Comparing the current status and prospects of cryptocurrency OTC trading supervision in Hong Kong, Singapore and the United States

Author: Bai Qin, Mankiw Blockchain

As of the latest data, the cryptocurrency trading volume of centralized exchanges (CEX) reached US$4.29 trillion in the first quarter of 2024, which is the same as before A significant increase compared to several quarters. In contrast, the over-the-counter (OTC) market is primarily aimed at institutional and large individual investors and, although its activity is significant, does not typically reach the volume levels of CEXs due to its more private and customized nature. Specific OTC volume data is harder to determine due to a lack of centralized reporting, but the OTC market continues to expand as the overall cryptocurrency market grows.

OTC trading vs exchange trading

In the field of cryptocurrency trading, OTC trading and exchange trading have their own characteristics and are suitable for different types of trading needs and user groups. There are significant differences between the two in terms of liquidity, privacy, price slippage, flexibility, counterparty risk, security, regulations, ease of use and typical users.

1. OTC transactions

OTC transactions (over-the-counter transactions) refer to transactions conducted directly by both parties, not through centralized exchanges, and are usually facilitated by intermediaries or OTC trading desks. The biggest advantage of this approach is that it can handle larger transactions, has less impact on market prices, and provides higher privacy and anonymity because transactions are not publicly recorded. In addition, with pre-agreed prices, OTC trading is able to minimize price slippage on large trades and provide flexible trading solutions, including customized trade sizes and specific settlement terms.

However, OTC trading also has some challenges. Because trading is not conducted on an exchange, participants face a higher risk of counterparty default, and their security relies on the reputation and reliability of the OTC intermediary or trading desk. Typically, OTC trading is less regulated, offering more freedom but less protection, and requires finding a reliable OTC intermediary, and the trading method may be less user-friendly. As such, OTC trading is typically suitable for institutional investors or high-net-worth individuals looking to move large amounts of cryptocurrency.

2. Exchange Trading

In contrast, exchange trading is conducted on a centralized platform, with buy and sell orders matched through an order book. This method provides high liquidity for various cryptocurrencies and is suitable for transactions of different sizes. Exchange transactions are transparent and publicly recorded, allowing for market visibility, although there is the possibility of price slippage, especially as large trades need to be completed at multiple price levels. The standardized environment for exchange trading has fixed rules and procedures to ensure the standardization of transactions. Due to the protection of a centralized platform, the counterparty risk of exchange transactions is lower, and the security measures adopted by the exchange also provide users with higher security, although they may become targets of hackers. Exchange trading is usually regulated, provides additional protection but may have trading restrictions, and its user-friendly interface and additional features such as market analysis tools, trading robots, etc., improve the ease of use of trading.

However, exchange trading also faces some challenges, such as the platform may be subject to regulatory restrictions, making it inaccessible to users in certain regions. In addition, since transactions need to follow strict KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) regulations, this may affect users’ transaction privacy. For some traders, the exchange’s fee structure is also a consideration, as this may increase trading costs. Overall, exchange trading is more suitable for retail investors and traders of all sizes who are looking for a convenient and standardized trading environment.

To sum up, OTC trading and exchange trading each have their own advantages and disadvantages, and which method to choose mainly depends on the specific needs and preferences of the trader. OTC trading is an ideal choice for those who need to handle large transactions and value privacy and flexibility. For those traders who want to enjoy high liquidity, security and a user-friendly interface, exchange trading is more suitable. By understanding the differences between these two trading methods, traders can make more informed choices based on their own circumstances to achieve the best trading results.

The following is a visual comparison of the pictures.

Comparison of Cryptocurrency OTC Trading Regulatory Frameworks

In terms of cryptocurrency regulation, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United States each have their own unique regulations and regulatory environments. The following is a summary of the cryptocurrency regulatory frameworks of these three countries/regions.

