Prior to the set of sweeping bans that the government place on the industry in late 2017, the country stood as the nation with the highest BTC trading volume in the world; since the bans--which shut down domestic cryptocurrency exchanges and ended domestic ICOs, among other things--the country has still played a crucial role on the Bitcoin network in the form of hash power.
“Hash power” is the amount of computing power that is needed to solve cryptographic equations on the Bitcoin network. These equations stand as the basis for Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism--software that securely adds and confirms transactions onto Bitcoin’s ledger. Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism model is known as “Proof of Work.”
The process of solving these equations and adding the transactions onto the ledger is called mining--it is executed by individuals and companies that have roomfuls of elaborate and expensive equipment entirely devoted to solving these equations. In exchange for the cost of energy and equipment that these “miners spend to set up their “rigs”, they receive “block rewards” in the form of Bitcoins.
BTC’s mining power is centralized in China--but is that really an issue?
It is a well-known fact that the majority of hash power on the Bitcoin network is produced in China, and has been for quite some time. In December 2019, CoinShares Research reported that indeed, as much as 65 percent of BTC’s hash power resides in China.
“China… they really, through mining power control the Bitcoin blockchain,” Garlinghouse commented. “You have four miners in China that represent something like 60% plus of the mining capacity,” he continued.
Garlinghouse also mentioned that mining power on the Ethereum (ETH) network, which supports the second-largest cryptocurrency by market cap, is centralized in China. “80 percent of the mining capacity is based in China for both Bitcoin and Ether.”
“So, in many ways, I think China has been incredibly strategic about how they think about that,” he said.
A number of critics fired back on Twitter, target Garlinghouse’s use of the word “miners” instead of the phrase “mining pools”, which may have been more accurate.
"4 miners control 60% of bitcoins mining capacity?"
I think you meant 4 mining pools???
Perhaps, this was just the slip of the tongue?!
— Mati Greenspan (tweets ≠ financial advice) (@MatiGreenspan) February 17, 2020
Is there any truth to Garlinghouse’s claims? And even if China isn’t trying to take over Bitcoin and Ethereum, what risks does centralization pose to these networks?
Distribution of hash power is mainly between five entities, according to TokenAnalyst
According to recent research, it would seem that Garlinghouse is correct in his claims--at least about Bitcoin. The Bitcoin network’s hash power is centralized among several players in China is basically correct--although there isn’t much evidence to suggest that these mining entities are working together, or that the Chinese government is somehow using them to its advantage.
Indeed, research firm TokenAnalyst published a report in late January entitled “Centralisation in Bitcoin Mining: A Data-Driven Investigation”, in which it disclosed that “in 2020, bitcoin has also become a highly centralized system that places an increasing amount of trust in a small number of large entities.”
Specifically, this “small number of large entities” includes Antpool, Btc.com, Btc.top, F2pool, and Viabtc. According to Crunchbase, Antpool is based in China and owned by Bitmain, which is also based in China; BTC.com is headquartered in the Netherlands but is also "a part of" Bitmain. Btc.top is based in Shanghai, ViaBTC is based in Shenzhen, and F2Pool is based in Beijing.
Interestingly, the report also noted that “BitDeer announced a partnership with chip manufacturer Bitmain...who, by agreeing to collaborate, have a powerful way to ensure their AntMiner line of products are used by a cabal of major mining pools at a time when they appeared to be struggling.”
“[Because of] the level of co-operation and trust required to operate this mining model between the mining pools, Bitmain and BitDeer blurs the line between distinct entities.” In other words, Bitmain may be playing a larger role in holding power over these mining entities than it may seem at first glance.
Source: TokenAnalyst
The source of Ethereum’s hash power, however, is a little less well-researched. However, there has been evidence to suggest that hash power on the network is quite centralized, but not necessarily that the majority of Ethereum’s mining power is produced in China.
Money, money, money
Why is so much of BTC’s hash power being produced in China? The answer may come down to nothing more than cost.
Jake Yocom-Piatt, Co-Founder & Project Lead for cryptocurrency project Decred.org, told Finance Magnates that “the pattern has been that most miners are located in China because of economies of scale present within China and South East Asia.”
Jake Yocom-Piatt, Co-Founder & Project Lead for Decred.org.
Indeed, Yocom-Piatt explained that this region of the world “is where most of the GPUs and ASICs in use are fabricated.” GPUs and ASICs are pieces of hardware that are integral to Bitcoin mining.
