Decentralized perpetuals exchange Trade.xyz said it will reimburse traders liquidated when its SK Hynix perpetual futures contract crashed 19% late on Monday, a loss the company attributes to a single executed trade on a thin Korean pre-market venue rather than any failure in its systems.

The mark price, the reference figure used to calculate profits, losses and liquidations, fell from about $1,128 to $917 at 23:01 UTC on July 27, according to the company. The print came from an executed trade relayed by multiple independent data providers, and the data point feeding the contract was tracking what Trade.xyz called the primary Korean pre-market venue.

“The oracle system worked as intended according to its specification,” the company said. Nothing malfunctioned and nobody manipulated anything, on the evidence so far

The oracle, a tool that fetchs data from outside points to within a blockchain-based system, faithfully reported a real trade on a market thin enough that one order moved the price nearly a fifth, and the contract liquidated positions accordingly.

Trade.xyz said covering the losses is a one-time discretionary decision rather than a commitment to do so again, with eligibility rules to follow and payouts expected within days.

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams rejected claims on July 28 that the decentralized exchange’s newly activated v4 protocol fees reduce liquidity providers’ existing earnings. 

He said critics had misunderstood how the charge is calculated after governance approved the change.

The response followed the execution of Proposal 100 on July 27. The vote received 46.6 million UNI in support and 1.27 million against, clearing the 40 million UNI quorum. It activated the fee-controller system on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, BNB Chain, Polygon, OP Mainnet and Robinhood Chain.

Uniswap v4 fees are additive under the new design

Adams used a pool charging traders 30 basis points as his example. Under the approved curve, LPs continue earning 30 basis points, while the protocol adds five basis points. Traders therefore pay a combined fee near 35 basis points. The protocol’s five-basis-point portion equals about 14% of that total, not 25% of the LP fee stream.

Uniswap v4’s published code supports that distinction. The Pool contract describes the total swap charge as the LP fee plus the protocol fee. It calculates the protocol amount separately and routes the remaining fee growth to liquidity providers. The exact charge varies because v4 supports hooks and dynamic pool fees.

In addition, the proposal created a V4FeePolicy contract to classify pools and calculate charges, alongside a V4FeeAdapter that applies governance rules and sends collected assets to TokenJar contracts. For ordinary static pools, the policy uses a curve tied to the LP fee. Aggregator-hook pools use separate fixed rates.

Not every participant accepted the design. Panoptic founder Guillaume Lambert argued during the governance discussion that taking 10% to 25% of fees could weaken LP returns and push capital toward competing automated market makers. He called for protocol charges to depend on whether LP positions were already profitable. That criticism treated the charge as a reduction to LP income, while Adams’ response focused on v4’s additive implementation.

Adams also criticised a rival Uniswap fork that routes all swap fees away from LPs and uses token emissions allocated through voting to compensate them. He did not name the protocol in the July 28 post. His comparison was separate from the technical question of how Uniswap v4 divides fees.

Uniswap says previous fees did not drive liquidity away

Uniswap Labs said earlier fee activations on v2 and v3 had not produced a broad liquidity exit. Its July 18 governance response said Ethereum’s 25 largest fee-enabled v3 pools retained 98.5% of their pre-activation liquidity in token terms. It also said protocol fees funded about 7.5 million UNI in burns since December.

Those figures came from Uniswap Labs and have not yet established how v4 providers will respond. V4 pools can use customised hooks, dynamic pricing and different strategies, so their economics are not identical to v3. Labs said governance could submit another proposal to adjust rates if the new charges were not well tolerated.

DefiLlama listed Uniswap’s combined total value locked at about $3.06 billion on July 29. The dashboard also showed $88.4 million in gross fees over 30 days and about $3.36 million in protocol revenue. Those totals cover multiple Uniswap versions and chains rather than only the newly activated v4 pools.

More v4 fee activation and monitoring comes next

Fees collected through the new system move into TokenJar contracts. Searchers can claim those assets by providing and burning UNI through the protocol’s Firepit mechanism. Fees generated on supported layer-2 networks are connected to burns on Ethereum mainnet.

