The post The BIS Wants Tighter Stablecoin Rules. But Is It Already Too Late? appeared first on Coindoo.

The global stablecoin market now sits at approximately $315 billion, backed by vast holdings of short-term government debt and commercial bank deposits, wired into payment flows that span dozens of jurisdictions. The question is no longer whether this market needs oversight. The question is who writes the rules – and whether they can agree before something breaks.

Pablo Hernández de Cos, General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements, used a Bank of Japan seminar in Tokyo on April 20 to issue one of the clearest warnings yet from the institutional financial world: without a unified global framework for stablecoins, the consequences for financial stability could be severe. The market he was referring to now sits at roughly $315 billion in total capitalization, and it has largely built itself outside the reach of any single regulator.

The timing matters. Hernández de Cos spoke while the United States is still finalizing its own domestic legislation – the CLARITY Act is expected later in 2026 – and while Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England and chair of the Financial Stability Board, has already acknowledged that international progress on stablecoin standards has slowed considerably over the past year. That stalled momentum is precisely what makes the BIS intervention notable.

The ETF Problem Nobody Wants to Name

The most pointed element of de Cos’s remarks was his characterization of Tether (USDT) and Circle (USDC), the two dominant players that together account for around 85% of the entire stablecoin market. He argued that both behave less like money and more like securities or exchange-traded funds. The reason is structural: fees and conditions attached to primary market redemptions mean that in secondary markets, both tokens regularly deviate from their stated $1 peg. That is not how a functioning currency works.

Tether currently holds a market cap of approximately $186 billion. Circle’s USDC sits at around $78.8 billion. At that scale, the assets backing these tokens – primarily short-term government debt and bank deposits – represent a meaningful concentration of risk. If large numbers of holders attempt to redeem simultaneously, issuers would be forced into rapid asset sales at potentially depressed prices, transmitting stress directly into the very bond and banking markets they are supposed to be adjacent to, not embedded in.

This is what regulators mean when they discuss “contagion risk,” and it is not a theoretical concern. The 2023 USDC depeg – triggered by Circle’s exposure to Silicon Valley Bank – demonstrated exactly how quickly confidence can fracture, and how a stablecoin crisis can pull traditional finance into its orbit.

The Regulatory Arbitrage Trap

De Cos’s second major concern is jurisdictional. In the absence of global alignment on stablecoin rules, companies face strong incentives to incorporate or operate from wherever oversight is lightest. Singapore and Abu Dhabi already have comprehensive frameworks in place. The EU’s MiCA regulation is live. The US is still catching up. That gap creates opportunities for regulatory arbitrage that undermine the entire point of oversight.

READ MORE:

Polkadot Rebuilds Itself as a Decentralized Supercomputer – and Takes Aim at Ethereum

This is not a new problem in finance – it is essentially what drove the expansion of offshore banking in earlier decades – but stablecoins move faster and are harder to trace than traditional capital flows. A stablecoin issuer can shift operational domicile in ways that a bank simply cannot, and the assets backing the tokens do not necessarily follow the regulatory flag under which the issuer operates.

Bringing Stablecoins Inside the Tent

De Cos suggested that regulated stablecoin issuers might eventually need access to deposit insurance arrangements or central bank lending facilities – the same backstops currently available to commercial banks. He also backed prohibiting stablecoins from paying interest to holders, a measure designed to prevent large-scale deposit migration away from traditional banks during periods of high interest rates.

Taken together, these proposals do not merely regulate stablecoins from the outside. They restructure them from within, granting issuers the protections of the banking system while theoretically imposing its obligations. Critics would argue – and some already do – that this effectively creates a new class of financial institution that carries all the advantages of bank-like legitimacy without the overhead of branches, lending requirements, or reserve ratios. The BIS may be trying to contain stablecoins, but the mechanism it is reaching for looks a lot like absorption.

The Market Is Not Listening

Whatever institutional concern surrounds the space, retail sentiment following de Cos’s remarks moved in the opposite direction. Tracking data from Stocktwits showed sentiment around Tether trending sharply bullish in the hours after the speech, despite – or perhaps because of – the regulatory attention. USDC sentiment was more cautious, leaning bearish, which may reflect lingering memory of its 2023 depeg episode.

That gap between regulatory urgency and market behavior is not incidental. It reflects a broader dynamic: the more loudly central bank officials signal concern about stablecoins, the more they confirm that the sector has grown large enough to warrant serious institutional attention. For a certain cohort of crypto investors, that reads as validation rather than warning.

Whether coordinated global rules arrive before the next stress event in this market is a different question – and, given the pace at which international standard-setting tends to move, not an especially comfortable one.

The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

The post The BIS Wants Tighter Stablecoin Rules. But Is It Already Too Late? appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/the-bis-wants-tighter-stablecoin-rules-but-is-it-already-too-late/

The post Russia’s Crypto Crackdown: Licenses, Fines, and Prison Terms by 2027 appeared first on Coindoo.

If passed, the new Article 171.7 of the Criminal Code will make unlicensed “organization of digital currency circulation” a criminal offense carrying up to 4 years in prison for standard violations and up to 7 years when organized groups are involved or when damages exceed 13.5 million rubles (roughly $177,000).

Fines range from 100,000 to 1 million rubles depending on severity, while the threshold for “large-scale” violations is set at 3.5 million rubles (around $46,000). The bill does not stand alone – it functions as the criminal enforcement layer of a broader regulatory framework scheduled to take effect in two phases: July 2026 and July 2027.

Licensing, Caps, and Prohibitions

Under the new regime, all exchanges, brokers, and depositories will be required to obtain a Central Bank license to operate legally. For retail investors without qualified status, a yearly cap of 300,000 rubles (approximately $3,800) will apply to crypto purchases, alongside a mandatory risk-knowledge test. Using cryptocurrency for domestic payments will remain strictly prohibited regardless of the new regulatory framework.

The government is also planning to ban all cash-to-crypto conversions – a measure that effectively ends the era of anonymous office-based exchanges concentrated in Moscow business districts like Moscow City, where peer-to-peer trading has been particularly active. Daily crypto transactions in Russia are estimated at around $650 million, a significant portion of which currently flows outside any formal tax structure.

The bill has not gone unchallenged, even from within the system itself. Russia’s Supreme Court publicly stated that the criminal sanctions are “premature” and lack “reasoned justification” while the underlying digital currency law has yet to fully come into force. That kind of criticism is uncommon from that institution and signals genuine internal disagreement over the pace of the legislative process.