1. Hong Kong

Hong Kong’s cryptocurrency regulation is under the responsibility of the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC). The main regulations include the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Ordinance (AMLO). In Hong Kong, virtual asset trading platforms (VATP) require compulsory licensing, a pending licensing system, and strict compliance requirements. In terms of anti-money laundering, Hong Kong must comply with the anti-money laundering regulations stipulated by AMLO, focusing on customer asset protection and KYC processes. The SFC regulates over-the-counter trading activities and VATP must adhere to strict regulatory standards to protect customers. In terms of recent developments, Hong Kong has strengthened supervision under AMLO, focusing on compliance and investor protection, and intercepting funds from illegal channels. Facing future challenges, Hong Kong needs to balance market development with investor protection and ensure that the regulatory environment adapts to the changing market.

Currently, cryptocurrency exchange shops in Hong Kong are very active, and many shops provide over-the-counter (OTC) services. These transactions usually involve large amounts of funds, and customers can buy and sell virtual assets in the store with cash or other forms. Currently in Hong Kong, basically anyone can open an OTC virtual asset store, which leaves certain loopholes in Hong Kong’s current virtual asset regulatory framework.

On February 8, 2024, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (FSTB) of Hong Kong launched a public consultation aimed at establishing a licensing system for over-the-counter virtual asset trading services. Under the proposal, OTC operators would need to apply for a two-year license from Hong Kong Customs. After obtaining a license, persons engaged in virtual asset trading can only exchange virtual assets available on at least one Hong Kong-approved trading platform. FSTB plans to submit a bill on the OTC virtual asset licensing system to the Legislative Council as soon as possible.

• The main requirements for OTC virtual asset business operators include:
• If you operate a physical OTC virtual asset business: have a suitable business location in Hong Kong;
• If you operate an online OTC virtual asset business: have a management office and mailing address in Hong Kong and where books and records are stored;
• employ at least one qualified compliance officer;
• employ at least one qualified anti-money laundering reporting officer;
• have a suitable corporate structure and be run by experienced and knowledgeable personnel Business;
• Run the business with honesty, fairness and diligence;
• Implement appropriate risk management measures, including policies and procedures on AML/CFT;
• Maintain records of transactions and fund flows and provide relevant wallets used by the business complete list.

According to the proposal, OTC virtual asset businesses that have obtained a license from the Hong Kong Customs will not be allowed to convert between virtual assets, but will be allowed to provide conversion services between virtual assets and legal currencies. If your business requires conversion between legal currencies, you will also need to obtain a Money Service Operator license in Hong Kong.

These proposals also provide protection measures for retail investors. OTC virtual asset businesses must not provide virtual assets that retail investors cannot buy and sell on VATP licensed by the SFC, nor may they provide stablecoins that are not licensed by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) Virtual assets issued by the issuer. For persons who qualify as professional investors in Hong Kong, these restrictions do not apply.

After the proposal comes into effect, existing OTC virtual asset businesses will need to act within a six-month transition period. During this period, they can only continue to operate if they submit a license application within three months of the transition period.

2. Singapore

Singapore’s cryptocurrency regulation is handled by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and is mainly regulated in accordance with the Payment Services Act (PSA). Any platform that provides the facility for OTC trading of crypto-assets may be deemed to provide cryptocurrency services and be regulated by the PSA. For example, the following cryptocurrency-related services are currently regulated as cryptocurrency service providers under the PSA:

• 암호화폐 구매 또는 판매
• 암호화폐 거래소 설립 또는 운영
• 발행자의 암호화폐 제공 및/또는 판매와 관련된 금융 서비스에 참여 및 제공
• 암호화폐 주소에서 암호화폐 양도 또는 전송 ;
• 암호화폐를 구매하거나 판매하도록 누구에게나 안내(또는 안내를 시도)합니다(암호화폐 서비스 제공업체가 실제로 자금이나 DPT에 액세스할 수 없음).

