Nomura’s Laser Digital Expands Crypto Venture Capital Arm with New Partner

NFTs not subject to South Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection ActIn anticipation of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act coming into effect in July of next year, the South Korean Financial Services Commission (FSC) has issued an advance notice regarding its subordinate statutes.Photo by Ethan Brooke on UnsplashSeven specific provisionsThe subsidiary regulations under the Act detail seven specific provisions aligned with the Act’s objectives. Firstly, assets categorized as electronic securities, mobile vouchers, deposit tokens backed by the Bank of Korea’s central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) will not be classified as virtual assets and hence, not regulated by this Act. However, in instances where NFTs are used as a means of payment for specific goods or services, they will be regarded as virtual assets.Secondly, banks will take responsibility for managing the deposits of users on cryptocurrency exchanges. This aligns with the Act’s requirement for virtual asset service providers (VASPs) to keep users’ funds separate from their own, either by depositing them in, or entrusting them to, reputable institutions. Under these regulations, banks are required to manage users’ assets in a manner consistent with how investors’ deposits are handled under the Capital Markets Act. This means that banks are allowed to invest VASP users’ assets only in secure instruments, such as state and local government bonds, and are also obligated to pay fees to deposit owners, taking into account the yields of these investments.80% of user assets in cold walletsThe third key aspect of the regulations is that VASPs are required to store a minimum of 80% of user assets in cold wallets, which are not connected to the internet. This is higher than the current requirement of 70%, enhancing the security measures for users of virtual assets. To calculate the total value of a virtual asset at any given time, its total supply is multiplied by its average daily price over the past year. VASPs are obligated to assess the value of virtual assets every month.The fourth regulation mandates that VASPs must enroll in an insurance plan, contribute to a rainy day fund or accumulate reserves. This is to ensure they can fulfill their compensation responsibilities in the event of incidents like security breaches or technical failures. The required preparation amount is set at a minimum of 5% of the user assets stored in hot wallets, as these are more susceptible to risks. VASPs are required to update their compensation thresholds or reserves monthly and must take any necessary actions to comply with these requirements by the next working day following the update.Information disclosure guidelinesAnother regulation addresses the issue of insider trading in the context of the virtual asset market. Under the current Capital Markets Act, information is considered disclosed when it’s made available through disclosure systems of the FSC or the Korea Exchange (KRX). However, since the cryptocurrency market lacks a similar system, the new statute provides criteria for determining when information is deemed disclosed.For instance, if a VASP, including exchanges, releases crucial information about a virtual asset on an exchange and six hours pass, that information is regarded as disclosed. This acknowledges the non-stop nature of the crypto market. Moreover, information disclosed post 6 p.m. is treated as officially disclosed after 9 a.m. the next day.Additionally, if a virtual asset issuer publishes significant information about its token on a website hosting its white paper, the information is deemed public after one day. This is conditional upon the website being publicly accessible and having consistently provided important token information for the preceding six months.These rules aim to provide clarity and fairness in information disclosure in the crypto market, adapting the principles of traditional financial markets to the unique dynamics of virtual assets.No arbitrary suspension of transactionsThe sixth regulation restricts VASPs from arbitrarily halting deposits and withdrawals of virtual assets unless there are justifiable reasons for such actions. Acceptable circumstances for suspending these transactions include situations where the VASP experiences a technical disruption in its system, where regulatory authorities instruct a VASP to cease deposits and withdrawals or where cyberattacks or similar incidents have occurred or are clearly imminent.Lastly, virtual asset exchanges are required to monitor for abnormal transactions continuously. These are transactions that show substantial shifts in the prices or trading volumes of virtual assets, particularly in response to news or rumors that could influence cryptocurrency prices. If VASPs suspect unfair trading practices, they must report to the FSC or the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS). When there is ample evidence of such activities, crypto exchanges are obligated to notify the police or the prosecutors’ office. In addition, the financial regulator has the authority to levy fines based on the prosecution’s decisions or after completing consultations with the prosecution if a year has passed since the day of the report.During the period of advance notice, which spans from Nov. 11 to Jan. 22, the FSC will seek comments from relevant organizations, experts and businesses. This process is aimed at refining the rules and regulations subordinate to the Virtual Asset User Protection Act. Moving forward, the financial authorities plan to publish a set of guidelines and Q&A materials and conduct explanatory sessions, with the goal of ensuring a smooth implementation of the Act.

Japan’s Cryptoasset Group Proposes Self-Regulatory Reforms for IEO SystemThe Japan Cryptoasset Business Association (JCBA) has revealed a preliminary draft advocating for reforms in self-regulation to bolster the soundness of the initial exchange offering (IEO) system. This draft has been submitted to the Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association (JVCEA).IEOs serve as a mechanism enabling various enterprises to accrue funds and broaden their user base by orchestrating token sales on cryptocurrency exchanges for Web3 projects. This fundraising method holds the potential to enhance trust as crypto exchanges, supervised by the Japanese Financial Services Agency, undertake evaluations of project feasibility and maintain ongoing oversight.Photo by Takashi Miyazaki on UnsplashPositive regulatory developmentsThe ameliorating regulatory landscape is also a positive development, highlighted by this year’s tax law amendment, which grants exemptions to enterprises’ self-issued tokens from year-end corporate taxation. In Japan, four IEOs have been conducted so far, with the inaugural IEO amassing over 900 million yen (approximately $6 million). The cumulative amount from the four IEOs has surpassed 4.4 billion yen. However, given that the IEO is a relatively nascent fundraising method, improvements in token price stability and operational modalities are required to ensure that businesses and users can engage with it confidently.Enhanced user protectionAgainst this backdrop, JCBA, an organization comprised of various enterprises involving virtual assets and Web3, has been discussing the direction of the IEO system from a corporate viewpoint since May of this year. Establishing price stabilization measures and selling restrictions within the Japanese IEO system will contribute to user protection by allowing investors to manage their assets under domestic regulations. JCBA stated that users will find domestic exchanges more secure in comparison to foreign ones.As this proposal represents an initial draft, deliberated and formulated only within the JCBA, the group intends to consult and assess the feasibility of the self-regulatory rules with each pertinent organization as necessary.Four key pointsThe document submitted by JCBA to JVCEA presented four key points concerning the IEO. Pertaining to pricing, it suggested the diversification of calculation methods customized to each project and the specification of price-related disclaimers. On liquidity, it posited that liquidity objectives should be established at the time of listing, and an environment conducive to securing liquidity should be developed. JCBA also pointed out the necessity of establishing rules for price stabilization measures at the time of listing. Finally, regarding selling restrictions, it was noted that both token issuers and exchanges should adhere to a minimum three-month lock-up period for tokens.

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.