Industry analysts warn that the strict capital, cybersecurity, and transparency requirements embedded in the licensing regime will push smaller operators out and concentrate the market in the hands of institutions like Sberbank and T-Bank. The regulation is not simply organizing the market – it is reshaping who gets to participate in it at all.

READ MORE:

XRP Gets Two Upgrades in One Week – One Regulatory, One Cross-Chain

A Double Standard: Restrictions for Citizens, a Tool for the State

The central contradiction in Russia’s crypto policy is hard to overlook. While citizens will be capped at $3,800 annually and risk criminal prosecution for unlicensed operations, the state itself is actively testing crypto for international payments as a mechanism to circumvent Western sanctions. Under an “Experimental Legal Regime,” selected companies are already permitted to use digital assets for cross-border trade. The National Payment Card System is being tested as a bridge between the ruble and crypto for international commerce – at the same moment ordinary Russians are being restricted from accessing those same assets.

The bill targeting crypto services runs parallel to separate amendments aimed at unregistered mining operations. Illegal mining now carries up to 2 years of forced labor or a fine of 1.5 million rubles. The backdrop is specific: since January 2025, mining has been banned in 10 to 13 regions of the country, including Dagestan and parts of Siberia, due to acute energy shortfalls. The severity of sanctions against miners follows a clear centralizing logic – energy resources are being directed toward industrial and state-aligned consumers rather than private GPU operations.

The Digital Ruble and Clearing the Competition

The criminalization of private crypto services coincides with the Central Bank’s push to establish the Digital Ruble as the dominant form of digital payment. Where Bitcoin offers decentralization and a degree of privacy, the Digital Ruble gives the Central Bank complete visibility over every transaction. Aggressive legislation against the alternatives makes that choice considerably less voluntary.

Despite the legislative pressure, a survey by Vyberu.ru found that 36% of investment-oriented Russians are ready to buy Bitcoin once the legal framework is finalized – which says more about the level of confidence in the traditional financial system than it does about enthusiasm for the regulation itself.

The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

The post Russia’s Crypto Crackdown: Licenses, Fines, and Prison Terms by 2027 appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/russias-crypto-crackdown-licenses-fines-and-prison-terms-by-2027/

The post Charles Hoskinson: The Clarity Act Is Structurally Broken and a Bad Bill Is Worse Than No Bill appeared first on Coindoo.

The Bill Nobody Built Correctly

Charles Hoskinson has been in this room before. In 2022, during the Biden administration, he sat before Congress and worked through the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act alongside Senators Gillibrand and Lummis. He knows what serious legislative construction looks like. And what he sees in the Clarity Act is not that.

The fundamental problem, Hoskinson argues in a recent podcast, is not the bill’s intentions. It is the process that produced it. Serious legislation is not written and then debated, it is pre-decided before it ever reaches the floor. The board meeting is a formality. The real work happens in the months before, when every stakeholder is brought into the room, their concerns are heard, and the coalitions are built quietly. By the time the vote happens, the outcome is already settled.

That process did not happen with the Act. Nobody in the industry received a questionnaire. There was no systematic consultation with the people building the products the law would govern. The people who got meetings, Hoskinson says plainly, were the ones who donated seven and eight figures to the Trump campaign. Political insiders and donors sat on the committees. The industry did not. And you cannot write a law about a technology you have not properly consulted the builders of.

The consequence of that failure is a bill with structural problems that go beyond fixable details.

The CFTC Problem Nobody Is Talking About

The Clarity Act hands the majority of crypto regulation to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. On the surface that sounds reasonable. In practice, Hoskinson argues, it creates an agency capacity crisis that the bill does not address at all.

The CFTC has never regulated an industry like this. To do it properly, they would need to hire significant numbers of new staff, develop entirely new regulatory frameworks, and build institutional knowledge from scratch. The Clarity Act gives them that mandate. It does not give them the budget to execute it.

What fills that vacuum is not nothing, it is delay, inconsistency, and eventually rulemaking by whoever is in power when the rules finally get written. Hoskinson points to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as the precedent. The CFPB was created during the Obama administration. Fifteen years later, they are still making rules. There is no clock in the legislation that forces completion. The same dynamic applies here.

That matters enormously for one specific reason: the next administration gets to finish what this one started. If a Democrat administration inherits an Act with no completed rulemaking, they inherit the pen. They write the rules. And if that administration is anti-crypto, which the Democratic Party was, until they calculated that being anti-crypto cost them the 2024 election, then the meat and potatoes of the Act become the mechanism of the attack. The legislation that was supposed to protect the industry becomes the tool used against it.

This is Hoskinson’s core argument, and it is the one most of the industry is not engaging with seriously enough. A bad bill does not just fail to help. It actively removes the legal ground the industry was standing on. Right now, without the Act, court cases are being won on the basis that the law is unclear. Pass a bad one, and that ambiguity disappears, replaced by a legal structure that was designed without the industry’s input and will be administered by whoever wins the next election.

READ MORE:

eToro’s CEO Declares Bear Market and Gives His Price Target for Bitcoin in 2030

The Security Question Nobody Resolved

At the center of the Clarity Act’s structural failure is a question it tried to answer and couldn’t: what is a security and what is not.

Hoskinson breaks this down with more precision than most coverage of the bill manages. The most contested instrument is the yield-bearing stablecoin. In its current form, it looks like an investment contract, something that, under existing securities law, should be regulated like a security. The Clarity Act attempts to reclassify it as a commodity. The CFTC pushed back, correctly noting that they do not have the experience, mandate, or structure to regulate something that is not really a commodity either.

The correct solution, Hoskinson argues, was never to force the instrument into an existing category. It was to create a new one. A standalone bill updating the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 to include a digital security category, blockchain-native, with disclosure mechanisms built into the chain itself, would have solved the problem cleanly. Yield-bearing stablecoins could exist as a digital security with a Genius Act yieldless component attached. The regulation would be straightforward. The instrument would be viable. Nobody would have to pretend a stablecoin is a commodity.

Instead, the industry bundled everything onto one bus, turned the security question into a wedge issue, and created the exact legislative gridlock that makes the bill both slow to pass and dangerous if it does.

What a Real Framework Looks Like

Hoskinson is not simply criticizing. He has a specific model for how this should have been done, and he has actually executed it at state level, the Stem Cell Freedom Act in Wyoming, passed unanimously, every Democrat and every Republican voting for it, including the state medical board.

