Bagaimana pendekatan JVCEA di Jepang dan DAXA di Korea Selatan membentuk tata kelola industri kripto yang lebih disiplin? Dan apa yang bisa dipetik dari keduanya?

Pengantar Serial

“Global Crypto Governance” adalah seri reflektif yang membahas pendekatan berbagai negara dalam mengatur aset kripto. Tujuannya sederhana: memahami bagaimana prinsip tata kelola diterjemahkan menjadi praktik pengawasan yang efektif di era Web3.

Edisi pertama ini berfokus pada dua yurisdiksi Asia Timur yang menempati posisi unik dalam lanskap regulasi kripto global: Jepang dan Korea Selatan.

JVCEA – Jepang: Regulasi dari Industri, Untuk Industri

Setelah peretasan besar-besaran terhadap penyedia layanan perdagangan aset kripto Coincheck pada 2018—dengan nilai kerugian sekitar USD530 juta [1] dalam token NEM—otoritas Jepang bergerak cepat memperkuat pengawasan industri aset kripto. Pemerintah mengesahkan Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association (JVCEA) (dibentuk pada April 2018 [2]) sebagai self-regulatory organization (SRO) resmi pada 24 Oktober 2018, di bawah pengawasan langsung Japan Financial Services Agency (JFSA) [3].

Peran JVCEA

• Implementasi Travel Rule: JVCEA memainkan peran kunci dalam menerapkan dan menegakkan aturan Travel Rule sesuai standar The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) bagi anggotanya. Aturan ini mengharuskan exchanger untuk mengumpulkan, menyimpan, dan bertukar informasi mengenai pengirim dan penerima dalam transaksi aset kripto, efektif mulai 1 April 2022 [4, 5].

• Pembuatan aturan dan kebijakan: JVCEA bertugas menciptakan aturan, standar, dan kebijakan internal yang harus dipatuhi oleh anggotanya, terutama terkait kepatuhan (compliance), Anti Pencucian Uang (AML), dan perlindungan aset pelanggan [3]. Sebagai contoh, JVCEA memperkenalkan "Green List" yang mencakup aset kripto yang telah memenuhi kriteria tertentu, seperti telah diperdagangkan di tiga atau lebih exchanger kripto di Jepang dan telah terdaftar selama setidaknya enam bulan. Aset dalam daftar ini dapat diperdagangkan tanpa memerlukan peninjauan tambahan oleh JVCEA, sehingga mempercepat proses listing [6].

• Penegakan kepatuhan dan perlindungan investor: JVCEA memiliki wewenang untuk menegakkan aturan yang dibuatnya pada para anggota VASP di Jepang, dengan tujuan utama melindungi investor/pengguna dan menjaga integritas serta kepercayaan pasar aset kripto [3].

• Penghubung industri & regulator: JVCEA berfungsi sebagai jembatan penting antara regulator pemerintah (FSA) dan para pelaku industri (exchanger kripto), memfasilitasi komunikasi dan penerapan kerangka regulasi [3].

DAXA – Korea Selatan: Konsolidasi Tata Kelola oleh Exchanger

Di Korea Selatan, kebijakan pemerintah terhadap kripto semakin diperketat sejak runtuhnya Terra/Luna pada 2022. Sebagai respons, lima exchanger besar yang terdiri dari Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, dan Gopax membentuk asosiasi bernama Digital Asset eXchange Association (DAXA) [7]. Meskipun tidak setingkat SRO, DAXA didorong oleh Financial Services Commission (FSC) untuk menetapkan standar industri dan berfungsi sebagai badan konsultatif bersama serta berkolaborasi dengan pemerintah dan Majelis Nasional dalam pengembangan regulasi aset digital.

Peran DAXA

• Penetapan standar listing dan delisting token: DAXA bertugas merancang pedoman bersama untuk listing dan delisting aset kripto di lima exchanger utama Korea Selatan (Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, dan Gopax). Tujuan utamanya adalah menghindari kejadian delisting massal dan meningkatkan transparansi proses seleksi token yang layak diperdagangkan. Pedoman ini menjadi langkah awal menuju pembentukan praktik tata kelola yang terstandarisasi lintas platform, serta memperkuat kepercayaan investor [8].

