Gemini Targets UAE Crypto License

Zipmex, the Asian digital asset exchange, faces another setback as the Securities and Exchange Commission Board of Thailand (SEC Board) moves to recommend the revocation of its digital asset business license. This decision, announced last week, marks the latest in a series of challenges for the exchange, which has struggled to navigate the complexities of the crypto market's downturn.Photo by Oleksandr P on PexelsCapital requirements failureThe SEC's recommendation stems from Zipmex's failure to meet the increased net capital requirement and address deficiencies in its personnel and management structure. These shortcomings were deemed unacceptable by the regulatory body, prompting a 15-day ultimatum issued on Feb. 1. Earlier this month, the Commission ordered a halt to Zipmex operations, enforcing a temporary suspension until such time as the company had improved its financial position and applied needed changes to its management structure.Despite this window for compliance, Zipmex fell short of meeting the specified conditions, leading to the current proposal for license revocation and the imposition of stringent regulatory measures on Thailand's digital asset exchanges. Business suspension extensionDuring a meeting on Feb. 21, the SEC further resolved to extend Zipmex's business suspension, initiated on Feb. 1, and allowed clients to request asset returns on the exchange until March 11. Any unclaimed assets after this date will be required to be placed in a "trusted and secured system," with Zipmex obligated to report this to the SEC. Notably, even after the potential revocation of its license, Zipmex will retain its status as a limited company, subject to associated rights, responsibilities and liabilities, including the possibility of legal action. Zipmex's woes trace back to 2022 when it faced significant challenges due to exposure to failed crypto lender Babel Finance. In July of that year, the exchange suspended withdrawals for weeks due to concerns over its ties to crypto lenders Babel and Celsius, both facing financial distress. Although access to Trade Wallets was restored after three days, Z Wallets remained inaccessible into the following year. Failed Coinbase and V Ventures dealsIn the midst of its troubles, Zipmex attracted interest from Coinbase, albeit without success. While Coinbase made a strategic investment in Zipmex, the acquisition attempt did not materialize as initially intended. Furthermore, Zipmex's financial struggles led it to file for debt relief in Singapore in July 2022, further complicating its position in the market. The exchange's regulatory challenges continued as it faced scrutiny from the SEC regarding compliance with the Digital Assets Act. Despite attempts to secure acquisition deals, such as the proposed acquisition by Thai investor V Ventures, Zipmex has been unable to alleviate regulatory concerns or stabilize its operations effectively. Since obtaining its license from the SEC in January 2020, Zipmex has operated in Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore and Australia. However, its inability to address regulatory requirements and financial challenges has cast doubt on its future viability in these markets.  In November of last year, the company itself announced a temporary cessation of trading in Thailand while it worked towards becoming compliant within that jurisdiction. Earlier this month, Thailand’s SEC took legal action against Akarlap Yimwilai, the former CEO of Zipmex Thailand.

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.

Hong Kong's Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) has issued a directive for the Worldcoin Foundation to cease its operations within the region, citing violations of local privacy laws. The decision comes after the PCPD found that Worldcoin had improperly collected facial and iris data from approximately 8,302 individuals. The agency’s investigation included ten covert visits to six different Worldcoin locations between December 2023 and January 2024. According to the PCPD, the extent of data collection by Worldcoin was deemed "unnecessary and excessive" failing to adhere to the Data Protection Principles.Photo by Claudio Schwarz on UnsplashConcerns over data retentionThe privacy watchdog criticized Worldcoin for its intention to retain personal data for up to 10 years. This retention period was intended for training AI models for user verification processes but was judged by the PCPD to be excessively long, amounting to prolonged retention of personal data. Following the findings, the PCPD has issued an enforcement notice to Worldcoin, mandating the cessation of all its activities in Hong Kong. Privacy Commissioner Ada Chung has called on the public to report any ongoing operations by Worldcoin in the city. In response to growing international scrutiny, Worldcoin announced in March that it would halt the collection of personal data and is planning to introduce a new feature titled "Personal Custody," which would purportedly allow users to store their data on their devices. This change comes as Worldcoin faces additional challenges in other jurisdictions, including Spain and Portugal, which have also expressed concerns over the project's data collection practices. The project was also scrutinized in South Korea but it recently resumed services. As of now, Worldcoin has not provided comments regarding the recent regulatory actions.