South Korean cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb has reportedly won first-instance rulings in two lawsuits against its users to recover proceeds from Bitcoin it mistakenly credited to their accounts.

The Seoul Central District Court ruled for Bithumb on Wednesday and Thursday in two of four lawsuits against users who sold Bitcoin mistakenly credited to their accounts, according to a Chosun Biz report.

Thursday’s ruling concerned a claim for 194 million won ($140,000), while Wednesday’s covered a claim for 5 million won ($3,600). Two other lawsuits seeking about 14.8 million won ($10,700) and 500 million won ($362,000) remain pending.

Both cases proceeded through service by public notice because court documents could not be delivered to the defendants through ordinary methods, the report said.

The reported rulings advance Bithumb’s efforts to recover funds from its February error, when the exchange mistakenly credited 620,000 BTC, worth more than $40 billion at the time.

Bithumb goes after Bitcoin sale proceeds

Bithumb said the error occurred during a promotional event on Feb. 6, 2026, when it planned to distribute 620,000 won, or about $420 at the time, in rewards to 249 users. An employee mistakenly selected Bitcoin instead of Korean won as the payment unit and credited customer accounts with 620,000 BTC.

The exchange subsequently said it recovered 618,212 BTC, or 99.7% of the mistakenly credited amount. However, some users had already sold 1,788 BTC worth of the credited balances before Bithumb froze the affected accounts.

Related: Bithumb sets 2028 IPO timetable as it overhauls internal controls

Bithumb filed four unjust enrichment lawsuits in March against users who sold the mistakenly credited Bitcoin and did not return the proceeds. The company was reportedly seeking cash from those sales rather than Bitcoin.

FSS begins sanctions process over Bithumb error

South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) investigated Bithumb over the Feb. 6 Bitcoin error, focusing on how the exchange could credit customers with Bitcoin it did not hold. The regulator reportedly sent Bithumb an inspection opinion in early August, formally beginning sanctions proceedings, but no final penalty has been announced.

Cointelegraph approached South Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC), which oversees the FSS, for an update on the investigation and potential sanctions against Bithumb but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Bithumb has faced other legal scrutiny this year. South Korean police raided its offices in June as part of an unrelated investigation into alleged hiring favoritism involving lawmaker Kim Byung-ki, while the company is challenging a separate six-month partial business suspension over Anti-Money Laundering violations. A Seoul court stayed the suspension in April pending a ruling in Bithumb’s challenge.

Magazine: Korean bank taps Ripple for payments, Pakistan opens crypto licensing: Asia Express

Binance founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao backed Hong Kong as a potential Web3 and real-world asset hub during an August 27 book meeting in the city.

The event took place at Exchange Square in Central, according to the organizer. CZ discussed Hong Kong’s financial sector, tokenized securities and the development of decentralized exchanges. His comments represented personal forecasts rather than new Binance projects or investment commitments.

CZ says Hong Kong can connect finance with Web3

CZ said Hong Kong benefits from its status as a financial center, access to professionals from mainland China and established institutional relationships. He described Hong Kong and Web3 as a “powerful combination.”

He also named Dubai, Abu Dhabi and the U.S. as markets positioned to benefit from more supportive digital asset policies. These comments were assessments of their prospects. They did not include new licensing applications or expansion plans from Binance.

Hong Kong has introduced a broader regulatory structure covering exchanges, stablecoins and tokenized products. Its approach differs from mainland China, where authorities maintain tight restrictions on cryptocurrency trading and related activities.

The city’s policy direction has attracted financial institutions and asset managers. As crypto.news reported in its coverage of Hong Kong’s stablecoin and custody rules, regulators have sought to expand tokenized finance while retaining licensing and investor-protection requirements.

Hong Kong’s RWA market supports part of CZ’s forecast

CZ predicted that real-world assets would become a major area of Web3 development. He focused on tokenized securities, which can provide wider access beyond traditional market hours and national account systems.

He also described stablecoins as a form of RWA because they place claims linked to fiat currencies on blockchains. That description reflects a common industry classification, although the legal treatment of stablecoins differs between jurisdictions.

Hong Kong has already moved beyond small technical tests. The Securities and Futures Commission said 13 tokenized products were offered to the public as of March 2026. It subsequently introduced a framework covering tokenized products and their secondary-market trading.

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority is also operating EnsembleTX, the pilot phase of Project Ensemble. The pilot supports real-value transactions involving tokenized deposits and digital assets. It is scheduled to operate throughout 2026.

In related coverage, Franklin Templeton recently brought a tokenized U.S. government fund to HashKey, adding another distribution channel for regulated tokenized investments.

CZ expects DEX growth if U.S. pressure continues easing

CZ said decentralized exchanges have progressed from early platforms such as Uniswap and PancakeSwap to newer markets including Hyperliquid. He argued that better infrastructure and stronger user awareness have made DEXs more competitive.

He added that U.S. regulatory pressure appeared to have eased and said continued policy changes “may accelerate” DEX and broader crypto growth. That remains a forecast. Decentralized services can still face securities, commodities, sanctions and anti-money-laundering requirements, depending on their structure and operations.

The SEC and CFTC issued a joint crypto asset interpretation effective March 23. The agencies said clearer classifications could reduce perceived regulatory risk and encourage more U.S. activity. The document did not create a blanket exemption for DEX developers or interface operators.

Market data nevertheless show growing usage. As previously reported, DEX spot volume reached about 24% of covered centralized exchange volume in July. The comparison depends on the exchanges and methodology included.

