Coinbase Ventures invests in Indian exchange CoinDCX amid mixed regulatory signals

Kuwait Implements Full Ban on Crypto ActivitiesIn a significant move to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, Kuwait has taken a decisive step by announcing a complete ban on all crypto-related activities.Photo by Jan Dommerholt on Unsplash“No legal status”According to a circular issued by the Capital Markets Authority (CMA), Kuwait’s top financial regulator, earlier this week, cryptocurrencies are deemed to have “no legal status” and lack the support of any government or any asset. As a result, the prices of these digital assets are vulnerable to speculative swings, exposing investors to potential substantial losses. Consequently, the CMA asserts that engaging in crypto activities can lead to adverse consequences and financial risks for individuals and businesses alike.The ban extends beyond trading and mining. It also prohibits public companies from offering any cryptocurrency-related services. The CMA emphasized that it has never granted approval for crypto services in the past, and this outright ban reinforces the country’s commitment to curbing illicit financial activities facilitated by cryptocurrencies.Aligning with FATFThe decision comes in the wake of Kuwait’s determination to align with the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) global requirements for handling crypto assets. The country is attempting to demonstrate its compliance with international anti-money laundering guidelines by clamping down on digital assets.Kuwait’s approach towards cryptocurrencies diverges significantly from other Gulf states that have embraced the nascent industry with more openness. The likes of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain have previously engaged with crypto assets in various ways.For example, Bahrain granted approval to global crypto exchange platform Binance to provide digital asset services within the country. It’s keen to embrace digital assets as it pivots away from an oil-based economy. The Kingdom recently welcomed plans by Singapore-based private equity firm Whampoa Group to establish a crypto-friendly digital bank there.Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund has also invested in several US-based venture capital funds which are focused on crypto and blockchain technologies.Dubai, in particular, has been actively working on establishing a regulatory framework for digital assets, aiming to position itself as a digital hub in the region. The UAE as a whole has recognized crypto assets as securities for several years, fostering a favorable environment for crypto businesses.CriticismNews of the ban also provoked criticism, including commentary from Alex Gladstein, Chief Strategy Officer with the Human Rights Foundation. Gladstein, taking to Twitter, stated: “ Not surprising. I expect all authoritarian regimes (especially gulf tyrannies like the UAE and Saudi Arabia) to follow in Kuwait’s footsteps and eventually pass severe restrictions on citizen use of Bitcoin.” While the UAE trends in the opposite direction, Gladstein is not optimistic about the free use of decentralized cryptocurrencies in the UAE over the longer term.As the global crypto landscape continues to evolve, each country in the Gulf region is adopting unique approaches to address the opportunities and challenges posed by digital assets. While there may be opposition to the technology, decentralized digital assets will benefit from jurisdictional arbitrage in efforts to get this innovation rolled out for the benefit of ordinary people around the world.

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.

HK Regulators Facilitate Dialogue between Banks and Crypto EnterprisesIn a recent column, Arthur Yuen, Deputy CEO at the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), stated that the HKMA and the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) will jointly convene a meeting on Friday to share opinions on providing banking services to virtual asset service providers (VASPs).Proportionate CDD measuresYuen said that banks should “differentiate the risk levels of customers and apply proportionate CDD [customer due diligence] measures,” and “refrain from adopting a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to reject account opening applications.” To address misconceptions about CDD, the HKMA issued a circular on Thursday, offering further clarification and sharing notable cases and best practices.The HKMA called on banks to enhance employee training on account opening procedures and create task forces to help companies seize new business opportunities. The HKMA plans to actively take part in developing and introducing international standards, and provide guidance and support for banks to adopt appropriate anti-money laundering measures.SFC’s guidelines in MayMeanwhile, SFC CEO Julia Leung said in a discussion with Bloomberg that the SFC will issue virtual asset guidelines in May.Reactions on TwitterIn his tweet, Justin Sun, the founder of blockchain DAO ecosystem Tron, hinted at the potential development of a Tron-based stablecoin in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Innovation Encryption Fund (HKIEF), an investor in blockchain projects, also took to Twitter to predict the details of a regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies in the city.According to HKIEF, USDT and USDC will be classified as security tokens, while BTC and ETH won’t be deemed securities. Exchanges trading non-security tokens will need both a VASP license and a trust license. Hong Kong-based virtual asset exchanges will be required to obtain a full license by May 31, 2024.