• Peninjauan dan audit aset digital: DAXA juga menjalankan fungsi reviu teknikal terhadap aset digital, termasuk melakukan evaluasi keamanan dan kelayakan terhadap proyek-proyek kripto. Dalam beberapa kasus, audit ini menghasilkan keputusan delisting token karena kurangnya keterbukaan dari penerbit atau adanya risiko sistemik bagi pengguna. Kasus delisting token WEMIX dari WeMade oleh seluruh anggota DAXA menggambarkan kewenangan mereka untuk bertindak kolektif atas dasar perlindungan investor [9].

• Penguatan perlindungan investor dan kepercayaan pasar: DAXA didirikan sebagai respons terhadap runtuhnya ekosistem Terra/Luna tahun 2022, yang menyebabkan kerugian besar bagi investor ritel di Korea Selatan. Sejak itu, DAXA menjalankan fungsi preventif dengan menyelaraskan kebijakan di antara anggotanya guna memperkuat manajemen risiko dan membangun kembali kepercayaan publik terhadap pasar aset digital. Inisiatif ini dianggap penting oleh regulator dan publik sebagai bagian dari upaya stabilisasi industri kripto [10].

• Kolaborasi antar pelaku dominan pasar: Meskipun DAXA bukan SRO resmi, struktur dan fungsi kerjanya mencerminkan model tata kelola kolektif berbasis kolaborasi. Anggota DAXA secara sukarela menyepakati proses yang terkoordinasi dalam mengadopsi kebijakan standar serta bertukar data dan informasi yang relevan. Dengan mendominasi volume perdagangan kripto di Korea Selatan, aliansi ini berperan besar dalam membentuk arah regulasi pasar [7].

• Sinkronisasi kebijakan dan harmonisasi operasional: DAXA mengoordinasikan penerapan kebijakan lintas platform untuk menciptakan pengalaman pengguna yang konsisten serta mencegah arbitrase regulasi antar exchanger. Sebagai contoh, ketika satu anggota menilai bahwa token tertentu bermasalah, anggota lain akan melakukan evaluasi ulang dalam kerangka kerja yang telah disepakati [12].

• Fungsi penghubung antara industri dan regulator: Meskipun tidak secara eksplisit bertindak sebagai juru bicara industri seperti JVCEA di Jepang, peran DAXA berkembang menjadi penghubung informal antara para pelaku pasar dan otoritas seperti FSC dan KoFIU. Inisiatif-inisiatif kebijakan DAXA turut diperhatikan oleh regulator dalam penyusunan kerangka hukum baru terkait aset digital.

Analisis Perbandingan: JVCEA vs DAXA

Relevansi di Konteks Lain

Pendekatan Jepang dan Korea Selatan dalam membentuk struktur tata kelola bersama antara pelaku industri dan otoritas regulator menunjukkan satu hal: keterlibatan kolektif aktor pasar dalam pengawasan dapat membantu membangun kepercayaan publik dan memperkuat disiplin industri dari dalam.

Model seperti JVCEA dan DAXA juga menggambarkan bahwa mekanisme tata kelola tidak selalu bersumber dari regulator semata. Ketika pelaku industri memiliki kapasitas untuk menyusun standar internal dan menjalankan fungsi penilaian risiko bersama, ruang untuk pertumbuhan ekosistem yang sehat menjadi lebih terbuka—baik dari sisi inovasi maupun perlindungan pengguna.

Dalam berbagai yurisdiksi lain yang tengah mengembangkan kerangka pengawasan untuk aset kripto, kajian terhadap praktik seperti JVCEA dan DAXA dapat menjadi bahan pertimbangan lintas konteks, tanpa harus mereplikasi secara utuh bentuk kelembagaannya.

Referensi

[1] Y. Tsuchiya and N. Hiramoto, "How cryptocurrency is laundered: Case study of Coincheck hacking incident," Forensic Science International: Reports, vol. 4, p. 100241, Nov. 2021.

[2] G. Arora, "Cryptoasset regulatory framework in Japan," Available at SSRN 3720230, Oct. 27, 2020.