The framework is three layers. First, the statutory layer, what the law actually says. Second, the rulemaking layer, who is in the room when the rules get written, and what their mandate is. Third, the industry interface layer, how does the industry engage with regulatory agencies on an ongoing basis? Does it have a self-regulatory organization like FINRA? Does it sit on committees? Or does the government simply mandate down?

All three layers have to be designed before the legislation is drafted. The legislation then gives deference to the rulemaking and industry participation processes that have already been built. By the time it reaches the Senate and the House, the hard work is done. The vote is a formality.

The Clarity Act did none of this. It created a miniature Securities and Exchange Commission inside the CFTC without oversight or additional funding. It provided no clear framework for how the CFTC and SEC coordinate. It made no attempt to align with international frameworks, MiCA in Europe, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Switzerland, Singapore, Japan, despite the fact that cryptocurrencies are global assets that do not live inside American borders. Hoskinson’s assessment is direct: you probably need a treaty. Nobody attempted to write one.

He also points to a specific missing component that could have served as a neutral technical tiebreaker between the CFTC and SEC: the National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST has been studying blockchain technology, CBDC, and cryptography since at least 2020. They have cryptographers and engineers. They write procurement standards for the US government. They are the entity that, by mandate of the Department of Commerce, defines technical standards for government contracts. Using NIST as a technical arbiter in crypto regulatory disputes would have been logical, bipartisan, and grounded in existing institutional authority. A small NIST provision did make it into the Genius Act, Section 14, but Hoskinson describes it as nowhere near large enough to be meaningful for the bigger conversation.

The Deeper Problem the Bill Cannot Fix

What sits underneath all of this, and what Hoskinson returns to throughout the conversation, is a trust problem that legislation alone cannot solve.

He frames it through a story about buying a neighbor’s land. Two transactions, same facts, same price, same land. One closes in two months over dinner and a handshake. The other takes three years, half a million dollars in legal fees, and ends in a feud that runs for two decades. The only variable was trust. Remove trust from a transaction and you do not just add friction, you transform the entire nature of the interaction.

Extrapolate that to society, Hoskinson argues, and you get the world as it currently exists. Voting systems nobody believes in. Medical advice nobody follows. Institutions nobody trusts. Every authority figure suspect. Every interaction carrying an assumed ulterior motive. A society in permanent distrust does not just function poorly, it eventually stops functioning.

This is where Midnight enters the argument not as a product pitch but as an answer to a structural problem. Zero knowledge proofs allow verification without disclosure. You can prove you are who you say you are without revealing everything you are. You can vote without your vote being traceable. You can transact without exposing your financial history. You can build systems where trust is not assumed between parties, it is mathematically guaranteed. And in a world that has run out of the social infrastructure required to generate trust organically, that mathematical guarantee is not a feature. It is the foundation.

The Clarity Act, even if it passes in its current form, does not address this. It reorganizes regulatory jurisdiction over an industry it does not fully understand, administered by an agency without the resources to do it, written without the input of the people building it, and exposed to reversal by the next administration that decides the rules differently.

Hoskinson’s position is not that crypto legislation is unnecessary. It is that bad legislation creates legal infrastructure that gets used against you. And right now, the industry was winning without it.

The Clarity Act is still moving through Congress. The rulemaking has not started. The CFTC budget has not been increased. The international framework has not been consulted. The clock Hoskinson says does not exist is still not running, and that, more than anything else in the bill, is the problem.

The post Charles Hoskinson: The Clarity Act Is Structurally Broken and a Bad Bill Is Worse Than No Bill appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/charles-hoskinson-the-clarity-act-is-structurally-broken-and-a-bad-bill-is-worse-than-no-bill/

The post Pakistan Ends Its Eight-Year Crypto Banking Ban on $25 Billion Market appeared first on Coindoo.

The State Bank of Pakistan formally ended its eight-year prohibition on cryptocurrency banking services on April 14, 2026, authorizing regulated banks to open accounts for Virtual Asset Service Providers licensed by the newly established Pakistan Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority. The move replaces the 2018 blanket ban with a structured framework following the enactment of the Virtual Assets Act 2026.

The accounts banks can offer are deliberately constrained. Client Money Accounts must be segregated, non-interest-bearing, and denominated in Pakistani rupees. Commingling VASP firm funds with client money is prohibited. Cash deposits and withdrawals are not permitted. Banks are explicitly barred from investing, trading, or holding virtual assets using their own funds or customer deposits. The banking system gains access to crypto firms. It does not gain exposure to crypto assets. That distinction was written into the framework deliberately.

The Market Being Formalized

Pakistan’s informal crypto market is estimated at $21–$25 billion. That figure represents transactions, holdings, and activity that have been occurring outside the formal financial system since the 2018 ban, peer-to-peer trading, unregulated exchanges, and remittance flows that moved through unofficial channels because no official ones existed.

Banking access changes the infrastructure those flows move through, not the flows themselves. The $21–$25 billion was already there. What PVARA licensing and Client Money Accounts create is a regulated on-ramp that captures transaction data, applies AML/CFT rules, and brings that capital into a system where it can be taxed, tracked, and eventually integrated into Pakistan’s broader monetary architecture. For a country running IMF-backed fiscal reforms, formalizing a $25 billion informal market is not just a crypto story. It is a fiscal one.

The Framework

PVARA operates a two-stage licensing process. Stage one issues a No-Objection Certificate within 60 days of a complete application. Stage two requires full Pakistan incorporation under the Companies Act 2017, IT and cybersecurity documentation, and a comprehensive AML/CFT framework. VASPs are now classified as Financial Institutions under the AML Act 2010, subject to the same oversight as banks.

The requirement that sets this framework apart from every other major crypto jurisdiction is the Sharia compliance board. Every licensed VASP must have its offerings evaluated by a Sharia board before they reach customers, a structural reflection of Pakistan’s Islamic finance framework that has no direct equivalent anywhere else in the global regulatory landscape. Beyond that, the Travel Rule applies to every transaction exceeding Rs. 1 million, requiring full originator and beneficiary information, and records must be kept for a minimum of ten years.

Penalties for operating without a license are criminal: up to five years imprisonment and fines of PKR 50 million. The framework is not an invitation to experiment freely. It is a structured entry point with explicit consequences for operating outside it.

