Hong Kong Wants to Be a Crypto Hub Again

CoinDesk发布于2022-11-02更新于2022-11-02

文章摘要

Though the city’s regulator has set a high bar for companies to operate at present, the door is open for the further relaxing of rules.

On Monday, at the opening of Hong Kong FinTech Week, regulators declared the city’s ambitions to be a virtual asset hub. The government announced that it will hold consultations for allowing retail investors to invest on licensed platforms and is open to considering virtual asset futures exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

The regulator issued warnings about leverage. It introduced an opt-in process whereby virtual asset service providers (VASP) could obtain licenses for dealing in securities and providing automated trading services. It was rigorous. Only two firms heard positive news — BC Group which runs exchange OSL is the only firm to have its licenses, and HashKey Group has an in-principle approval.

And it seemed that once its licensing regime came in, and wasn’t opt-in anymore, platforms wouldn’t be able to service retail investors. (In the meantime, retail investors continued to use unlicensed exchanges.)

Across the border, China banned firms offering crypto services. Hong Kong’s politicians insisted that the city was still governed under the “one country two systems principle” — meaning that the city is part of China but can organize its own affairs. But firms had doubts that Hong Kong could keep its autonomy when it came to deciding how to regulate crypto. They left in droves for Singapore and other jurisdictions.

Covid-19 restrictions compounded difficulties for businesses. This time last year, Hong Kong had among the toughest Covid-19 rules in place, including a three-week hotel quarantine for those coming to the city. The city hemorrhaged talent. Now, inbound travelers no longer need to quarantine though they still need to go for tests. The city says it’s back to business as usual. The question is whether businesses and talent will return.

Licensing regime sets high bar

The VASP licensing regime comes into force in March 2023 and applicants will get a nine-month grace period. Hong Kong will not have an opt-in regime anymore. Either exchanges are licensed, or they cannot operate in the city.

The VASP regime offers clarity. Without clear regulation, “we were basically self-regulating, benchmarking ourselves against the strictest regulatory standards,” said Amber Group managing partner Annabelle Huang. She added that the company has held itself to the toughest standards of crypto regulation globally in jurisdictions it operates in.

Padraig Walsh, partner at law firm Tanner De Witt, characterizes the proposed regime as bringing Hong Kong up to the expected standards under the Financial Action Task Force. “One of the areas where there was anticipation for progress was in relation to anti-money laundering and KYC for virtual assets,” he said.

According to him, Hong Kong’s approach is designed and intended for the long term. The licenses are “not intended for the many, but the few,” he said.

Market players have expressed that they consider the VASP regime strict, a government source told CoinDesk. They see high operating costs, given a requirement that they insure their assets, and hold a high percentage of assets in cold wallets.

Ultimately, the regime’s emphasis is on investor protection, this source said. At this point, it seems to be focused on spot trading, and does not allow staking, lending, copy trading nor the bread-and-butter for many exchanges — leverage. In essence, the SFC doesn’t want to see anything not found in the traditional stock market.

Other jurisdictions have introduced regulation then made modifications. Singapore, for instance, has signaled to the market that it will ramp up compliance obligations. Hong Kong has set a high bar from the start.

Comparisons

Hong Kong “absolutely lost ground to a couple of neighboring jurisdictions,” HashKey Chief Operating Officer David Leahy said. But in his view, the strength of Hong Kong’s capital markets still make it a dominant force in the region.

“When we talk to the digital asset desks, investment banks, and licensed intermediaries, there is significant demand,” he said.

Hong Kong created “a very detailed set” of regulations for licensed crypto companies, said BC Group executive director Gary Tiu. It took the group’s digital platform business OSL more than two years to obtain its licenses from the SFC and start dealing in securities and providing automated trading services.

Tiu said that many people thought Singapore was more crypto-friendly, while Hong Kong was very strict. “The two regimes are starting to converge in the middle,” he said.

Some investors like its strictness. Tiu said that he sees a lot of non-Hong Kong institutional interests spending a lot of time to understand the Hong Kong platform.

“They believe the Hong Kong regime provides them the right level of protection that they don't see in other places,” he said.

Walsh said there was a period of time, maybe a year ago, where there was a perception that Singapore was forging ahead and Hong Kong wasn’t. “I don’t think that’s the case now,” he said, citing the complexity of Singapore’s application process and the long time taken to process license applications, which even the regulator describes as “painfully slow.”

Open to discussing retail

In January, SFC had said that only professional investors could invest in crypto, meaning individuals or corporations with a portfolio worth upwards of HK$8 million ($1 million) — and crypto didn’t count.

The industry welcomes the SFC’s willingness to reconsider retail investors and have a public consultation on the subject.

“It’s a great opportunity,” said Leary of HashKey, which plans to bring its exchange to market in Q2 next year.

He’s waiting to hear if listing requirements will be the same for both retail and professional investors, and if the professional investor designation falls away.

“They are very focused on the quality of the projects that are listed on exchanges,” he said of the SFC.