As crypto.news previously reported, the broader UNIfication programme began with a 100 million UNI treasury burn and protocol-fee collection across v2 and v3 deployments. In related coverage, crypto.news examined how Robinhood Chain activity increased Uniswap’s fee base before the v4 vote.

The executed proposal covers the first group of v4 deployments. Its text says Celo, Soneium, World Chain, X Layer and Zora require a later proposal because Uniswap’s governance contract limits the number of executable actions in one vote. No filing date has been announced for that second vote.

The next measurable test will be whether affected pools retain liquidity and trading volume after the charges begin accumulating. Governance can change individual pool overrides, fee-family rules or the underlying policy contract. Adams’ post settles the intended fee arithmetic, but LP behaviour will determine whether the model remains competitive.

South Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC) is reportedly preparing to work with the ruling Democratic Party on a consolidated “Digital Asset Basic Act,” aiming to unify the country’s fragmented crypto and stablecoin rulemaking after months of legislative delays. The plan comes as multiple bills remain stuck in Parliament and key policy disagreements continue to stall progress on a second-stage regulatory framework.

Separately, lawmakers are also moving toward reviewing an opposition-backed proposal to repeal South Korea’s planned crypto income tax before it takes effect on Jan. 1, 2027. That effort, along with earlier petitions, adds to the uncertainty around how and whether the tax regime will ultimately be implemented.

Key takeaways

• The FSC intends to draft a consolidated Digital Asset Basic Act with the ruling Democratic Party, potentially replacing or coordinating today’s patchwork of crypto and stablecoin bills.
• At least 10 separate digital asset and stablecoin bills are currently pending, but disputes have prevented resolution of crucial details for the next phase of regulation.
• Major unresolved issues include whether won-denominated stablecoin issuers must be majority-owned by banks and whether ownership limits should apply to large crypto exchanges.
• An opposition proposal to eliminate the crypto income tax before its Jan. 1, 2027 deadline is expected to be considered by committee structures, though review dates are not yet set.

FSC signals a consolidated legal framework for crypto and stablecoins

According to an Edaily report published Wednesday, the FSC informed the National Assembly ahead of a policy briefing that it intends to pursue a consolidated bill jointly with the ruling Democratic Party. The move is designed to establish a government-backed core framework for negotiations across the digital asset sector, particularly stablecoin issuance and circulation.

If advanced, the consolidated proposal would reportedly cover a broad set of regulatory topics, including rules for digital asset businesses, requirements for exchange entry, disclosure obligations, internal controls, and standards tied to system resilience. By centralizing these elements, the FSC appears to be targeting a common complaint among market participants: overlapping and inconsistent requirements emerging from separate bills.

Right now, South Korea has multiple legislative tracks for crypto and stablecoins. The same Edaily report says 10 separate digital asset and stablecoin bills are already pending, and that disagreements have prevented the country from settling key components of its second-stage crypto legislation.

What remains disputed: stablecoin issuer structure and exchange ownership limits

Despite the FSC’s reported plan to draft a consolidated act, the timing and method for introducing the bill have not been finalized, and crucial policy fights remain unresolved.

As the Edaily report notes, one major point of contention involves won-denominated stablecoin issuers. Regulators and lawmakers appear to be split on whether those issuers should be majority owned by banks, a structure that would effectively tie stablecoin minting power to traditional banking oversight. Another dispute centers on whether ownership limits should apply to major crypto exchanges, an issue that could significantly shape how capital and corporate control are distributed across the ecosystem.

For investors and operators, these unresolved questions matter because they influence both compliance planning and competitive dynamics. Issuer ownership rules determine who can practically obtain approval and how quickly market actors can scale. Exchange ownership limits, meanwhile, can affect the flow of liquidity and the incentives around custody, trading venues, and market-making—areas that are often central to stablecoin usage patterns.