“Since both Bitcoin and Ethereum have pure Proof-of-Work consensus systems, they are subject to the indirect centralization that results from the fabrication process for GPUs and ASICs,” Yocom-Piatt explained. “Only a handful of facilities around the world can manufacture GPUs and ASICs, which drives centralization of the operation of the ICs being fabricated.”
Additionally, the country offers “low prices for electricity (often in remote locations), it is cheaper to build, maintain and staff facilities in China.”
CoinShares’ December report also found that specifically, Bitcoin miners in China’s Sichuan region are responsible for 54 percent of the network’s global hash rate. This may be due to Sichuan’s rainy season, which, through hydroelectric power generators, produces more energy than the region can use.
“Bitcoin mining companies are officially prohibited but are tolerated in the Sichuan province during the wet seasons when hydropower stations generate more electricity than is required, utilizing the excess energy thanks to East Asia’s plum rain,” a CoinTelegraph report explained. This becomes an issue during the dry season when miners take more than their share of electricity.
Is centralization a legitimate security concern?
But how much should Bitcoin users be concerned about the fact that so much of the network’s hash power is being produced in just one country?
Beyond that, though, over-centralization can lead to “51% Attacks”--which is to say that if a single entity or a coordinated group of entities have control of more than half of the hash power on a blockchain, they can use that hash power to erase and rewrite transactions on a blockchain, which can effectively destroy a network.
However, it doesn’t seem like the possibility of a 51% Attack by Chinese mining entities is on the horizon.
“This fact is not as alarming as people make it out to be, though, for the following reasons. A spokesperson from cryptocurrency education firm CryptoVantage told Finance Magnates that “China [itself] is not directly in control of all of those computers."
“It is not the case that China has a harness or a method of driving these computers,” the spokesperson explained. “So the network is not under the threat of a 51% attack like many people like to think.”
Olga Feldmeier, chief executive of security token exchange firm Smart Valor, also commented during an interview with Finance Magnates in 2018 that she is not concerned about centralization on the Bitcoin network.
“To be honest, I used to be really worried about it–about two years ago, I was really checking the numbers to see which pool is connected to which pool and if they would ever reach 51 percent, [wondering] ‘will I lose all my Bitcoins?’”, she said.
Olga Feldmeier, chief executive of Smart Valor.
“But the way the Bitcoin network functions, there are certain incentives in the system,” she said, explaining that it’s not in the best interest of mining pools to manipulate the Bitcoin network. “All those miners, at the end of the day, their business depends upon this network being alive and working.”
“If they collude, and kill it, there will be no future avenues and no future business for them.”
Is a change in consensus mechanism the only way out of centralization?
And while the alarm bells over-centralization may have been rung once again in recent months, there are a number of analysts who will argue that centralization has been a problem since the beginning of Bitcoin--and will remain an issue as long as Bitcoin has a Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism.
“Bitcoin is roughly as centralized now as it was years ago when I showed up to the space in early 2013,” Jake Yocom-Piatt commented. Today, “a few ASICs manufacturers make all the miners, several Chinese outfits dominate the network hash rate, and several developers dominate the core software development process,” just as they did seven years ago.
Yocom-Piatt believes that if anything, the network has become more centralized: “a notable change with centralization in Bitcoin is that there used to be a narrative that Proof-of-Work (PoW) had sovereignty in the network, and this has since been replaced with the narrative that only developers and full node operators have sovereignty.”
Therefore, he believes that “the only way to make mining fairer (and more decentralized) is to use Proof-of-Stake (PoS),” another kind of consensus mechanism that doesn’t rely on purchasing and running roomfuls of expensive equipment in order to confirm transactions and earn rewards.
However, Yocom-Piatt sees an issue with pure PoS mechanisms, too, a factor that led his own project, as well as the Ethereum network, to develop blended consensus mechanisms that use aspects of both PoW and PoS.
“The trouble with pure PoS consensus systems is that they reward people for doing very little and become an entitlement system,” he explained. “They also have stability issues because there is 'nothing at stake' when choosing a particular block to mine on. This is what led us to blend PoW and PoS in Decred.”
“PoW is meritocratic and irreversible,” he argued. “PoS is feudal and reversible. If you combine the two (PoW/PoS) you get a system that is part feudal, part meritocratic and irreversible. When PoW launches with Bitcoin, it was fairer than anything else out there, but that was quickly gamed. Now PoW is the least fair, followed by PoS, followed by hybrid PoW-PoS models.”