READ MORE:

$84 Trillion Is Changing Hands and the Generation Receiving It Owns Crypto

The Strategic Ambitions

The banking framework is the most visible element of a much larger digital finance architecture Pakistan is building simultaneously on three separate tracks.

The first track is private sector integration. Binance and HTX have already been engaged regarding licensing. The Ministry of Finance signed a memorandum of understanding with Binance to explore tokenizing up to $2 billion in government-backed real-world assets. SC Financial Technologies, affiliated with World Liberty Financial, is in discussions to explore USD-linked stablecoins for international remittances, a politically notable partnership given World Liberty Financial‘s connections to the Trump administration, which was represented at the Islamabad US-Iran talks two days earlier.

The second track is monetary infrastructure. The State Bank is concurrently exploring a CBDC pilot, a government-issued digital currency that would operate alongside rather than against the regulated VASP sector. The third track is reserve strategy: Pakistan is exploring strategic Bitcoin reserves, placing it alongside a small but growing number of sovereigns treating Bitcoin as a balance sheet asset rather than a speculative instrument.

Three tracks. One country. All moving simultaneously in the same two-week window.

What the Opening Actually Means

Pakistan’s framework is designed to formalize without liberalizing. Banks can service crypto firms but cannot touch crypto. VASPs can operate but face criminal penalties if unlicensed. Capital gains are taxed at 15% rising to 20% under IMF pressure. A Sharia compliance board sits between every product and its customers.

The opening is real. The constraints are equally real. What Pakistan has built is a regulatory corridor, narrow, monitored, and specifically designed to capture $25 billion without exposing the banking system to the volatility that market carries. Whether that corridor is wide enough to attract the global platforms it is courting, or narrow enough to simply push activity back underground, is the question the next twelve months will answer.

The lean is toward the corridor working, but only partially. Binance signing an MOU for $2 billion in asset tokenization while simultaneously pursuing a VASP license suggests the global platforms are willing to operate within the constraints.

The informal market that generated $25 billion without any infrastructure will not disappear into a framework that imposes 15–20% CGT, a Sharia board, and a ten-year record-keeping requirement overnight. Both the formal and informal systems will run in parallel for years before one dominates. Pakistan built the architecture. Getting the $25 billion to use it is the harder problem.

The $2 billion Binance tokenization MOU, the CBDC pilot, and the Bitcoin reserve exploration are running in parallel because Pakistan is not choosing between financial systems. It is hedging across all of them at once.

The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

The post Pakistan Ends Its Eight-Year Crypto Banking Ban on $25 Billion Market appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/pakistan-ends-its-eight-year-crypto-banking-ban-on-25-billion-market/

The post ECB Backs Centralized EU Crypto Supervision: Binance and Coinbase Are First in Line appeared first on Coindoo.

What the ECB Endorsed

The European Central Bank describes the proposal as an “ambitious step” toward deeper EU capital market integration, and the substance behind that language is specific. Direct supervisory power over systemically important financial market participants, including large crypto exchanges, would shift from national regulators to the European Securities and Markets Authority in Paris. The proposal builds on the MiCA framework that came into force in 2025, extending regulatory reach from token classification into institutional supervision itself.

The target is regulatory arbitrage. Under the current framework, firms register in whichever EU member state offers the most favorable supervisory environment. Coinbase operates its EU entity from Ireland. Many others have chosen Luxembourg or Malta for the same reason. The ECB’s endorsement is a direct challenge to that model.

ESMA supervision would bring stricter standards than most national regulators currently apply, more rigorous assessments of board members’ fitness and propriety, mandatory independent compliance functions that cannot be separated from strategic decision-making, and stricter internal risk management requirements. The ECB also requested a non-voting seat on ESMA’s board, giving the central bank visibility into crypto market activity it does not currently have.

Who Gets Caught and How

The proposal defines systemic importance through two sets of criteria. Quantitative thresholds are specific: more than one million yearly active EU users, assets exceeding €3 billion, or more than 200,000 yearly active users outside the firm’s home member state. Qualitative criteria reach further, firms acting as liquidity or custody hubs for smaller crypto platforms, those deeply integrated with traditional EU banks, and those operating simultaneously as exchange, custodian, and stablecoin issuer all face ESMA oversight regardless of whether they hit the numbers.

That last criterion is broad enough to capture almost any significant cross-border operator at ESMA’s discretion. It is also the most legally contestable element of the proposal, vague enough to reach almost anyone, which means vague enough to be challenged in court by any firm that disputes ESMA’s assessment.

Three firms illustrate the range of the proposal’s reach. Binance clears every quantitative threshold by orders of magnitude, 300 million registered users globally, 39.2% of global spot market share, $170 billion in customer assets. It is not a candidate for ESMA oversight. It is the primary reason the proposal exists. Coinbase presents the clearest regulatory arbitrage case: 108 million verified users globally, EU futures now operating across 26 European countries, and an Irish registration that was chosen specifically for its supervisory environment. The proposal is aimed precisely at that structure. Bitpanda is the most interesting case because it is European-native, 7 million users, a Deutsche Bank partnership, and a 2026 Frankfurt IPO in progress. Deep integration with traditional finance is exactly the qualitative criterion the proposal uses, and Bitpanda meets it without needing the quantitative threshold at all.

Bybit EU, Kraken, Bitvavo, CoinShares, and BlackRock’s EU operations meet various combinations of the quantitative and qualitative criteria. Traditional banks, DZ Bank’s retail crypto launch and Santander’s Openbank service in Germany, are the least obvious candidates but potentially the fastest to cross the user threshold given their existing customer bases.

The firms most likely to be caught are also the most politically connected in national capitals. That connection is part of why the political fight over this proposal is as significant as the proposal itself.

READ MORE:

Benjamin Cowen: Bitcoin Bottom Is Still Ahead – Price and Timeline He Is Watching

The Political Fight That Determines Everything

The proposal is not law. It enters a negotiation phase between EU member states and the European Parliament expected to take several months. The political geography of the opposition tells you exactly where the money is.

France and Germany strongly support centralization. Both have substantial domestic regulatory capacity and would not lose supervisory influence under ESMA oversight. Ireland is opposing the plan, and Ireland’s objection is not abstract. It is the direct economic consequence of potentially losing supervisory authority over the entities that chose Dublin specifically because of its favorable regulatory environment. Luxembourg and Malta have built significant financial sector activity around the same dynamic. All three are being asked to vote against their own economic interests.