At present, the FSC has not set a clear timetable for when the consolidated bill will be formally introduced, leaving the market to watch for further legislative signals from the FSC and the ruling party.

Opposition targets crypto tax—review expected, but not scheduled

On the tax front, separate action is underway in the National Assembly. The Finance and Economic Planning Committee was scheduled to table an opposition bill on Wednesday that seeks to abolish South Korea’s crypto income tax before it begins on Jan. 1, 2027.

The income tax amendment was introduced on March 19 by People Power Party lawmaker Song Eon-seok, according to earlier coverage by Cointelegraph in connection with the proposal to scrap the crypto tax. The bill aims to remove the provision that taxes income from transferring or lending digital assets. After being tabled, it is expected to move to the committee’s tax subcommittee for detailed consideration, Edaily reported in a separate article: Edaily (May) coverage.

In parallel, a separate repeal petition backed by more than 50,000 people is also expected to be routed to a petitions subcommittee. However, according to the Edaily reporting cited in the original coverage, the relevant subcommittees have not yet been fully constituted, and no review dates have been announced.

Why the crypto tax debate is still live despite prior confirmation

From Jan. 1, 2027, the planned tax framework would apply to annual crypto income from transferring or lending above 2.5 million won (about $1,700), at a rate of 20% plus a 2% local income tax. Supporters of the regime—namely the government and the ruling Democratic Party—argue for implementing the tax as scheduled.

Opposition lawmakers, however, contend that taxing crypto income while many traditional stock investors remain exempt is inequitable. The broader dispute is therefore less about whether crypto should be taxed at all, and more about whether the tax treatment aligns with how other asset classes are treated under South Korea’s current tax code.

Earlier, South Korea’s Finance Ministry signaled that the crypto tax would proceed after repeated delays, which means the repeal bill could become one of the key tests of how quickly political disagreement translates into legislative change. Earlier coverage by Cointelegraph said the tax would go ahead following those delays.

For market participants, the practical question is whether committee-level review and possible revisions could still alter—or unwind—the January 2027 implementation timeline. With no review dates set for either the subcommittee handling the income tax repeal bill or the petitions process, the near-term path to a definitive outcome remains unclear.

As South Korea works on a consolidated stablecoin-and-crypto regulatory baseline while simultaneously debating the crypto tax’s future, the next signals to watch are the draft Digital Asset Basic Act’s scope and timing, and whether opposition efforts on tax repeal progress into committee decisions that could credibly challenge the existing plan for 2027.

South Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC) is reportedly preparing to consolidate fragmented crypto rules into a single, government-backed legislative package in coordination with the ruling Democratic Party, according to an Edaily report published Wednesday. The move comes after months of delays and renewed uncertainty over how stablecoins and the broader digital-asset market will be regulated under the country’s next phase of crypto legislation.

Separately, lawmakers are also set to consider an opposition proposal to repeal the planned crypto income tax before it takes effect in 2027—an effort that could become another flashpoint in South Korea’s evolving policy debate around digital assets.

Key takeaways

• The FSC reportedly plans to work with the ruling Democratic Party on a consolidated Digital Asset Basic Act covering stablecoins and wider market conduct.
• South Korea currently has multiple separate bills pending in Parliament, but unresolved disagreements have delayed progress on its second-stage crypto framework.
• Major outstanding disputes include whether won-denominated stablecoin issuers must be majority bank-owned and whether limits should apply to ownership of major crypto exchanges.
• An opposition bill aims to abolish South Korea’s planned crypto income tax prior to its Jan. 1, 2027 start, and is expected to move to committee review.

A consolidated Digital Asset Basic Act enters the policy lane

According to Edaily, the FSC told the National Assembly ahead of a policy briefing that it intends to introduce a single consolidated bill rather than continue advancing a patchwork of proposals. The rationale, as implied by the report, is to create one central framework that lawmakers can negotiate against—potentially reducing the gridlock created by overlapping and separate draft measures.

