been struggling to keep their business afloat due to their prolonged weak performances. The local news outlet Etoday reported that the persistent underperformance of these local crypto exchanges is mounting pressure on their corporate operation and management, resulting in them shutting down their businesses. The situation hinders them from meeting the requirements set by the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the Financial Services Commission (FSC).  Their inability to generate sufficient revenue, due to faltering token trading volumes, makes complying with the FIU guidelines a daunting task.Photo by Anne Nygård on UnsplashCascading closure of crypto exchanges According to crypto industry insiders, local crypto-only exchanges including Cashierest, Coinbit, Huobi Korea, Probit and Tennten have announced their service closure as early as the second half of last year. On Nov. 6, Cashierest announced it was shutting down its services, with Coinbit following suit in the same month. The cascading closure announcements from crypto exchanges raised concerns about their potential harm on investors.  In an effort to protect crypto investors, the FIU has released a statement that local crypto exchanges are obliged to meet the requirements of the FIU in compliance with the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, despite their closing of services. Furthermore, the regulator said finalizing business closure requires due assessment by the FIU.  "Virtual asset service providers (VASPs) must notify their users of the closure and explain how to reclaim their assets at least one month before the business closing date. They must also support users to withdraw their assets for at least three months before closing," the FIU stated.  Struggling to meet FIU requirements However, some point out that it would be challenging for near-bankrupt crypto exchanges to run a customer service center for more than three months. Some exchanges allow users to deposit and withdraw their assets until their closure, as they would under normal conditions, but charge additional fees afterward. "It is very demanding to operate customer services when we're seeing no actual gains," one exchange official said.  It has been found that some crypto exchanges failed to register a change in their business state with the FIU, which is mandatory in the event of business location or contact changes, under the Financial Transaction Reports Act.  When Etoday reporters visited the offices of some of these crypto exchanges, they were met with empty rooms. One person who is familiar with the matter said, "The exchange has moved its office to another location and is scheduled to resume service in March." 

DeFiance Capital Secures Interim Victory in Dispute With 3ACSingapore’s DeFiance Capital, a Web3 and crypto investment firm, has notched up a small triumph in its ongoing $140 million legal clash with failed Singaporean crypto hedge fund, Three Arrows Capital (3AC).Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on UnsplashFavorable rulingAccording to a statement provided via a Medium blog post by DeFiance Capital Founder and CEO Arthur Cheong on Tuesday, the High Court of Singapore has delivered a favorable ruling for the firm, endorsing its preference for jurisdiction in Singapore, rather than the British Virgin Islands, which had been advocated by 3AC.The tussle between 3AC and DeFiance Capital centers around the ownership of certain assets. The liquidators appointed by the British Virgin Islands Court, from Teneo, assert that these assets essentially belong to 3AC’s creditors. However, DeFiance Capital argues vehemently that these assets must be partitioned and returned to its stakeholders.Struggle over assets and jurisdictionAt the heart of the matter are assets totaling $115 million, encompassing digital currencies and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which currently remain under the control of DeFiance Capital. Additionally, there are 69 SAFE (simple agreement for future equity)/SAFT (simple agreement for future tokens) agreements linked to 3AC. Although Teneo places the collective worth of these assets at roughly $141 million, DeFiance Capital’s estimation is more conservative, pegging it at around $120 million.Beyond asset ownership, jurisdiction has become a pivotal point of contention in the legal discourse. DeFiance Capital has steadfastly advocated for legal proceedings to take place in Singapore, where it operates, as opposed to the British Virgin Islands. The recent ruling from the High Court of Singapore lends support to this stance, challenging Teneo’s argument.DeFiance articulated its position, asserting: “Our position was that all the important witnesses and documents are in Singapore and the dispute ought to be heard by the Singapore Courts to ensure all relevant evidence would be available.”With the court’s decision aligning with DeFiance’s jurisdictional preference, the firm hopes that this development will pave the way for more substantive engagement between the parties, rather than being embroiled in procedural wrangling. The firm believes that this will allow the focus to shift towards addressing the core issues at hand.Business riftThe genesis of this legal saga dates back to 2020 when DeFiance was established as part of the 3AC group, operating autonomously under the stewardship of its founder, Arthur Cheong. The rift escalated in February 2022, when Cheong declined 3AC’s proposal to relocate to Dubai, eventually leading to the formation of two Singapore-based firms in May of that year.Furthermore, in the same month, DeFiance extended a loan of $35 million worth of USDC to 3AC, effectively becoming a creditor. Complications arose when 3AC’s founders transferred legal rights related to DeFiance Capital, a transaction that remained incomplete as 3AC filed for bankruptcy.In light of the ongoing dispute, 3AC asserted that DeFiance’s assets should be harnessed to settle its debts. However, DeFiance firmly stood its ground, upholding its ownership claims over the assets.With liquidators advocating for resolution in the British Virgin Islands — a move that DeFiance rejected due to its Singaporean management ties with 3AC — the stage was set for the legal clash that has now taken a notable turn with this recent court ruling.