The ECB’s requirement that ESMA receive adequate staffing and resources before the transition is not just a practical condition, it is the specific mechanism through which opposing member states can slow the transition while appearing to support it in principle. ESMA’s current staffing is built for its existing mandate. Taking on direct supervision of the largest crypto exchanges in Europe requires an institution significantly larger than ESMA currently is. That resourcing gap gives any member state a credible argument for delay without formally opposing the proposal.

What the Industry Is Actually Facing

If the proposal passes in its current form, the largest crypto exchanges in Europe face a single significantly tougher supervisor replacing whatever national arrangement they currently navigate. The firms that chose their EU jurisdiction for regulatory reasons will find that the advantage they selected for no longer exists.

The more realistic outcome, given the political structure, is a weakened version. The quantitative thresholds are likely to rise in legislative negotiation, pushed higher by Ireland, Luxembourg, and Malta to reduce the number of firms caught under their national regulators. The qualitative discretion criteria, being the most legally contestable element, are likely to be narrowed. ESMA gets direct supervision authority, but over fewer firms than the current proposal targets and with less discretionary reach than the qualitative criteria currently allow.

That weakened version is still a structural shift. Even a narrowed proposal that catches only Binance and the largest cross-border operators represents a regulatory consolidation the EU has never previously achieved in crypto.

The ECB endorsed the proposal. France and Germany want it. Ireland, Luxembourg, and Malta are fighting it. The firms most likely to be caught are already operating in Europe under the assumption that national regulation stays national. That assumption just got significantly more expensive to maintain.

The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

The post ECB Backs Centralized EU Crypto Supervision: Binance and Coinbase Are First in Line appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/ecb-backs-centralized-eu-crypto-supervision-binance-and-coinbase-are-first-in-line/

The post U.S. Senator Warns Congress’ Time to Pass the CLARITY Act Is Almost Up  appeared first on Coindoo.

Miss that window, and the next realistic opportunity for comparable legislation may not arrive until after the November 2026 midterms. By some estimates, not until 2028.

The Senator Who Built This – and Won’t Be Around Much Longer

No single figure has pushed harder for this legislation than Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), widely known in Washington circles as the “Crypto Queen” of the Senate. On April 10 she warned that the current window is the “last chance” to pass the bill until at least 2030. Her reasoning is not just about legislative calendars – it is also personal. Lummis’s own term ends in January 2027, and with her departure goes the most knowledgeable and committed crypto advocate the Senate has seen. No obvious successor has emerged on either side of the aisle, which means that if the bill stalls now, it may simply have no champion to carry it forward.

What the Bill Actually Does

The CLARITY Act, also known as H.R. 3633, already cleared the House 294-134 and passed through the Senate Agriculture Committee, putting it closer to becoming law than any previous attempt to establish a national framework for digital assets.  At its core, the bill draws a hard line between “digital commodities” falling under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and “digital securities” remaining under the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The SEC and CFTC jointly classified Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP as digital commodities on March 17, but that classification is an interpretive release, not statute – a future administration could reverse it. The CLARITY Act would make that classification permanent federal law. That distinction matters enormously to institutional investors: pension funds and insurance companies managing trillions in assets have largely stayed out of crypto precisely because the legal ground beneath it can shift with each new administration.

The Fight Nobody Can Fully Resolve

What remains is a markup vote in the Banking Committee, reconciliation with the Agriculture Committee version, a full Senate floor vote requiring 60 votes, reconciliation with the House-passed version, and a presidential signature. Five steps, a shrinking calendar, and at least one fight that has dragged on for months.

READ MORE:

ECB Backs Centralized EU Crypto Supervision: Binance and Coinbase Are First in Line

Banks have warned that allowing crypto firms to offer yield on stablecoins would pull trillions of dollars away from traditional bank deposits toward digital assets. The crypto industry argues the opposite – that banning stablecoin yield is competitive protection for banks dressed up as consumer concern. Senators Tillis and Alsobrooks reached a compromise in principle on March 20, banning passive yield while permitting activity-based rewards tied to platform use, though key players including Coinbase and Stripe have still not fully accepted the text.

Beyond stablecoin yield, the bill also faced contested ground on illicit finance protections in decentralized finance, and a Democratic push to bar senior government officials – most pointedly President Trump – from profiting in the crypto sector. Patrick Witt, the White House’s chief crypto adviser, told CoinDesk TV on Monday that negotiations had made considerable progress on most of these issues and are “very close to closing them out.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent put the stakes plainly in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on April 9 – blockchain developers and crypto companies are already relocating to Singapore and Abu Dhabi because those jurisdictions built clear regulatory frameworks first. Europe’s MiCA framework is already operational, while the U.S. is still debating committee scheduling. The argument that U.S.-regulated stablecoins backed by Treasuries could reinforce dollar dominance globally is one Lummis and others have leaned on heavily, framing the bill not just as crypto policy but as a matter of financial statecraft.

What Happens If It Fails

Peter Van Valkenburgh of Coin Center framed the bill’s purpose this way: passing the CLARITY Act is not about trusting the current administration, but about binding the next one. That is the more durable argument for the legislation – a statutory framework cannot be dismantled by executive order the way an administrative classification can. Critics, including Cardano’s Charles Hoskinson, have described the bill as something that could itself be weaponized against the industry under a future hostile administration, which is a reasonable concern given that broad regulatory authority tends to serve whoever holds it.

If the Banking Committee fails to schedule a markup before May, midterm election dynamics will almost certainly shelve the bill for the remainder of 2026. Polymarket currently assigns a 63-66% probability of passage this year, a figure that will move depending on decisions made this week and next.On April 16, the SEC hosts a roundtable specifically on the CLARITY Act – not a vote, but a public signal of regulatory direction before Congress acts.

With Lummis heading for the exit in nine months, and midterm campaigns set to crowd out legislative space by summer, the Banking Committee’s late-April markup window is not just a procedural milestone. It may be the last one that matters for years. This is  significant moment for the whole crypto industry – if the act isn’t passed, the U.S. are risking falling significantly behind other countries will well established digital asset frameworks.

The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

The post U.S. Senator Warns Congress’ Time to Pass the CLARITY Act Is Almost Up  appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/u-s-senator-warns-congress-time-to-pass-the-clarity-act-is-almost-up/

The post CFTC Forms Specialized Task Force for Crypto, AI, and Prediction Markets appeared first on Coindoo.