If the SFC were to allow retail investors to invest, it would legitimize what is already happening. “If they don’t open to retail, given this asset class is becoming popular, these retail investors will invest through unregulated service providers outside of Hong Kong,” Michael Wong, partner at law firm Dechert said. “If you regulate it at least you have some control.”

Wong said that the SFC may bring in a suitability requirement and have investors fill in questionnaires to show they understand the risk profiles of what they’re buying. SFC-licensed trading platforms may be required to provide hotlines or physical branches to assist retail investors, giving them the chance to complain to the regulator if platforms act dishonestly, he said.

In his view, investors will likely move to regulated exchanges unless the unregulated ones offer them services like lending and staking.

Door open

There are still areas where firms want more clarity. Walsh is waiting for the application guidelines.

“We have enough to be able to assess whether a particular business falls within the scope that needs a license or is outside that perimeter,” he said. “But we don't really have enough to know what they would need to do.”

The licensing regime requires exchanges to have two responsible officers to ensure compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing requirements among others. But those with such qualifications may not be familiar with virtual assets, Asia Crypto Alliance co-founder Viven Khoo said. She’s fielded calls from people with this qualification on how they protect themselves when overseeing a business that includes virtual assets.

There is concern that some non-regulated companies may abuse the grace period by submitting an application knowing that they will not be successful, just to be able to max out what they can, she added. Some players in the market are lobbying for moderate restrictions in the interim.

Still, the regime “leaves some room going forward,” Khoo said. “If legislators decide they want to open it more broadly, they don’t need to go through another set of legislative changes.”

If the regime does relax, it will likely be gradual. “The regulator has said they will monitor the first-stage license holders and consider further changes,” the government source told CoinDesk. “If they have no intention to do so, generally they will not say so.”

你可能也喜欢

租来的信仰:比特币ETF资金流里,有多少是真钱

文章《租来的信仰:比特币ETF资金流里,有多少是真钱》揭示了比特币ETF每周资金流入数据的真实构成。核心观点是,这些数据常被误解为纯粹的机构看多情绪,但实际上很大程度上受到一笔“期现套利”交易的影响。 套利者会同时买入ETF并在芝加哥商品交易所做空等值的比特币期货,以此锁定期货与现货之间的价差利润,而完全对冲了比特币价格波动的风险。这种“delta中性”的交易在数据上同样表现为ETF资金流入,与真正的信仰买盘难以区分。数据分析显示,每周资金流波动中约一半可由对冲基金新增的期货空头来解释,两者相关性高达0.70。相比之下,比特币当周的价格涨跌几乎无法预测资金流。 然而,这种套利交易主要驱动的是资金流的短期“波动”,而非长期“存量”。自ETF推出以来累计约550亿美元的净流入中,当前由套利交易贡献的净额仅约10亿美元。其余是稳定的、方向性的买盘,大约每周4亿美元,长期复利积累构成了持仓的主体。套利头寸在ETF总资产中的占比已从2024年高峰时的约14%降至目前的约4%-5%。 文章指出,这笔套利交易已持续离场近两年。当期货基差收益(套利空间)收窄至无利可图时,相关的ETF资金流入和对冲空头会同步消退。因此,不应将基差收窄时的资金流出简单解读为市场看空比特币。 总之,比特币ETF资金流数据高估了市场信仰的“波动率”,而非其“水平”。解读该数据时,应结合期货基差收益和杠杆基金的净空头头寸变化,以辨别其中有多少是“租来的”套利资金,多少是“自有的”真实买盘。

marsbit53分钟前

租来的信仰:比特币ETF资金流里,有多少是真钱

marsbit53分钟前

格林斯潘去世:他写下的市场规则,沃什正在改写

2026年6月22日,前美联储主席艾伦·格林斯潘去世,享年100岁。他留下的货币政策遗产——“格林斯潘卖权”和市场信条“别和美联储作对”,至今深刻影响着全球金融市场。 格林斯潘于1987年上任后,迅速以“提供流动性”应对“黑色星期一”股灾,奠定了美联储在危机中为市场托底的预期。1994年他果断加息控制通胀,展现了其政策的另一面。1998年协调救助长期资本管理公司,强化了“大而不倒”的逻辑。然而,2000年后他将利率降至1%并维持一年,被部分观点认为助推了房地产泡沫,为2008年金融危机埋下伏笔。 格林斯潘卸任后声誉历经起伏,但其塑造的央行干预市场预期和行为范式持续存在。 就在他去世前几天,现任美联储主席凯文·沃什启动了对美联储运作方式的全盘重审,成立了多个专项工作组,意图从“第一性原理”出发审视现有框架。沃什可能弱化或取消“前瞻性指引”,这动摇了市场赖以预测美联储行动的基石。若此,格林斯潘时代留下的“央行明确托底”预期将面临根本性改变。 格林斯潘代表了一个央行自信能管理市场的时代,而沃什面对的则是一个更复杂、充满怀疑的时代。格林斯潘的逝世,象征着一个货币政策范式的终结,美联储正试图在没有“大师”指引的情况下,独自前行。

marsbit1小时前

格林斯潘去世:他写下的市场规则,沃什正在改写

marsbit1小时前

交易

现货
合约
活动图片