[3] Freeman Law, "Japan Cryptocurrency Law: Regulation and Legal Status," Freeman Law, [Daring]. Tersedia: https://freemanlaw.com/cryptocurrency/japan/. [Diakses: 3 April 2025].

[4] Sanction Scanner, "Cryptocurrency Regulations in Japan," Sanction Scanner Blog, [Daring]. Tersedia: https://www.sanctionscanner.com/blog/cryptocurrency-regulations-in-japan-492. [Diakses: 3 April 2025].

[5] Scorechain, "Crypto compliance Japan," Scorechain Resources, [Daring]. Tersedia: https://www.scorechain.com/resources/crypto-glossary/crypto-compliance-japan. [Diakses: 3 April 2025].

[6] Anderson Mōri & Tomotsune, Japan: Regulation of Cryptoassets and Stablecoins, Anderson Mōri & Tomotsune, Tokyo, Japan, 2023. [Daring]. Tersedia: https://www.amt-law.com/asset/res/news_2023_pdf/publication_0027426_ja_001.pdf. [Diakses: 3 April 2025].

[7] L. Min-hyung, "Korea's five crypto exchanges launch first alliance amid Luna fiasco," The Korea Times, Jun. 22, 2022. [Daring]. Tersedia: https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2025/03/602_331461.html. [Diakses: 3 April 2025].

[8] L. Wang, "South Korea’s DAXA Introduces Guideline for Re-examining 1,300 Cryptocurrencies," BeInCrypto, Jul. 2, 2024. [Daring]. Tersedia: https://beincrypto.com/daxa-crypto-guideline-mass-delisting-south-korea/. [Diakses: 3 April 2025].

[9] Ledger Insights, "Microsoft backed Wemade threatens fight re crypto token delisting," Ledger Insights, Nov. 29, 2022. [Daring]. Tersedia: https://www.ledgerinsights.com/wemade-crypto-token-delisting-microsoft/. [Diakses: 3 April 2025].

[10] Arc.ai, "DAXA leads altcoin review in South Korea, aims to boost investor confidence," Arc.ai Blog, [Daring]. Tersedia: https://www.arc.ai/blog/daxa-leads-altcoin-review-in-south-korea--aims-to-boost-investor-confidence. [Diakses: 3 April 2025].

[11] M. Jung, "State of the Korean crypto market," Presto Research, Jul. 16, 2024. [Daring]. Tersedia: https://www.prestolabs.io/research/state-of-the-korean-crypto-market. [Diakses: 3 April 2025].

[12] M. Jung, "Insight into the Korean crypto market: retail investors and regulatory gaps, enthusiasm and risks coexist," Bitget News, Jul. 17, 2024. [Daring]. Tersedia: https://www.bitget.com/news/detail/12560604101206. [Diakses: 3 April 2025].

This article presents a comparative analysis of how major jurisdictions regulate Web3 wallets. It draws insights from regulatory frameworks in the European Union (MiCA), the United States (FinCEN), Singapore (MAS), and Japan (JFSA).

Introduction: Between Principles and Practicalities

Web3 wallets promise full control over digital assets. Yet such control also raises a crucial question: what about responsibility? Wallets that were initially self-custodied are now facing pressure from regulators enforcing AML/KYC standards.

The four jurisdictions explored in this article reflect different legal strategies and priorities—whether it's efficiency, consumer protection, or privacy.

Comparative Overview of Web3 Wallet Regulations

Four Regulatory Approaches

1. 🟦European Union: Integration and Harmonization Across Borders

The EU's MiCA offers a unified regulatory framework across member states, incorporating passporting and robust AML/KYC. This approach seeks not only legal clarity but also fairness and financial stability in the long run [1].

• Strength: harmonized standards and legal certainty.

• Weakness: complex entry for smaller startups.

2. 🟥United States: Fragmentation and Flexibility

The U.S. adopts a more fragmented model. Custodial wallet providers are regulated as MSBs, but non-custodial wallets are treated as personal tools. FinCEN’s 2020 proposal to extend KYC to unhosted wallets was eventually withdrawn due to concerns over overregulation and privacy violations [2].

• Strength: room for non-custodial innovation.