The group is led by Michael J. Passalacqua, senior advisor to CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig, and brings together a mix of internal agency veterans and lawyers with private-sector backgrounds at firms including Latham & Watkins, Sidley Austin, and Fried Frank. The five senior advisors collectively cover digital asset regulation, financial law, and market oversight, a combination that reflects the breadth of what the task force is expected to tackle. according to the CFTC announcement.

Crypto Regulation Finally Gets a Clearer Shape

One of the most persistent problems for American financial regulators over the past several years has been the jurisdictional standoff between the CFTC and the SEC over digital assets. On March 17, 2026, the SEC moved to resolve at least part of that tension by issuing an interpretive release classifying 16 major tokens, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, as digital commodities, which places their oversight squarely within the CFTC’s authority rather than the SEC’s.

In early April 2026, the two agencies followed that up by signing a Memorandum of Understanding to formalize joint oversight and align their rules for digital asset markets. Around the same time, the CFTC issued a no-action letter clarifying that developers of self-custodial crypto wallets, such as Phantom, are not required to register as brokers, as long as they only connect users to regulated trading venues, a meaningful carve-out for a sector that had been operating under significant legal uncertainty.

Prediction Markets: From Legal Gray Zone to Regulated Territory

Prediction markets are arguably the most contentious issue currently sitting on the CFTC’s desk. Chairman Selig described them, alongside crypto assets, as among the “two most dynamic markets in finance” in statements from March 2026. These platforms, where users can trade on the outcomes of elections, sports results, and macroeconomic indicators, have long existed in a legal gray area, and the Commission’s posture toward them is visibly shifting.

READ MORE:

Benjamin Cowen: Bitcoin Bottom Is Still Ahead – Price and Timeline He Is Watching

The CFTC withdrew a 2024 proposal that would have banned political and sports-related event contracts, a reversal that signals the agency is moving toward legitimizing and regulating these markets rather than shutting them down. Chairman Selig also made the federal position explicit in a February 2026 commentary, stating the Commission would no longer stand aside while individual states attempt to ban such products at the regional level, raising direct questions about federal preemption of state-level restrictions.

Artificial Intelligence: The Next Regulatory Frontier

The inclusion of AI in the task force’s mandate is not incidental. Algorithmic trading and autonomous financial systems already account for a substantial and growing share of market volume, but the legal framework around them remains largely undefined. Analysts have noted that the convergence of AI and prediction markets could give rise to a new class of financial instruments, where automated systems forecast and trade on real-world event outcomes at a scale and speed that existing rules were not designed to address.

The Innovation Task Force will work alongside a newly formed Innovation Advisory Committee that includes senior figures from Coinbase, Nasdaq, and Uniswap Labs, with the stated aim of ensuring that AI-related regulations do not undercut domestic innovation before it has the chance to develop.

Global Crypto Adoption

Roughly 1.01 billion people, or 12.24% of the global population, are forecast to own cryptocurrency in 2026, while institutional investors now allocate an average of 9% of their assets under management to digital assets, a figure analysts expect to double within three years. Perhaps more telling is that 96% of institutional investors now say they believe in the long-term value of blockchain and digital assets.

The absence of a coherent regulatory framework was becoming an increasingly expensive problem, both for market participants trying to operate within the law and for the U.S. in terms of where capital and talent choose to locate. The main question is whether the new task force can keep pace with markets that have consistently outrun regulators. One thing is for certain – crypto has evolved significantly in the past few years and the “wild crypto west” we once knew is a thing of the past. Illicit activity will follow adoption at this scale, and that is precisely what regulators are trying to get ahead of. The ITF is a direct response to markets that have grown too large and too embedded in institutional portfolios to leave unaddressed.

The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

The post CFTC Forms Specialized Task Force for Crypto, AI, and Prediction Markets appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/cftc-forms-specialized-task-force-for-crypto-ai-and-prediction-markets/

The post Japan Approves Landmark Bill: Cryptocurrency Is Now an Official Financial Asset appeared first on Coindoo.

What Changed and Why It Matters

According to report by Nikkei, Japan’s Cabinet has approved a bill moving cryptocurrency from its previous classification as a “means of settlement” under the Payment Services Act to a formal financial product under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. The shift is the legal foundation for every consequential change that follows, and Japan, with 7.3 million active crypto accounts, is not a small market for those changes to land in.

The previous tax treatment applied miscellaneous income rates to crypto profits, a bracket that reached 55% for high earners. The new flat rate is 20%, applied to profits from 105 approved tokens listed on licensed Japanese exchanges. For a trader realizing ¥10 million in gains, that difference is ¥3.5 million in additional take-home. The reform is part of Japan’s “Digital Year” initiative, deliberately designed to align the country’s regulatory architecture with the EU’s MiCA framework, which matters for cross-border institutional flows and for the credibility of Japanese-listed tokens in international markets.

Full implementation of certain secondary tax regimes and ETF listings continues rolling out through early 2027.

The 105 Tokens and the Two-Tier Reality

The 20% rate does not apply universally. It applies to 105 specific tokens that meet the FSA’s criteria for transparency, technical safety, market integrity, and mandatory disclosure — and that are listed on at least three of Japan’s 30 licensed exchanges or have been on one for at least six months with association approval.

The core beneficiaries are Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Solana, and a broader set of high-liquidity assets including regulated stablecoins USDC, USDT, and the newly approved yen-pegged JPYC. A further subset from the JVCEA Green List, assets already vetted for institutional use including Avalanche, Polygon, Cosmos, and Aave, also qualifies. The green list selection is telling: Japan’s institutional priority is infrastructure and DeFi protocols with established liquidity, not speculative altcoins.

Everything outside that list stays in the miscellaneous income bracket at rates up to 55%. Staking rewards, lending income, and NFTs remain there regardless of which tokens are involved. Unlisted altcoins remain there. Profits from assets traded on unlicensed international platforms, Bitget and certain Bybit configurations do not qualify, remain there. A Japanese investor choosing between an approved token on bitFlyer or SBI VC Trade at 20% and an unlisted token on an offshore platform at up to 55% faces a tax differential that dwarfs any expected return difference in normal market conditions.

The two-tier system creates a gravitational pull. The approved list becomes the rational default for most retail participants, and the insider trading prohibition makes those same tokens safer for the institutional capital that cannot legally operate in unregulated environments.