The proposed framework would reportedly address a broad set of issues that have become common regulatory themes in South Korea’s digital-asset discussions. Edaily reports that the consolidation would cover stablecoin issuance and circulation, rules for digital-asset businesses, exchange entry requirements, disclosure obligations, internal controls, and system-resilience standards.

At present, 10 separate digital asset and stablecoin bills are already pending in Parliament. The same Edaily reporting indicates disagreements have blocked progress on crucial components of South Korea’s second-stage crypto legislation—leaving stakeholders without a clear, unified rulebook.

Disputes that could determine the shape of stablecoin regulation

While the FSC has not finalized timing or the exact form of how the consolidated bill will be introduced, Edaily points to specific disagreements that remain unresolved. Two issues stand out as likely to shape the final outcome.

First, the debate over whether won-denominated stablecoin issuers should be majority owned by banks remains unsettled. That question has direct implications for how stablecoin risk and reserve oversight would be structured, and whether issuance would effectively be channeled through institutions already embedded in South Korea’s financial system.

Second, lawmakers are also divided on whether ownership limits should apply to major crypto exchanges. That dispute matters for market concentration and conflicts of interest—particularly if exchange-linked entities can influence the stablecoin ecosystem or market access rules.

Because these decisions are described as unresolved, the consolidated approach may not immediately resolve uncertainty for market participants. Instead, it could shift negotiations from parallel bills into a single legislative vehicle—making the eventual compromises more visible, but not necessarily faster.

Opposition seeks to scrap the crypto income tax before it starts

While stablecoin and exchange regulation appears to be moving toward consolidation, South Korea’s tax policy is also entering a new round of legislative scrutiny. Separately, Edaily reported that the National Assembly’s Finance and Economic Planning Committee was scheduled to table an opposition bill on Wednesday aimed at abolishing South Korea’s crypto income tax before its planned Jan. 1, 2027 implementation.

The Income Tax Act amendment was introduced on March 19 by People Power Party lawmaker Song Eon-seok, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph. The proposal seeks to delete a provision that would tax income derived from transferring or lending digital assets. After being tabled, Edaily reports that the bill is expected to be sent to the committee’s tax subcommittee for detailed consideration.

In parallel, a separate repeal petition backed by more than 50,000 people is expected to go before a petitions subcommittee, though Edaily notes that neither subcommittee has been fully constituted and no review dates have been set.

What the tax schedule says—and why the repeal fight matters

The planned taxation framework starts on Jan. 1, 2027. As described in the source reporting, income from transferring or lending crypto exceeding 2.5 million won (about $1,700) annually is set to face a 20% income tax plus a 2% local income tax.

Support for implementing the tax has been attributed to the government and the ruling Democratic Party, while the opposition’s position is that taxing crypto income while most ordinary stock investors remain exempt is unfair. In May, the Finance Ministry indicated the tax would proceed after repeated delays, as noted in Cointelegraph coverage, underscoring that the issue is not simply theoretical—it is tied to a concrete start date.

From an investor and market-structure standpoint, the repeal effort is significant because tax rules can influence participation patterns, custody and lending behavior, and how users route activity between exchanges and other venues. It can also affect how issuers and intermediaries plan compliance and reporting, especially when rules are introduced in advance of a hard start date.

What to watch next in South Korea’s crypto policy churn

For now, the most immediate developments are legislative: whether the FSC’s consolidated Digital Asset Basic Act framework moves from briefing to formal proposal, and how the opposition’s tax repeal bill progresses through the committee process. Readers should watch how the unresolved stablecoin disputes—bank-ownership requirements for won-denominated issuers and any exchange ownership limits—are ultimately translated into a single bill, while also tracking whether the crypto tax debate stays on course for 2027 or gains enough momentum to change its trajectory.

South Korea’s Financial Services Commission told the National Assembly ahead of a July 29 policy briefing that it plans to prepare a consolidated Digital Asset Basic Act with the ruling Democratic Party. 

The proposed framework would cover stablecoins, exchanges, disclosures, internal controls and system resilience.