회사가 싱가포르에서 암호화폐 서비스를 제공하는 경우 다음 두 가지 주요 유형의 라이선스 중 하나를 취득해야 합니다: (i) 표준 결제 기관 라이선스(표준 결제 기관 라이선스) 또는 (ii) 주요 결제 기관 라이선스( 주요 결제 기관). 표준 결제 라이선스의 경우 지정된 기준은 연간 최대 월 S$300만 S$의 암호화폐 거래를 수락, 처리 또는 실행하는 것입니다. 반면, 기업이 거래량이나 자금 한도 없이 암호화폐 서비스를 제공하려는 경우에는 주요 결제 기관 라이선스를 신청해야 합니다. 이는 암호화폐 서비스를 통한 모든 거래의 월 평균 총 가치가 연간 300만 달러 기준을 초과하는 경우 회사에 주요 결제 기관 라이센스가 필요하다는 것을 의미합니다. PSA가 결제 서비스 거래를 보호하기 위한 것임을 고려할 때 암호화폐 서비스 제공 라이센스를 신청하는 과정은 매우 길고 번거로울 수 있습니다.

자금 세탁 방지 측면에서 PSA는 AML/CFT 절차 준수, 엄격한 고객 실사 및 거래 모니터링을 요구합니다. MAS는 PSA에 따라 OTC 거래를 규제하여 시장 조성자와 OTC 플랫폼이 특정 요구 사항을 갖도록 보장합니다. 최근 개발 측면에서 MAS는 관할권 내 서비스 준수를 강조하면서 더욱 엄격한 DPT 서비스 제공업체 규정을 도입했습니다. 앞으로 싱가포르는 혁신을 촉진하는 동시에 암호화폐와 관련된 위험을 해결하기 위해 규제 명확성을 추구할 것입니다.

3. 미국

미국의 암호화폐 규제는 증권거래위원회(SEC), 상품선물거래위원회(CFTC), 금융범죄단속네트워크(FinCEN) 및 미국 국립은행감독국(OCC).

이러한 기관의 감독 하에 암호화폐 거래 플랫폼과 OTC 거래자는 엄격한 규정과 요구 사항을 따릅니다.

첫 번째, 암호화폐 거래 플랫폼은 FinCEN에 자금 서비스 사업자(MSB)로 등록해야 하며 고객 신원 확인, 거래 모니터링, 의심스러운 활동 보고(SAR)를 포함한 포괄적인 자금 세탁 방지 및 고객 파악 조치를 구현해야 합니다. 이러한 조치는 자금 세탁 및 테러 자금 조달을 방지하고 거래 플랫폼이 규제 표준을 준수하도록 하기 위해 고안되었습니다.

둘째, SEC는 증권과 관련된 암호화폐 거래를 규제할 책임이 있습니다. 암호화폐가 증권으로 간주되는 경우 거래 플랫폼은 등록 및 공개 요구 사항을 포함하여 SEC의 증권 규정을 준수해야 합니다. 반면 CFTC는 비트코인 ​​및 이더리움 선물 계약과 같은 상품으로서의 암호화폐 거래를 규제합니다. 거래 플랫폼은 시장 투명성과 공정성을 보장하기 위해 관련 상품 선물 규정을 준수해야 합니다.

최근 몇 년 동안 SEC와 CFTC는 암호화폐 시장에 대한 감독을 강화하기 위해 지속적으로 지침 문서를 발행하고 관련 규정을 시행해 왔습니다. 이러한 조치는 투자자 보호 및 시장 무결성에 중점을 둘 뿐만 아니라 빠르게 진화하는 디지털 자산 분야에서 명확한 규제 프레임워크를 구축하는 데도 중점을 두고 있습니다.

Im Hinblick auf die jüngsten regulatorischen Entwicklungen für virtuelle Vermögenswerte in den Vereinigten Staaten wird der kalifornische Digital Financial Assets Act (DFAL) offiziell am 1. Juli 2025 im nächsten Jahr in Kraft treten. DFAL wird „digitale Finanzanlagen“ regulieren und von Unternehmen, die „Geschäftsaktivitäten mit digitalen Finanzanlagen“ betreiben, verlangen, eine Lizenz vom California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) zu erhalten, es wird jedoch bestimmte Ausnahmen geben, ähnlich wie bei der New Yorker BitLicense. Um eine BitLicense zu erhalten, muss ein umfassender Antrag beim New York State Department of Financial Services eingereicht werden, der die Bereitstellung detaillierter Informationen über Geschäftsabläufe, Compliance-Richtlinien, Anti-Geldwäsche-/Know-Your-Customer-Verfahren, Cybersicherheitsmaßnahmen usw. umfasst. und Finanzlage.

