Taiwan VASP bans cash transactions? Absurd reports stir community misunderstandings, media person points out five contradictions, calls for self-respect.

The prohibition of cash transactions on virtual asset platforms has sparked debates, with industry professionals, lawyers, and regulatory bodies each holding their positions. In response to recent misunderstandings and comments circulating, Max, the editor of "Encryption City," has put forward rebuttal viewpoints, stating that certain claims mislead readers and calling on the media to adhere to the principles of professional reporting. Due to the outrageous statements circulating in the market, the Financial Supervisory Commission has also stepped in to clarify misinformation.

( Dispel rumors, Financial Supervisory Commission explains the anti-fraud front: cash transactions in the virtual assets industry will be restricted, with new regulations set to be implemented as early as the end of June ).

VASP cash transactions are banned: to prevent money laundering and ensure transparency in capital flow.

Recently, it has been widely circulated in Taiwan's virtual asset industry that "the Financial Supervisory Commission requires platforms not to accept cash transactions," which has attracted market attention. It is reported that this incident originated from a letter issued by the Securities and Futures Bureau to the association on May 7, requiring platforms to avoid accepting cash for virtual asset transactions and to conduct transactions in a way that retains a record of cash flow. The association was also requested to draft self-regulatory norms and report back within one month.

The Financial Supervisory Commission's move is primarily aimed at preventing money laundering and fraud activities, reducing the risks brought by over-the-counter (OTC) transactions. Although the policy has not yet been concretely implemented, the exposure of the information has already sparked a series of discussions and speculations within the industry.

The cryptocurrency media citing the views of "anonymous experts" has sparked controversy, media personnel say: Don't just seek attention.

Max, the editor of "Encryption City", pointed out in a recent commentary that several media outlets have reported on this issue with discrepancies, particularly citing the views of multiple "anonymous operators" and "anonymous experts", and putting forward several points that are unacceptable within the industry.

He emphasized that as a media outlet, one should adhere to the principle of verification. If misleading statements are made merely to attract attention, it will damage the overall reputation and development of the virtual asset industry.

Is OTC trading a reasonable liquidity tool? It's fundamentally wrong to compare it to a company holding cash.

Some industry players argue that over-the-counter trading can provide liquidity to the market and should be regarded as equivalent to companies holding cash as reserve assets. However, Max pointed out that this analogy is too far-fetched.

He stated that companies hold cash to meet short-term funding needs, which is a form of asset retention, whereas OTC trading is asset exchange, and the nature is fundamentally different.

Over-reliance on OTC trading is the result of an inadequate risk control mechanism.

There is another saying that market makers and the platform maintain market liquidity through OTC trading. Max does not deny its short-term benefits but emphasizes that this is not a long-term solution.

He pointed out that if a liquidity gap arises due to the failure to complete compliance procedures, it is the platform's own internal risk control that should be reviewed, rather than simply blaming the regulatory authorities. Compliance requirements such as AML and KYC are in place to maintain the overall health of the market.

Prohibiting off-exchange trading does not mean that the value of the token cannot be determined.

Regarding whether a complete ban on over-the-counter trading would affect the determination of token value, it has become one of the controversies. Max believes that such concerns actually do not apply to the encryption market.

He pointed out that many popular on-chain tokens, such as Trump Coin and MOODENG, still have market value even if they are not listed on exchanges. This indicates that the value of tokens is not absolutely related to whether OTC trading exists; the core purpose of regulatory measures is still to prevent illegal activities, rather than to suppress market development.

Is it difficult to issue tokens in Taiwan? The "Ponzi cage" argument is an exaggeration.

Many people criticize the regulatory policies of the Financial Supervisory Commission for stifling innovation, even describing it as a "Ponzi cage." In response, Max stated that although Taiwan does have stricter reviews for listing virtual assets, the purpose of regulation is not to suppress, but to protect investors.

According to the Financial Supervisory Commission's "Guidelines for Virtual Asset Platforms and Trading Businesses," platforms need to review white papers, risk disclosures, and listing and delisting systems, which will increase the compliance burden on startups, but does not prohibit individuals or institutions from issuing tokens. He urged operators to actively participate in policy discussions rather than simply complaining about the harsh environment.

Using a securities phone order as a metaphor for encryption trading? Completely wrong.

Some media claim that since securities trading allows for phone orders, cryptocurrency should also open up a similar mechanism. Max strongly refutes this, pointing out that the phone orders of brokerage firms are subject to strict regulations such as recording for verification and prohibiting the use of communication software.

He believes that if virtual asset trading is compared in this way, it obviously overlooks the significant differences in market nature and regulatory background, which can easily mislead readers and practitioners.

The editor calls on: reporters should return to the facts, and operators should promote healthy innovation.

In conclusion, Max pointed out the core issue: when reporting on encryption regulatory policies, the media should uphold a spirit of verification and fact-orientedness, avoiding exaggeration or distortion of policy content for the sake of a position.

He quoted a classic line from the Japanese drama "News Anchor": "Are you saying this as a reporter today, or as a person?" to remind media professionals that they should start from the overall development of the industry, rather than just operating for traffic.

The industry needs to advance with both regulation and innovation, making the role of the media even more crucial.

The encryption industry is at a critical moment where policies are gradually becoming clearer. Whether it is operators, the media, or regulatory units, all need to strike a balance between legality and innovation. If facts cannot be clarified and communication strengthened, it will only deepen the market's sense of distrust and hinder Taiwan's global competitiveness in the encryption industry.

The media bears the responsibility of information disclosure and public opinion construction. If it deviates from legal principles and takes a biased stance, it not only undermines society's trust in the industry but also causes encryption operators to stagnate in an environment lacking institutional recognition, making it difficult to achieve maturity and normalization.

This article Taiwan VASP banned cash transactions? Outrageous reports provoke misunderstandings in the community, and media people point out five contradictions and call for self-respect First appeared in Chain News ABMedia.