• Weakness: potential regulatory arbitrage and inconsistency across states.

3. 🟩Singapore: Selective, Yet Strict on Fund Flow

MAS applies a well-defined but narrow approach. Non-custodial wallets are permitted only for first-party use, subject to verification. The use of whitelist mechanisms and transaction caps reflects a focus on controlling outbound flows without stifling innovation [3].

• Strength: clear structure with strong user protection.

• Weakness: restricts public use of open wallets, potentially affecting Web3 interoperability.

4. 🟨Japan: User Protection as Top Priority

JFSA emphasizes strong internal governance, including strict wallet storage policies (≥95% cold wallets) and independent audits. While non-custodial wallets remain outside the regulatory perimeter, exchanges must verify and monitor inbound/outbound transfers and smart contract security [4].

• Strength: robust defense against hacks and mismanagement.

• Weakness: regulatory overhead may deter new entrants.

Reflections: Is a Middle Ground Possible?

Four jurisdictions, four strategies. None are entirely “free,” nor completely “restrictive.”

Common themes begin to emerge:

• Custodial wallets are almost universally licensed and subject to AML/KYC

• Non-custodial wallets are cautiously allowed, but only when verifiable or indirectly supervised.

• Regulation does not reject Web3—it seeks to ensure wallets are not abused as blind spots in the financial system.

Conclusion

In the near future, we may see the emergence of a global minimum standard for Web3 wallets, built on:

• Protocol-level interoperability

• Auditable yet private ownership

• Compliance-by-design via MPC, attestations, or zero-knowledge proofs

If these principles are respected, decentralization and regulation do not have to be enemies—they can form the dual foundation of a healthy digital financial system.

References

[1] European Union, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA), Official Journal of the European Union, 2023

[2] U.S. Department of the Treasury - FinCEN, “Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Certain Business Models Involving Convertible Virtual Currencies,” FIN-2019-G001, May 2019

[3] Monetary Authority of Singapore, “Notice PSN02 – Prevention of Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism,” 2024

[4] Japan Financial Services Agency, “Multilateral Joint Research Project: Issues and Risk Assessment in Decentralized Finance (DeFi),” 2022

This article is a personal reflection on a simple experiment using a genetic algorithm (GA) for curve fitting. The original version was first published on Medium.

At First, It Felt Like Magic

When I first tried using a genetic algorithm (GA), it felt a bit like magic. Without any explicit information about the true form of the curve—just a population of random parameters and a basic evaluation function—the algorithm managed to approximate the shape with surprising accuracy.

I gave it no derivatives, no hints about the original function, and no directional clues. Yet the result was impressive. It was as if the algorithm could “guess” the hidden shape through a guided process of trial and error.

A Simple Problem That Prompted Deeper Thought

In this experiment, I generated a random target curve and tasked the GA with estimating the coefficients that would produce a similar shape. The algorithm worked purely based on how well its guesses fit the data, using a fitness function as the sole guide.

What struck me was that the GA worked well even without knowing whether the target function was differentiable. As long as we can define a reasonable fitness metric, the selection and evolution process can proceed.

When Evolution Becomes a Strategy for Optimization

This experience made me reconsider how we understand optimization. GA doesn’t directly seek the best solution; rather, it creates an environment where better solutions are more likely to survive and evolve.

Instead of an explicit, formula-driven algorithm, GA feels more organic—it filters, recombines, and lets possibilities emerge. Its approach is not prescriptive, but adaptive.

Should We Use GA for Everything?

Of course not. In terms of efficiency, GA is not the fastest, and in many cases, it can be outperformed by more conventional optimization methods. But for problems where the function structure is unclear, or derivatives are hard to compute, GA presents an interesting alternative.

Personally, I find GA suitable for early-stage exploration, especially when the problem space is ambiguous. And as a learning tool, it is intuitive and enjoyable—particularly because we can observe how solutions evolve generation by generation.

Additional Note

This article is also published on Mirror as part of an experiment to explore how technical reflections like this can live in Web3 platforms.

The original version of this article was first published on Medium:“Memahami Genetic Algorithm dari Permasalahan Curve Fitting Sederhana”

Thank you for reading.