Sobald das kalifornische DFAL in Kraft tritt, müssen in Kalifornien tätige OTC-Kryptowährungshändler lizenziert werden, ebenso wie andere Unternehmen, deren Geschäfte die folgenden Kategorien umfassen:

• Austausch oder Ausgabe digitaler Finanzanlagen: Austausch, Übertragung oder Speicherung digitaler Vermögenswerte Finanzanlagen oder die Ausgabe konvertierbarer digitaler Finanzanlagen.
• Elektronische Edelmetalle halten: Halten Sie elektronische Edelmetalle oder digitale Zertifikate im Namen anderer und geben Sie deren Anteil an Edelmetallen an, oder geben Sie Aktien oder digitale Zertifikate aus, die Anteile an Edelmetallen repräsentieren.
• Spielwährung/Token tauschen: Tauschen Sie Spielwährung oder Token aus, um entweder digitale Finanzanlagen vom Spiele- oder App-Herausgeber zu erwerben oder um echte Währung zu erwerben.

Mit DFAL wird Kalifornien nach New York und Louisiana der dritte Staat sein, der ein Lizenzierungssystem für Krypto-Assets einführt.

Zu den künftigen Herausforderungen für die Vereinigten Staaten gehören die weitere Stärkung der regulatorischen Transparenz, die wirksame Reaktion auf Marktmanipulation und Betrug sowie die Förderung technologischer Innovation und Marktentwicklung bei gleichzeitigem Schutz der Interessen der Anleger. Dies erfordert, dass verschiedene Regulierungsbehörden ihre Regulierungsrichtlinien kontinuierlich verbessern und gleichzeitig die Sensibilität für Marktveränderungen wahren, um die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Führung der Vereinigten Staaten auf dem globalen Kryptowährungsmarkt sicherzustellen.

Im Allgemeinen spiegeln sich die Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede in der Kryptowährungsregulierung zwischen Hongkong, Singapur und den Vereinigten Staaten in Regulierungsbehörden, rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen, Lizenzanforderungen, Anforderungen zur Bekämpfung der Geldwäsche, Aufsicht über den außerbörslichen Handel, jüngsten Entwicklungen usw. wider. und Herausforderungen und zukünftige Richtungen. Das regulatorische Umfeld und die Richtlinien in jeder Region haben unterschiedliche Schwerpunkte und spiegeln unterschiedliche Marktbedürfnisse und Regulierungsziele wider.

Das Folgende ist ein visueller Vergleich der Bilder.

Aussichten für den OTC-Handel mit Kryptowährungen

Wie bereits erwähnt, haben Hongkong, Singapur und die Vereinigten Staaten als globale Finanzzentren ihre eigenen Besonderheiten bei der Regulierung von Kryptowährungen und ihrem OTC-Handel. Im Folgenden analysieren wir detailliert die Aussichten und die Freundlichkeit dieser drei Regionen im außerbörslichen Handel.

1. Hongkong

Hongkong hat durch die Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) eine aktive regulatorische Haltung gegenüber dem außerbörslichen Handel mit Kryptowährungen (OTC-Handel) eingenommen und zeigt damit, dass es diesem Bereich große Bedeutung beimisst. Hongkong demonstriert sein Engagement für Anlegerschutz und regulatorische Klarheit im Rahmen des Lizenzregimes, das im Rahmen der Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Terrorism Fiscal Ordinance (AMLO) eingeführt wurde. Dieses System wird implementiert, um sicherzustellen, dass Marktteilnehmer in einem regulierten Umfeld agieren. Strenge Compliance-Anforderungen und der Übergang vom Non-Compliance-Zeitraum können für die Marktteilnehmer jedoch erste Herausforderungen darstellen, die eine Anpassung an das neue regulatorische Umfeld erfordern. Obwohl dieser Prozess komplex ist, wird er langfristig dazu beitragen, einen stabileren und glaubwürdigeren Markt aufzubauen.