Separately, the National Assembly’s Finance and Economic Planning Committee was scheduled to table an opposition amendment seeking to remove the crypto income tax before its Jan. 1, 2027 start date. Neither proposal has changed current law.

South Korea stablecoin bill would unify 10 proposals

The FSC’s planned bill would establish rules for stablecoin issuance and circulation, define digital asset businesses and regulate their conduct. It would also set exchange entry standards, disclosure requirements and controls intended to protect users and maintain reliable trading systems.

Ten digital asset and stablecoin bills are already pending in the National Assembly. The FSC now plans to coordinate a single government-ruling party proposal that could serve as the main text for negotiations. Chairman Lee Eog-weon previously told the government that digital asset legislation should be completed during 2026, including stronger anti-money-laundering rules for stablecoins.

The plan follows South Korea’s broader effort to create a full digital asset framework. The current Virtual Asset User Protection Act mainly addresses custody, unfair trading and user safeguards. The proposed second-stage law would regulate issuers, service providers and market structure more broadly.

Issuer ownership and exchange limits remain unresolved

The FSC has not completed the bill’s wording or announced a filing date. One central dispute is whether issuers of won-backed stablecoins must be controlled by bank-led consortiums holding at least 50% plus one share. The regulator has repeatedly said that issuer ownership rules have not been finalised.

The Bank of Korea supports giving banks a leading role, arguing that stablecoins could affect monetary and financial stability. In related coverage, crypto.news reported that the central bank also favours a statutory body involving several authorities. Industry participants and some lawmakers support allowing qualified non-bank issuers under licensing and reserve requirements.

Lawmakers must also decide whether ownership caps should apply to major exchanges. The FSC’s Virtual Asset Committee discussed bank-led issuance, ownership dispersion, exchange internal controls, computer-security standards and no-fault compensation in March, but the regulator did not settle those provisions.

Opposition moves to repeal the 22% crypto tax

People Power Party lawmaker Song Eon-seok introduced bill number 2217609 on March 19. It would delete the Income Tax Act provision covering income from transferring or lending digital assets. As crypto.news previously reported, the opposition argues that taxing ordinary crypto investors while most retail stock gains remain exempt is unfair.

Under current law, annual crypto income above 2.5 million won will face a 20% national tax and a 2% local income tax from Jan. 1, 2027. The tax has already been postponed three times since its original 2022 start date.

The government and ruling party support implementation. Tax officials have said the National Tax Service is preparing guidance and has established a dedicated digital asset unit. A separate repeal petition supported by more than 50,000 people is also awaiting committee review.

What happens next for both proposals?

The FSC must complete consultations with the ruling party and other authorities before submitting its consolidated bill. The 10 existing proposals would then be reviewed alongside the new text, with unresolved stablecoin ownership and exchange-shareholding rules likely to shape negotiations.

The tax repeal amendment is expected to move to the Finance and Economic Planning Committee’s tax subcommittee. The public petition would go to a separate petitions subcommittee. Neither panel had been fully constituted when the July 29 meeting was announced, and no review dates were available.

Unless lawmakers approve a repeal or another delay, the 22% tax will take effect on Jan. 1, 2027. No verified crypto-market price movement has been directly linked to the two legislative developments.

Ionic Digital shares rose 25.8% from their opening price during the company’s Nasdaq debut on July 28, closing at $62.90 after beginning public trading at $50. 

The closing price gave the Celsius-linked Bitcoin miner and AI infrastructure operator an equity value of approximately $2.83 billion.

The calculation is based on 44,921,427 Class A shares outstanding after the conversion of Ionic’s Series A preferred stock. It does not include potential dilution from warrants, restricted stock units or future issuances. 

Yahoo Finance showed the shares falling to $58.80 after hours, 6.5% below their regular-session close. Ionic has not issued a company statement about the first-day price move.

Ionic Digital rebounded from its $50 opening price

Nasdaq officially opened IOND at 11:58:52 a.m. Eastern Time through a cross involving 149,252 shares. The $50 opening price was 5.7% below Nasdaq’s $53 reference price, but the shares reversed course later in the session and finished 18.7% above that reference level.