READ MORE:

TON Got a 10x Speed Upgrade:The Price Spiked to $1.32 and Gave It All Back

The Insider Trading Prohibition

Japan has never had crypto insider trading laws. Every exchange listing announcement, every security vulnerability disclosure, every pre-public partnership news was legally tradeable on by anyone with early access. That era ended with this bill.

Trading on non-public material information is now strictly prohibited. Violators face fines of up to ¥10 million and prison terms of up to 10 years, the same severity applied to securities insider trading in traditional markets. The criminal penalty changes the behavior of everyone in Japan with access to pre-announcement information at exchanges, development teams, or regulatory bodies. The information asymmetry that has been a structural feature of Japanese crypto markets since their inception has a legal ceiling on it for the first time.

That ceiling is what makes the market safe enough for institutional capital to enter at scale. Nomura and SBI are not preparing ETF products for a market where front-running listing announcements is legal. They are preparing them for the market this bill creates.

The Institutional Pathway

There were rumors that SBI already is preparing domestic crypto ETF products which was the most forward-looking signal in the dataset although they denied it.

Banks and insurance companies may additionally hold crypto assets for investment purposes and register as licensed exchanges, opening a distribution channel that makes SBI VC Trade’s current model, with free yen deposits and withdrawals and negative maker fees, look like the preview of what mainstream banking crypto integration looks like in Japan. GMO Coin, a subsidiary of the GMO Group with deep integration into traditional financial services, is positioned similarly.

What Licensed Exchanges Look Like Now

Japan’s 30 FSA-licensed exchanges are the only venues where the 20% rate applies. The fee structures across those platforms vary significantly and the differences matter more now that the tax environment makes staying on licensed platforms financially rational.

bitbank offers negative maker fees of -0.02%, meaning liquidity providers earn a rebate, with taker fees at 0.12%. GMO Coin runs -0.01% to -0.03% maker and 0.05% to 0.09% taker with zero fees on most crypto deposits and withdrawals. SBI VC Trade matches that competitiveness at -0.01% maker and 0.05% taker with completely free yen deposits and withdrawals. These three platforms represent the lowest friction entry point into the 20% tax regime for active traders.

According to Godex, Binance Japan operates at 0.1% for both makers and takers, reducible to 0.075% with BNB fee payments, under its domestic license following the acquisition of Sakura Exchange BitCoin. Coincheck offers 0.00% maker fees with 0.10% taker fees on board trading, making it competitive for limit order users. bitFlyer’s Lightning platform starts at approximately 0.10% to 0.15% for lower volumes, while its Marketplace feature advertises zero transaction fees but hides a 2% to 10% spread that makes it significantly more expensive in practice. Kraken Japan is the most expensive entry point for retail at up to 1% plus spread on instant purchases, though its Pro tier begins at 0.25% maker and 0.40% taker for higher-volume users.

The practical implication: traders using market orders on instant-buy interfaces are paying spreads that can exceed the annual tax saving on small positions. The reform’s financial benefit is fully realized only on board trading platforms with limit orders, where the negative maker fees at bitbank, GMO Coin, and SBI VC Trade mean the exchange pays the trader to provide liquidity.

The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

The post Japan Approves Landmark Bill: Cryptocurrency Is Now an Official Financial Asset appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/japan-approves-landmark-bill-cryptocurrency-is-now-an-official-financial-asset/

The post U.S. and South Korea Are Writing the Same Stablecoin Rulebook From Different Directions appeared first on Coindoo.

Two Major Economies, One Week, Same Conclusion

The United States and South Korea did not coordinate their stablecoin proposals. They arrived independently, through different legal traditions, at conclusions that are strikingly similar: full reserve backing, no yield, stablecoins integrated into existing financial infrastructure rather than governed by new frameworks built around them.

That alignment reflects a global regulatory consensus forming around one answer to a question the stablecoin market has avoided: what is a stablecoin legally allowed to be? The answer emerging from Washington and Seoul is consistent, and narrower than what most current issuers maintain.

The FDIC’s Rulebook and the Requirement That Matters Most

According to the official FDIC website, its board approved a proposed rulemaking under the GENIUS Act defining how permitted payment stablecoin issuers operate. Six requirements form the framework, but one reshapes the market more than the others.

The prohibition on yield is the most consequential. Issuers cannot claim their tokens generate interest or yield, including through third-party arrangements. That single requirement eliminates a product category that has driven significant stablecoin adoption: yield-bearing stablecoins functioning as savings instruments rather than payment tools. The FDIC is not banning yield because it is technically complex. It is banning yield because it changes what a stablecoin is, from a payment instrument into an investment product, and investment products belong in a different regulatory framework.

The remaining requirements define the operational standard. Full 1:1 reserve backing monitored daily, held in eligible assets, U.S. currency, Federal Reserve balances, insured bank deposits, short-term Treasuries, and certain overnight repurchase agreements. Redemption within two business days, with regulatory notification required if withdrawals exceed 10% of outstanding issuance within 24 hours. A minimum of $5 million in capital for the first three years. A separate liquidity buffer equal to 12 months of operating expenses, distinct from the reserve pool. And a comprehensive cybersecurity framework covering smart contract controls, private key management, and annual AML/CFT certifications.

The yield prohibition is where the FDIC draws the product boundary. The insurance provision is where it draws the consumer protection boundary, and that distinction carries more market weight than any operational requirement.

What Is and Is Not Covered

Stablecoins are explicitly excluded from deposit insurance. Reserves held by banks backing payment stablecoins are insured only as corporate deposits of the issuer, up to the standard $250,000 limit. A retail user holding a FDIC-regulated stablecoin does not have the same protection as a retail user holding a bank deposit.

That exclusion is not an oversight. It is the FDIC drawing a precise legal line between two products the market has treated as interchangeable. Tokenized deposits meeting the legal definition of a bank deposit receive standard insurance regardless of technological format. A tokenized deposit is insured. A stablecoin is not. The legal consequences on either side of that line are significant for issuers, holders, and the broader market that has priced stablecoins as if the distinction did not exist.

The insurance exclusion is where the U.S. framework places its clearest boundary. South Korea’s equivalent boundary is structural, and goes further.

South Korea: Banks at the Center

According to information from The Block, South Korea’s Democratic Party is integrating stablecoins into existing financial law rather than building new frameworks around them, classifying stablecoins as a means of payment under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act and placing tokenized real-world assets under the Capital Markets Act.