What are your thoughts on centralization on the Bitcoin network? Do you believe that mining pools in China hold too much power? Let us know in the comments below.
Prior to the set of sweeping bans that the government place on the industry in late 2017, the country stood as the nation with the highest BTC trading volume in the world; since the bans--which shut down domestic cryptocurrency exchanges and ended domestic ICOs, among other things--the country has still played a crucial role on the Bitcoin network in the form of hash power.
“Hash power” is the amount of computing power that is needed to solve cryptographic equations on the Bitcoin network. These equations stand as the basis for Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism--software that securely adds and confirms transactions onto Bitcoin’s ledger. Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism model is known as “Proof of Work.”
The process of solving these equations and adding the transactions onto the ledger is called mining--it is executed by individuals and companies that have roomfuls of elaborate and expensive equipment entirely devoted to solving these equations. In exchange for the cost of energy and equipment that these “miners spend to set up their “rigs”, they receive “block rewards” in the form of Bitcoins.
BTC’s mining power is centralized in China--but is that really an issue?
It is a well-known fact that the majority of hash power on the Bitcoin network is produced in China, and has been for quite some time. In December 2019, CoinShares Research reported that indeed, as much as 65 percent of BTC’s hash power resides in China.
“China… they really, through mining power control the Bitcoin blockchain,” Garlinghouse commented. “You have four miners in China that represent something like 60% plus of the mining capacity,” he continued.
Garlinghouse also mentioned that mining power on the Ethereum (ETH) network, which supports the second-largest cryptocurrency by market cap, is centralized in China. “80 percent of the mining capacity is based in China for both Bitcoin and Ether.”
“So, in many ways, I think China has been incredibly strategic about how they think about that,” he said.
A number of critics fired back on Twitter, target Garlinghouse’s use of the word “miners” instead of the phrase “mining pools”, which may have been more accurate.
"4 miners control 60% of bitcoins mining capacity?"
I think you meant 4 mining pools???
Perhaps, this was just the slip of the tongue?!
— Mati Greenspan (tweets ≠ financial advice) (@MatiGreenspan) February 17, 2020
Is there any truth to Garlinghouse’s claims? And even if China isn’t trying to take over Bitcoin and Ethereum, what risks does centralization pose to these networks?
Distribution of hash power is mainly between five entities, according to TokenAnalyst
According to recent research, it would seem that Garlinghouse is correct in his claims--at least about Bitcoin. The Bitcoin network’s hash power is centralized among several players in China is basically correct--although there isn’t much evidence to suggest that these mining entities are working together, or that the Chinese government is somehow using them to its advantage.
Indeed, research firm TokenAnalyst published a report in late January entitled “Centralisation in Bitcoin Mining: A Data-Driven Investigation”, in which it disclosed that “in 2020, bitcoin has also become a highly centralized system that places an increasing amount of trust in a small number of large entities.”
Specifically, this “small number of large entities” includes Antpool, Btc.com, Btc.top, F2pool, and Viabtc. According to Crunchbase, Antpool is based in China and owned by Bitmain, which is also based in China; BTC.com is headquartered in the Netherlands but is also "a part of" Bitmain. Btc.top is based in Shanghai, ViaBTC is based in Shenzhen, and F2Pool is based in Beijing.
Interestingly, the report also noted that “BitDeer announced a partnership with chip manufacturer Bitmain...who, by agreeing to collaborate, have a powerful way to ensure their AntMiner line of products are used by a cabal of major mining pools at a time when they appeared to be struggling.”
“[Because of] the level of co-operation and trust required to operate this mining model between the mining pools, Bitmain and BitDeer blurs the line between distinct entities.” In other words, Bitmain may be playing a larger role in holding power over these mining entities than it may seem at first glance.
Source: TokenAnalyst
The source of Ethereum’s hash power, however, is a little less well-researched. However, there has been evidence to suggest that hash power on the network is quite centralized, but not necessarily that the majority of Ethereum’s mining power is produced in China.
Money, money, money
Why is so much of BTC’s hash power being produced in China? The answer may come down to nothing more than cost.
Jake Yocom-Piatt, Co-Founder & Project Lead for cryptocurrency project Decred.org, told Finance Magnates that “the pattern has been that most miners are located in China because of economies of scale present within China and South East Asia.”