Hongkong arbeitet hart daran, sich als reguliertes Zentrum für Kryptoaktivitäten zu positionieren, ein Schritt, der institutionelle Anleger anziehen könnte, die nach einer konformen Plattform suchen. Durch die Bereitstellung eines regulierten und transparenten Marktumfelds wird Hongkong voraussichtlich zu einem wichtigen Knotenpunkt für den Kryptowährungshandel in Asien werden und mehr internationale und lokale Investoren anziehen.

2. 싱가포르

결제 서비스법(PSA)에 따른 싱가포르의 규제 체계는 장외 거래와 관련된 디지털 결제 토큰(DPT) 서비스 제공업체에 대한 보호 조치를 강화하고 더 엄격한 감독을 부과하기 위해 발전하고 있습니다. 싱가포르 통화청(MAS)의 라이선스 및 규정 준수에 대한 엄격한 접근 방식과 최근 보관 책임에 대한 강조는 암호화폐 시장에 대한 싱가포르의 입장이 조심스럽고 지지적임을 보여줍니다. 이러한 조치는 시장 투명성과 보안을 강화할 뿐만 아니라 투자자의 신뢰도 향상시킵니다.

싱가포르는 엄격한 규제 감독과 혁신 촉진 노력을 결합하여 안전한 규제 환경에서 규정을 준수하며 운영하려는 기업에게 매우 매력적인 곳입니다. 엄격한 규제와 혁신 지원의 균형을 유지함으로써 싱가포르는 암호화폐 비즈니스가 성장할 수 있는 유리한 환경을 제공하여 아시아 태평양 지역 핀테크 혁신의 선두주자가 되었습니다.

3. 미국

미국의 암호화폐 OTC 거래 환경은 증권거래위원회(SEC)와 상품선물거래위원회(CFTC)의 이중 감독 및 반화폐 규제로 인해 복잡합니다. 금융 범죄 단속 네트워크(FinCEN)의 세탁 및 고객 파악 규정 준수 의무, 암호화폐 시장 참여자는 엄격한 규제 요구 사항에 직면합니다. 최근 몇 년 동안 증권 및 원자재 거래와 관련하여 어느 정도 규제가 명확해졌음에도 불구하고 엄격한 요구 사항과 간헐적인 규제 불확실성은 여전히 ​​새로운 시장 참가자에게 어려움을 초래할 수 있습니다.

많은 어려움에도 불구하고 미국 시장은 풍부한 유동성과 시장 성숙도로 인해 여전히 매력적인 시장입니다. 규정 준수 장애물이 극복되면 이러한 기능은 더 큰 기관 플레이어를 끌어들일 수 있습니다. 미국의 금융 시장의 정교함과 혁신적인 역량 덕분에 미국은 글로벌 암호화폐 시장에서 중요한 위치를 유지할 수 있었고, 대규모의 성숙한 시장에서 사업을 운영하려는 기업을 유치할 수 있었습니다.

전반적으로 싱가포르는 명확한 규제 프레임워크, 강력한 투자자 보호 조치, 금융 기술 혁신에 대한 지원 입장을 통해 더 넓은 암호화폐 OTC 활동을 유치할 것으로 예상됩니다. 홍콩과 미국도 각자의 규제 및 시장 개발 전략을 적극적으로 추진하고 있지만 각각 고유한 과제가 있지만 암호화폐 시장 참여자에게 서로 다른 기회와 환경을 제공하기도 합니다. 시장 참가자는 이러한 지역의 규제 특성을 이해하고 이에 적응함으로써 글로벌 진출 전략을 더 잘 계획할 수 있습니다.

요약

암호화폐에 대한 전 세계적 수용이 계속 증가함에 따라 홍콩, 싱가포르 및 미국은 글로벌 금융 중심지로서 암호화폐 및 OTC 거래 규제에 있어 다양한 전략과 이점을 보여왔습니다. 시장 참가자는 자신의 필요와 목표에 따라 레이아웃 및 개발에 가장 적합한 지역을 선택해야 합니다. 끊임없이 진화하는 글로벌 암호화폐 시장에서 기회를 포착하고 지속 가능한 성장을 달성하려면 현지 규제 역학을 이해하고 적응하는 것이 중요합니다.

The above is the detailed content of Comparing the current status and prospects of cryptocurrency OTC trading supervision in Hong Kong, Singapore and the United States. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!