Regulatory milestones will determine what happens next

Hong Kong’s next steps include implementing its tokenized product framework, continuing EnsembleTX and developing its licensed stablecoin market. Those programs will offer measurable evidence for or against CZ’s RWA forecast.

In the U.S., further SEC and CFTC rulemaking will determine whether decentralized platforms receive specific compliance routes. Until those rules are settled, claims that international DEXs can operate without full customer checks require jurisdiction-specific legal review.

Tokenized bank deposits—made possible by instant settlement and automated transfers—could destabilize bank funding and eventually raise borrowing costs for US households and businesses, according to an analysis by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

In a report by Rosie Levy and Srini Ramaswamy, the authors argue that technologies enabling deposits to move more quickly between banks would make funding portfolios more sensitive to interest-rate changes. They frame their work as scenario-based modeling rather than a forecast of immediate outcomes, but the conclusions add a new risk lens as the banking sector accelerates shared infrastructure for tokenized settlement.

Key takeaways

• The Dallas Fed economists warn that instant settlement could let depositors chase higher yields faster, increasing deposit “rate sensitivity.”
• In their scenarios, a 10% increase in deposit sensitivity to interest rates could reduce banks’ capacity to hold long-term loans and assets by about $700 billion in 10-year equivalents.
• A separate scenario—deposits staying at banks for 10% less time—could lower that capacity by about $580 billion (also in 10-year equivalents).
• The analysis emphasizes that the figures are not direct, dollar-for-dollar reductions in lending, but reflect changes in banks’ balance-sheet room over time.
• Banks are already building networks intended to move tokenized deposits around the clock while keeping funds within regulated banking channels.

Why tokenized deposits may change bank funding dynamics

Levy and Ramaswamy’s central point is that deposit behavior could shift if tokenized deposits make it easier—potentially near-instantly—for customers to move their money between institutions. They note that programmable “deposit tokens” and automation tools, including agentic artificial intelligence, could reduce the friction typically associated with switching banks.

That, in turn, could affect the stability of deposit funding—a key input for how banks manage long-term lending. Traditional banking relies on the assumption that many depositors do not change banks immediately when yields move. If tokenized settlement shortens the window in which deposits remain with a particular bank, banks may face funding profiles that respond more rapidly to interest-rate changes.

What the Dallas Fed model suggests—interest-rate sensitivity and liquidity trade-offs

To illustrate potential impacts, the economists quantify two hypothetical scenarios. First, they estimate the effect if deposits become 10% more sensitive to interest rates. In their modeling, that increased sensitivity could reduce banks’ capacity to hold long-term loans and other assets by roughly $700 billion, expressed in 10-year equivalents.

Second, they model a situation where deposits remain at banks for 10% less time. Under that scenario, the reduction in banks’ capacity to hold long-term assets is estimated at about $580 billion in 10-year equivalents.

Levy and Ramaswamy stress that these are scenarios designed to capture balance-sheet sensitivity; they do not claim a direct dollar-for-dollar drop in lending. Still, their work connects funding volatility to potential credit tightening pressures: if banks cannot rely on stable deposits, they may need to adjust asset and funding structures to manage risk.

How banks could respond: more liquidity, more wholesale funding

Rather than predicting an inability to lend, the report outlines likely adjustments banks might make when facing more volatile deposits. The authors suggest banks could increase holdings of highly liquid assets—such as reserves and US Treasurys—to ensure they can meet withdrawal or transfer demands.

They also point to the possibility of relying more heavily on term debt to sustain lending portfolios. However, the report indicates that funding loans through wholesale debt could increase credit costs for consumers and businesses, which is where the consumer impact implied by “higher credit costs” enters the analysis.

In other words, even if tokenized deposits do not immediately shrink lending totals, they may alter the cost and structure of funding in ways that propagate to borrowers over time.

Infrastructure is already moving: networks for tokenized deposits and real-world linking

The analysis lands as the banking industry builds mechanisms intended to support tokenized deposits and automated settlement. On Tuesday, 39 US state banking associations formed the BankChain Alliance to develop a nationwide network for tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and automated settlement. Separately, The Clearing House is developing another network backed by major banks including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, BNY, and Wells Fargo.

Beyond broad network planning, banks have also started connecting systems across institutions. On Aug. 20, Standard Chartered and HSBC reported completing a live cross-border transaction using Swift’s blockchain ledger, which linked their respective tokenized-deposit systems and recorded obligations prior to settlement through existing payment infrastructure.

This matters for the Dallas Fed’s thesis because the practical goal of these networks is to enable rapid, potentially continuous movement of deposits within the regulated banking perimeter. The more that implementation reduces settlement delays and operational friction, the more relevant the scenario of increased deposit mobility becomes.

Lessons from instant payments—comparisons and limits

To ground the discussion, Levy and Ramaswamy look to instant-payment systems as a partial analogy. They cite Brazil’s Pix, while noting that it is not identical to tokenized deposits. The report references a 2025 study from Brazil’s central bank that found heavier Pix usage was associated with banks holding more liquid assets and reducing credit intermediation.

That comparison doesn’t prove tokenized deposits will replicate Pix’s effects. But it supports the broader mechanism the Dallas Fed economists emphasize: when money moves faster and more easily, banks may rebalance toward liquidity and away from activities that require stable funding, at least relative to the counterfactual.

What to watch next

As tokenized-deposit networks advance from pilots to wider rollouts, the key unknown is how quickly depositors actually alter behavior when transfers become easier and settlement is effectively “always on.” Investors, borrowers, and regulators should watch whether banks respond primarily by shifting to more liquid asset buffers or by leaning more on term funding—both of which could influence credit conditions and the broader cost of capital.