Worldcoin executives meet Malaysian leaders 

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.

In a recent blog post, Christopher Hui, Hong Kong's Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (FSTB), announced a stringent deadline for unlicensed virtual asset service providers (VASPs) to submit licensing applications, as well as outlining the intention to develop a regulatory framework for over-the-counter (OTC) venues.Photo by Manson Yim on UnsplashUnlicensed VASP deadlineThe Hong Kong government's financial services department has set Feb. 29 as the cutoff date for applications from VASPs that are currently unregistered and unregulated. Those not approved must cease operations by May 31. The move comes as the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) established a licensing system for VASPs, acknowledging a transitional period for those operating before its implementation. Midway through last year, the SFC issued a stern warning to unlicensed crypto trading platforms engaging in what it termed as “improper practices.” Hui emphasized that VASPs wishing to continue operations in Hong Kong must submit their license applications by the end of this month. Failure to meet the relevant requirements outlined by the SFC could result in the issuance of a "no-deeming notice" for existing service providers. This notice mandates that they must halt operations either by May 31 or three months after receiving the notice. Service providers failing to submit their applications by the February deadline are also expected to cease operations by the end of May. As the deadline approaches, Hui highlighted that the SFC is actively preparing for enforcement work, including issuing notices to disapproved service providers and intensifying publicity efforts. Proposed regulatory framework for OTCsHighlighting the specific role OTC venues played in some fraud cases involving unlicensed VASPs in 2023, Hui announced that the SFC plans to launch a consultation on a proposed regulatory framework for OTC crypto venues. The consultation will encompass virtual-asset outlets, including shops and online platforms. Hui emphasized the necessity of regulating OTC venues to prevent investor deception and protect against fraudulent activities. This move aligns with Hong Kong's ongoing efforts to create a vibrant sector and ecosystem for virtual assets. The city implemented a licensing regime for crypto companies in June of the previous year, with companies requiring approval before June of the current year to continue operations. Cautioning investorsHui also took the opportunity to caution investors about the volatility and value of virtual assets. He stressed that many digital assets lack intrinsic value and exhibit price volatility, urging investors to thoroughly understand details and assess associated risks before engaging in related investments. Furthermore, Hui emphasized that only platforms officially licensed by the SFC should be used for virtual asset transactions. Additionally, Hong Kong is exploring a regulatory regime for stablecoin issuers, proposing that fiat-backed stablecoin issuers obtain a license from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. As Hong Kong strengthens its regulatory framework, it aims to create a secure and compliant environment for the evolving landscape of virtual assets.  

Thai SEC Implements Measures to Protect Crypto InvestorsIn response to the crypto lending crisis that unfolded in 2022, prompting companies like BlockFi and Celsius to declare bankruptcy, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has introduced new regulations aimed at safeguarding investors in the digital assets space.Photo by Jakob Owens on UnsplashDisclosing risk warningsThe guidelines, issued on Monday, require digital asset service providers to provide comprehensive warnings that emphasize the risks associated with cryptocurrency trading. All platforms must prominently display a message stating: “Cryptocurrencies are high risk. Please study and understand the risks of cryptocurrencies thoroughly, because you may lose the entire investment amount.” Prior to utilizing the service, users must consent to and acknowledge the risks.Crypto lending prohibitionIn addition to the risk disclaimer, the new guidelines explicitly forbid service providers from using customer funds for lending or investment purposes. This ban on crypto lending services prevents platforms from offering any returns on deposited crypto to customers. By implementing these measures, the Thai SEC aims to enhance investor protection and shield investors from the risks posed by lending services. The regulations are scheduled to take effect at the end of the month.Today’s guidelines are the product of months of deliberation. Discussions surrounding investor protection regulations commenced on September 1, 2022, when the SEC acknowledged the necessity for security warnings by cryptocurrency businesses to disclose the risks associated with trading digital assets. The prohibition on digital asset operators offering deposit-taking and lending services was deliberated during meetings held on December 1, 2022, and May 11, 2023.Response to crypto platform failuresThe introduction of these investor protection rules follows a significant crisis in the crypto lending sector that unfolded during the bear market of 2022. Several crypto lending firms, which had collected billions of dollars in customer deposits by promising substantial returns, collapsed during this period. Prominent lending companies such as Celsius and BlockFi filed for bankruptcy, resulting in investors’ funds being trapped in lengthy bankruptcy proceedings.The Thai SEC’s proactive approach in implementing these regulations reflects the growing concern for investor welfare within the cryptocurrency industry. By requiring clearer risk disclosures and prohibiting the use of customer assets for lending and investment, the SEC aims to instill greater confidence and transparency in the digital asset service sector.Crypto academyThailand’s SEC has run other initiatives in efforts to better protect investors. In January the Commission launched the SEC Crypto Academy, an e-learning course. The objective of that initiative was to provide investors with a basic understanding of the digital assets space prior to investing. At the time of the launch of the course, the SEC said that “the more you know your investments, the less risk you will have.”These latest regulations not only serve as a protective measure for Thai investors but also set an example for other jurisdictions to evaluate and enhance their own regulatory frameworks. As the crypto industry continues to evolve, prioritizing investor protection becomes crucial in fostering a more sustainable and responsible ecosystem.