Crypto security losses reached $1.1 billion across 212 verified incidents during the first half of 2026, according to an H1 report published by Blockaid on July 28. 

Blockaid described the six-month incident count as a record and said it verified more exploits during H1 than throughout 2025.

Cperational security attacks caused 74% of the stolen value, while one cluster associated with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea accounted for 55%. Blockaid also said the incident count was 3.4 times its 2025 total, though security companies use different definitions and coverage methods when compiling industry loss estimates.

Blockaid says operational failures drove crypto security losses

Blockaid’s figures point to a shift away from attacks that depend only on faulty smart-contract code. Compromised devices, privileged credentials, private keys, signing systems and off-chain infrastructure produced most of the measured losses. These attacks can generate valid-looking blockchain transactions because authorised credentials approve them.

That pattern reduces the protection offered by code audits alone. Audits can identify contract flaws, but they cannot stop a compromised administrator from signing a malicious transaction or prevent a bridge verifier from relying on poisoned infrastructure. Blockaid said new attack vectors emerged during H1 and warned that some could expand during the second half.

Ethereum and Solana suffered different attack patterns

Ethereum-related projects lost about $332 million, according to Blockaid’s report, with code vulnerabilities responsible for much of that total. The largest Ethereum-linked case was KelpDAO, where attackers released 116,500 rsETH worth roughly $292 million from a bridge contract after falsifying a source-chain message.

Solana-related projects lost about $326 million. More than 98% came from compromised keys and signing infrastructure rather than smart-contract bugs, Blockaid found. Drift Protocol and Step Finance accounted for most of that amount, while smaller code-related incidents affected projects including Raydium and Volo.

The network comparison does not establish that one blockchain is inherently safer. Instead, it reflects which applications were attacked and how their teams managed privileged access. A single large incident can also dominate a six-month network total.

KelpDAO and Drift dominated H1 theft

Chainalysis linked the April 18 KelpDAO attack to North Korea’s Lazarus Group. Its investigation found that attackers compromised internal RPC nodes and disrupted external nodes, causing a single-verifier system to accept a false burn event. The Ethereum-side bridge then released rsETH even though no corresponding tokens had been destroyed on the source chain.

As crypto.news reported, KelpDAO completed the operational phase of its recovery plan on May 25 after transferring a final 20,373.72 rsETH tranche into its bridge adapter. Minting, redemptions and rewards resumed, although litigation and disputed claims involving frozen funds remained unresolved.

Drift suffered a separate privileged-access attack on April 1. Chainalysis said attackers used months of social engineering and pre-signed durable-nonce transactions to gain administrative control. Drift’s April 16 recovery update valued stolen assets at $295.7 million, above the roughly $285 million early estimate used by Blockaid and several investigators.

In related coverage, crypto.news reported that Step Finance shut down after attackers compromised executive devices and drained up to $40 million from treasury-controlled assets. The company recovered about $4.7 million but said financing and acquisition talks did not produce a sustainable path forward.

Recovery continues while stolen funds remain active

Drift proposed a recovery pool supported by exchange revenue, Tether and other partners. Its plan included up to $127.5 million of proposed support from Tether, $20 million from other partners and a separate transferable recovery token. The protocol said its restart would require audits by OtterSec and Asymmetric, dedicated signing devices, timelocks and a redesigned multisig.

The theft remains an active on-chain case. As previously reported, a wallet tied to the Drift exploiter moved 23,095.1 Ether, worth about $44.4 million, into Tornado Cash between July 23 and July 24 after roughly three months of inactivity.

Blockaid expects teams to focus more heavily on transaction-intent checks, isolated signing devices, key segregation and monitoring across bridges and infrastructure. Those measures are company recommendations, not guarantees.

The next verified updates will come from Drift’s recovery-token terms and relaunch schedule, Step Finance’s remaining claims process, court proceedings tied to frozen KelpDAO funds and any asset seizures announced by law-enforcement agencies.