The bank consortium model carries the most structural weight. Regulators are considering requiring banks to hold at least 51% equity in stablecoin issuance entities, ensuring that entities with the power to issue payment instruments remain predominantly under banking sector control. A stablecoin issuer without majority bank ownership would not qualify, effectively making stablecoin issuance a banking activity rather than a fintech one.

The yield prohibition mirrors the FDIC’s position exactly. Two major economies, different legal traditions, same conclusion, stablecoins are payment instruments that do not generate returns. That parallel is the clearest signal that the global regulatory consensus on stablecoin design is no longer a debate about whether to ban yield. It is a debate about how to implement that ban.

South Korea’s broader regulatory tightening extends beyond stablecoins, exchange operations have faced equally aggressive scrutiny following high-profile failures that accelerated the country’s push for comprehensive crypto oversight.

The Bigger Picture

The convergence between Washington and Seoul signals that the regulatory debate about stablecoins is closer to resolution than the ongoing legislative uncertainty implies. Yield-bearing products face a compliance problem in both jurisdictions simultaneously. USD1, which generates volume through exchange incentive programs functioning as yield equivalents, sits directly in the category both frameworks are moving to prohibit. USDT and USDC are better positioned, but both face reserve transparency, redemption speed, and capital requirements introduced as hard standards rather than best practices.

For holders, the frameworks remove a quietly held assumption: that regulated stablecoins carry deposit-level protection. They do not. Stablecoins are payment instruments with defined protections and explicit exclusions, not deposit equivalents with implied guarantees.

The FDIC comment period closes before the GENIUS Act’s July 18 deadline. South Korea’s implementation target is end of Q1 2026. Neither framework is final, but both are moving in the same direction at the same speed. The issuers building to that standard now are not just achieving compliance. They are positioning for the market that exists after the rules take effect, a defined, regulated stablecoin market that is a more durable foundation for institutional adoption than the ambiguity that preceded it.

The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

The post U.S. and South Korea Are Writing the Same Stablecoin Rulebook From Different Directions appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/u-s-and-south-korea-are-writing-the-same-stablecoin-rulebook-from-different-directions/

The post South Korea Cracks Down on Crypto Exchanges After Bithumb’s Billion-Dollar Mistake appeared first on Coindoo.

The catalyst was a damaging operational failure at Bithumb in February 2026, when the exchange mistakenly distributed 620,000 Bitcoin to 249 users during a promotional campaign, representing assets worth billions of dollars at the time.

Bithumb managed to freeze the affected accounts within the same day and recover roughly 99.7% of the funds, but the reputational damage to the sector proved harder to contain. The emergency inspection that followed exposed a glaring inconsistency across the industry: while Upbit had already been reconciling its asset holdings every five minutes, three of the five largest platforms were only running those checks once every 24 hours. That gap in standards is what pushed the regulator to act.

New Operational Requirements Taking Effect by May 2026

The FSC’s new framework mandates that every exchange cross-check its internal accounting ledgers against actual blockchain wallet holdings at five-minute intervals. If a significant discrepancy is detected, an automatic kill switch must immediately halt all transactions and trading activity. Beyond that, exchanges will be required to publish daily reconciliation balances, external audits shift from quarterly to monthly, and every six months platforms must review their internal control systems and report findings directly to financial authorities.

South Korean crypto exchanges currently hold approximately 70 trillion won, around $51 billion, for more than 11 million users. At that volume, a 24-hour reconciliation window is not a procedural gap, it’s a systemic vulnerability.

Corporations Get Market Access After an 8-Year Ban

In a separate but equally significant shift, the FSC has finalized guidelines ending the ban on corporate and institutional cryptocurrency investment that has been in place since 2017. Roughly 3,500 entities, including listed companies and professional investment firms, will be permitted to trade, though with guardrails. Corporate allocations are capped at 5% of a company’s annual equity capital, and trading is restricted to the top 20 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization on regulated domestic exchanges. The guidelines are finalized, but actual trading is not expected to begin until the end of 2026 as firms build out internal governance frameworks.

READ MORE:

Tom Lee: Bitcoin Beats Inflation 97% of the Time – Here Is the Full Case

Meanwhile, a planned 22% tax on cryptocurrency gains, which has already been delayed three times, is now facing calls for complete abolition. The People Power Party introduced a bill to remove digital asset taxation from the Income Tax Act entirely, following reports that an estimated $110 billion has already left South Korean exchanges for offshore platforms to avoid the tax. The 20% capital gains tax is currently scheduled to take effect in 2027, but the opposition Democratic Party is now reviewing the full abolition proposal.

Digital Currency Pilot Moves Into Real-World Testing

On March 18, 2026, the second phase of Project Hangang officially launched, marking a transition from technical validation to live, large-scale deployment. The pilot, which tests a wholesale central bank digital currency issued by the Bank of Korea as a settlement layer, has expanded from seven to nine participating commercial banks, adding Kyongnam Bank and iM Bank to the original group.

For the first time, the system is being used for live government treasury disbursements, with a primary use case being subsidies for electric vehicle charging infrastructure projects. The deposit tokens issued to consumers can be programmed with specific conditions, including usage restrictions, expiration dates, and spending limits, a feature designed to ensure public funds are spent as intended. The project had briefly stalled in mid-2025 due to bank pushback over costs and interest in private stablecoins, but resumed after the Bank of Korea governor secured continued participation.

Regulatory Gaps Remain

Not everything is moving forward on schedule. The Digital Asset Basic Act, the comprehensive “Phase 2” regulatory framework, remains stalled due to a dispute between the FSC and the Bank of Korea over who controls reserve requirements and supervision for stablecoins. The deadlock has also delayed official frameworks for spot crypto ETFs and won-denominated stablecoins. Lawmakers are targeting a potential rollout by late 2026, though that timeline has already shifted before.

The Financial Supervisory Service has also introduced AI-powered monitoring tools capable of detecting unusual price movements or large trades within minutes, alongside new rules that place direct accountability on executives and security officers for serious IT system failures. Major shareholders of crypto exchanges are now subject to regulatory vetting under new licensing rules, a measure aimed at dismantling the concentrated ownership structures that allowed control to bypass internal checks in the first place.

The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

The post South Korea Cracks Down on Crypto Exchanges After Bithumb’s Billion-Dollar Mistake appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/south-korea-cracks-down-on-crypto-exchanges-after-bithumbs-billion-dollar-mistake/