Alchemy Pay plugs into Worldpay’s payment rails

In a recent announcement OPNX, the Seychelles-incorporated cryptocurrency bankruptcy claims platform co-founded by the creators of the now-defunct hedge fund Three Arrows Capital (3AC), has revealed its decision to cease all operations.Photo by Kelly Sikkema on UnsplashFebruary 14 shutdownIn a message to its users, subsequently shared on social media on Thursday, the OPNX team expressed its commitment to ensuring an orderly closure, urging users to settle all positions by Feb. 7 and withdraw their funds from the platform before Feb. 14, as all withdrawal functionality will be disabled thereafter. The team expressed gratitude to the OPNX community, acknowledging their dedication and trust throughout the platform's existence. Short for "Open Exchange," OPNX served as both a hybrid bankruptcy claims platform and a crypto exchange, enabling users to trade creditor claims of bankrupt crypto companies. The origin of OPNX can be linked to two defunct crypto entities — Coinflex and 3AC. Seychelles-based Coinflex was a crypto yield platform that was forced to suspend withdrawals in June 2022. It subsequently entered into a bankruptcy process. Coinflex co-founder Mark Lamb joined forces with 3AC’s Kyle Davies and Su Zhu to found OPNX. In October, Coinflex creditors sued Lamb, alleging that he had appropriated Coinflex's intellectual property, customer base, employees and technology to establish OPNX. Mired in problemsWithin its short existence, OPNX has been mired in problems. From the very outset, there was little goodwill for the new venture, given that many crypto sector participants took a dim view of Zhu and Davies due to the turmoil the collapse of 3AC caused within the industry. In April of last year, OPNX claimed to have significant venture capital backing, only for many of the VC entities mentioned to quickly deny such claims subsequently. The following month, the local regulator in Dubai, the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority, formally reprimanded the OPNX founders for promoting an unregulated business within the Emirate of Dubai. In August, it emerged that VARA had hit OPNX and its founders with a hefty fine. Following the closure announcement, the native OX token of OPNX experienced a significant price decline. Over the course of the past 24 hours, the token unit price has fallen 13.6% to $0.007981. The failure of 3AC led to Teneo, the firm responsible for liquidating 3AC's assets, subpoenaing Zhu and Davies for concealing details of their physical whereabouts through messages on social media platform X. The closure of OPNX adds to the challenges faced by Zhu and Davies, as Teneo is actively seeking to recover $1.3 billion directly from the co-founders. The claim asserts that Zhu and Davies engaged in substantial leverage with investor funds after the insolvency of their hedge fund. In September 2023, Singapore's central bank issued nine-year prohibition orders against Davies and Zhu, citing alleged violations of the country's securities laws at Three Arrows Capital. All the while, crypto community sentiment remains negative where OPNX and its founders are concerned. Taking to social media, Ikigai Asset Management’s Travis Kling didn’t mince his words, stating:”I mean it from the bottom of my heart when I say **** these criminals.” As OPNX concludes its operations, the unfolding events surrounding its co-founders and their association with the failed hedge fund continue to draw attention to the need for the industry to raise its standards.  

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.

China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) has stepped into the realm of the metaverse by forming a working group tasked with setting standards for the burgeoning technology.Photo by Li Yang on UnsplashChinese corporate participationThe announcement, made on Friday, revealed that the working group would comprise representatives from the government, academic institutions and major corporations. In its statement, MIIT explained that the establishment of the metaverse working group aligns with the nation's emphasis on industrial development within the technology sector. Notably, the group will feature key figures from major Chinese tech corporations, including Huawei, Ant Group, ZET, Tencent, Baidu, NetEase, Sense Time and others. Public feedback on the selection of group members is invited until Feb. 18, although the specific areas of focus for the group are not detailed in the document. Initial in-roadsThe working group’s headline tech participants have all made some initial in-roads into metaverse technology. Baidu established its own metaverse project, XiRang, in 2021. Late last year it partnered with Qualcomm on the use of extended reality (XR) technology for use on a new metaverse platform. Huawei is paying attention to the promising metaverse space by building up a catalog of metaverse-related patents. Like Baidu, Tencent is focusing on developing XR technology with metaverse development in mind. Last year NetEase collaborated with a Chinese liquor brand to launch a winery-themed metaverse, while issuing NFTs linked to liquor bottles. Establishing metaverse standardsChina has been contemplating the formulation of metaverse standards for some time. In September 2023, MIIT advocated for the creation of a dedicated working group to address the ongoing challenges in metaverse technology. The government's overarching objective is to ensure the healthy and orderly development of the metaverse industry through standardization and guidance, reducing redundant investment costs and fostering collaborative forces for industrial development. Analysts from JPMorgan foresee a potential uptick in the value of Chinese tech stocks if the metaverse gains traction in the country. According to their analysis, Chinese web giants like Tencent and NetEase stand to benefit significantly from metaverse development. Even non-web companies such as China Mobile, Sony and Agora could witness positive impacts should the technology gain widespread adoption. In fact, China Mobile led the development of a metaverse industry alliance in China in 2023. Regional developmentIn a December document, MIIT outlined plans to formulate strategy documents clarifying the development path of Web3.Last year, several local governments in China committed to the development of the metaverse industry. Sichuan, a province once known as a crypto mining hub, aims to reach a market size of 250 billion yuan ($35.1 billion) in the metaverse industry by 2025. Last May, the city of Zhengzhou announced policy proposals to support metaverse companies. The same month, the province of Henan established a $21.7 million fund to support metaverse-related projects. The following month, an initiative was established in Nanjing to nurture metaverse development. Additionally, Shandong province has plans to grow its metaverse-related initiatives to achieve a market size of 150 billion yuan by 2025.