Jake Yocom-Piatt, Co-Founder & Project Lead for Decred.org.
Indeed, Yocom-Piatt explained that this region of the world “is where most of the GPUs and ASICs in use are fabricated.” GPUs and ASICs are pieces of hardware that are integral to Bitcoin mining.
“Since both Bitcoin and Ethereum have pure Proof-of-Work consensus systems, they are subject to the indirect centralization that results from the fabrication process for GPUs and ASICs,” Yocom-Piatt explained. “Only a handful of facilities around the world can manufacture GPUs and ASICs, which drives centralization of the operation of the ICs being fabricated.”
Additionally, the country offers “low prices for electricity (often in remote locations), it is cheaper to build, maintain and staff facilities in China.”
CoinShares’ December report also found that specifically, Bitcoin miners in China’s Sichuan region are responsible for 54 percent of the network’s global hash rate. This may be due to Sichuan’s rainy season, which, through hydroelectric power generators, produces more energy than the region can use.
“Bitcoin mining companies are officially prohibited but are tolerated in the Sichuan province during the wet seasons when hydropower stations generate more electricity than is required, utilizing the excess energy thanks to East Asia’s plum rain,” a CoinTelegraph report explained. This becomes an issue during the dry season when miners take more than their share of electricity.
Is centralization a legitimate security concern?
But how much should Bitcoin users be concerned about the fact that so much of the network’s hash power is being produced in just one country?
Beyond that, though, over-centralization can lead to “51% Attacks”--which is to say that if a single entity or a coordinated group of entities have control of more than half of the hash power on a blockchain, they can use that hash power to erase and rewrite transactions on a blockchain, which can effectively destroy a network.
However, it doesn’t seem like the possibility of a 51% Attack by Chinese mining entities is on the horizon.
“This fact is not as alarming as people make it out to be, though, for the following reasons. A spokesperson from cryptocurrency education firm CryptoVantage told Finance Magnates that “China [itself] is not directly in control of all of those computers."
“It is not the case that China has a harness or a method of driving these computers,” the spokesperson explained. “So the network is not under the threat of a 51% attack like many people like to think.”
Olga Feldmeier, chief executive of security token exchange firm Smart Valor, also commented during an interview with Finance Magnates in 2018 that she is not concerned about centralization on the Bitcoin network.
“To be honest, I used to be really worried about it–about two years ago, I was really checking the numbers to see which pool is connected to which pool and if they would ever reach 51 percent, [wondering] ‘will I lose all my Bitcoins?’”, she said.
Olga Feldmeier, chief executive of Smart Valor.
“But the way the Bitcoin network functions, there are certain incentives in the system,” she said, explaining that it’s not in the best interest of mining pools to manipulate the Bitcoin network. “All those miners, at the end of the day, their business depends upon this network being alive and working.”
“If they collude, and kill it, there will be no future avenues and no future business for them.”
Is a change in consensus mechanism the only way out of centralization?
And while the alarm bells over-centralization may have been rung once again in recent months, there are a number of analysts who will argue that centralization has been a problem since the beginning of Bitcoin--and will remain an issue as long as Bitcoin has a Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism.
“Bitcoin is roughly as centralized now as it was years ago when I showed up to the space in early 2013,” Jake Yocom-Piatt commented. Today, “a few ASICs manufacturers make all the miners, several Chinese outfits dominate the network hash rate, and several developers dominate the core software development process,” just as they did seven years ago.
Yocom-Piatt believes that if anything, the network has become more centralized: “a notable change with centralization in Bitcoin is that there used to be a narrative that Proof-of-Work (PoW) had sovereignty in the network, and this has since been replaced with the narrative that only developers and full node operators have sovereignty.”
Therefore, he believes that “the only way to make mining fairer (and more decentralized) is to use Proof-of-Stake (PoS),” another kind of consensus mechanism that doesn’t rely on purchasing and running roomfuls of expensive equipment in order to confirm transactions and earn rewards.
However, Yocom-Piatt sees an issue with pure PoS mechanisms, too, a factor that led his own project, as well as the Ethereum network, to develop blended consensus mechanisms that use aspects of both PoW and PoS.
“The trouble with pure PoS consensus systems is that they reward people for doing very little and become an entitlement system,” he explained. “They also have stability issues because there is 'nothing at stake' when choosing a particular block to mine on. This is what led us to blend PoW and PoS in Decred.”
“PoW is meritocratic and irreversible,” he argued. “PoS is feudal and reversible. If you combine the two (PoW/PoS) you get a system that is part feudal, part meritocratic and irreversible. When PoW launches with Bitcoin, it was fairer than anything else out there, but that was quickly gamed. Now PoW is the least fair, followed by PoS, followed by hybrid PoW-PoS models.”
What are your thoughts on centralization on the Bitcoin network? Do you believe that mining pools in China hold too much power? Let us know in the comments below.
Rachel is a self-taught crypto geek and a passionate writer. She believes in the power that the written word has to educate, connect and empower individuals to make positive and powerful financial choices. She is the Podcast Host and a Cryptocurrency Editor at Finance Magnates.
Schwab Aims Crypto Custody at Its $5 Trillion Advisor Channel by 2027
Featured Videos
Precious Insights: APAC's Bullion Market amid Record Volatility
Precious Insights: APAC's Bullion Market amid Record Volatility
Precious Insights: APAC's Bullion Market amid Record Volatility
Precious Insights: APAC's Bullion Market amid Record Volatility
The precious metals rally has challenged how brokers and LPs think about hedging, pricing, and physical delivery. But with regional banks eyeing physical gold retail and bullion brokers across Southeast Asia harnessing new tech, volatility is not only in 'safe havens'.
This session gathers practitioners from across the bullion ecosystem to unpack what the rally means on the ground in APAC.
Attendees will walk away with:
Insight into the physical market dynamics driving retail demand across Southeast Asia, from central bank buying to store-of-value purchases
Understanding of Singapore's distinct role as APAC's bullion gateway, and competition near and far
Perspective on operational challenges unique to APAC: kilogram pricing, local delivery, and bridging CFD and physical bullion infrastructure
The precious metals rally has challenged how brokers and LPs think about hedging, pricing, and physical delivery. But with regional banks eyeing physical gold retail and bullion brokers across Southeast Asia harnessing new tech, volatility is not only in 'safe havens'.
This session gathers practitioners from across the bullion ecosystem to unpack what the rally means on the ground in APAC.
Attendees will walk away with:
Insight into the physical market dynamics driving retail demand across Southeast Asia, from central bank buying to store-of-value purchases
Understanding of Singapore's distinct role as APAC's bullion gateway, and competition near and far
Perspective on operational challenges unique to APAC: kilogram pricing, local delivery, and bridging CFD and physical bullion infrastructure
The precious metals rally has challenged how brokers and LPs think about hedging, pricing, and physical delivery. But with regional banks eyeing physical gold retail and bullion brokers across Southeast Asia harnessing new tech, volatility is not only in 'safe havens'.
This session gathers practitioners from across the bullion ecosystem to unpack what the rally means on the ground in APAC.
Attendees will walk away with:
Insight into the physical market dynamics driving retail demand across Southeast Asia, from central bank buying to store-of-value purchases
Understanding of Singapore's distinct role as APAC's bullion gateway, and competition near and far
Perspective on operational challenges unique to APAC: kilogram pricing, local delivery, and bridging CFD and physical bullion infrastructure
The precious metals rally has challenged how brokers and LPs think about hedging, pricing, and physical delivery. But with regional banks eyeing physical gold retail and bullion brokers across Southeast Asia harnessing new tech, volatility is not only in 'safe havens'.
This session gathers practitioners from across the bullion ecosystem to unpack what the rally means on the ground in APAC.
Attendees will walk away with:
Insight into the physical market dynamics driving retail demand across Southeast Asia, from central bank buying to store-of-value purchases
Understanding of Singapore's distinct role as APAC's bullion gateway, and competition near and far
Perspective on operational challenges unique to APAC: kilogram pricing, local delivery, and bridging CFD and physical bullion infrastructure
License to Fill: Market Liquidity amid Global Turmoil
License to Fill: Market Liquidity amid Global Turmoil
License to Fill: Market Liquidity amid Global Turmoil
License to Fill: Market Liquidity amid Global Turmoil
License to Fill: Market Liquidity amid Global Turmoil
License to Fill: Market Liquidity amid Global Turmoil
Asian markets bear unique characteristics, from connectivity to asset preference. The Singapore Summit will connect global executives and local experts across the liquidity chain to discuss volatility fluctuations, diversification vs over-reliance on single assets, and the role of trust and liquidity relationships in an increasingly automated sphere.
Asian markets bear unique characteristics, from connectivity to asset preference. The Singapore Summit will connect global executives and local experts across the liquidity chain to discuss volatility fluctuations, diversification vs over-reliance on single assets, and the role of trust and liquidity relationships in an increasingly automated sphere.
Asian markets bear unique characteristics, from connectivity to asset preference. The Singapore Summit will connect global executives and local experts across the liquidity chain to discuss volatility fluctuations, diversification vs over-reliance on single assets, and the role of trust and liquidity relationships in an increasingly automated sphere.
Asian markets bear unique characteristics, from connectivity to asset preference. The Singapore Summit will connect global executives and local experts across the liquidity chain to discuss volatility fluctuations, diversification vs over-reliance on single assets, and the role of trust and liquidity relationships in an increasingly automated sphere.
Asian markets bear unique characteristics, from connectivity to asset preference. The Singapore Summit will connect global executives and local experts across the liquidity chain to discuss volatility fluctuations, diversification vs over-reliance on single assets, and the role of trust and liquidity relationships in an increasingly automated sphere.
Asian markets bear unique characteristics, from connectivity to asset preference. The Singapore Summit will connect global executives and local experts across the liquidity chain to discuss volatility fluctuations, diversification vs over-reliance on single assets, and the role of trust and liquidity relationships in an increasingly automated sphere.
Regional Focus: Thailand, Vietnam
Regional Focus: Thailand, Vietnam
Regional Focus: Thailand, Vietnam
Regional Focus: Thailand, Vietnam
Regional Focus: Thailand, Vietnam
Regional Focus: Thailand, Vietnam
Bangkok is consolidating as Southeast Asia's broker hub for CLMV access, while Vietnam's trading volumes have made it harder to ignore from any regional headquarters. Most brokers know both exist. Fewer have tested what operating there actually requires.
This session gathers practitioners with on-the-ground experience in both markets to examine what it takes to build and run operations in Thailand and Vietnam.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of setup requirements in both markets: entity structures, timelines, and what first-time operators tend to get wrong
Understanding of the offshore broker model and how compliant operators work within domestic restrictions in each jurisdiction
Insight into talent acquisition, client onboarding, and distribution in markets where language, culture, and acquisition channels don't follow standard APAC assumptions
Perspective on adjacent Southeast Asian markets worth monitoring for the next regional move
Bangkok is consolidating as Southeast Asia's broker hub for CLMV access, while Vietnam's trading volumes have made it harder to ignore from any regional headquarters. Most brokers know both exist. Fewer have tested what operating there actually requires.
This session gathers practitioners with on-the-ground experience in both markets to examine what it takes to build and run operations in Thailand and Vietnam.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of setup requirements in both markets: entity structures, timelines, and what first-time operators tend to get wrong
Understanding of the offshore broker model and how compliant operators work within domestic restrictions in each jurisdiction
Insight into talent acquisition, client onboarding, and distribution in markets where language, culture, and acquisition channels don't follow standard APAC assumptions
Perspective on adjacent Southeast Asian markets worth monitoring for the next regional move
Bangkok is consolidating as Southeast Asia's broker hub for CLMV access, while Vietnam's trading volumes have made it harder to ignore from any regional headquarters. Most brokers know both exist. Fewer have tested what operating there actually requires.
This session gathers practitioners with on-the-ground experience in both markets to examine what it takes to build and run operations in Thailand and Vietnam.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of setup requirements in both markets: entity structures, timelines, and what first-time operators tend to get wrong
Understanding of the offshore broker model and how compliant operators work within domestic restrictions in each jurisdiction
Insight into talent acquisition, client onboarding, and distribution in markets where language, culture, and acquisition channels don't follow standard APAC assumptions
Perspective on adjacent Southeast Asian markets worth monitoring for the next regional move
Bangkok is consolidating as Southeast Asia's broker hub for CLMV access, while Vietnam's trading volumes have made it harder to ignore from any regional headquarters. Most brokers know both exist. Fewer have tested what operating there actually requires.
This session gathers practitioners with on-the-ground experience in both markets to examine what it takes to build and run operations in Thailand and Vietnam.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of setup requirements in both markets: entity structures, timelines, and what first-time operators tend to get wrong
Understanding of the offshore broker model and how compliant operators work within domestic restrictions in each jurisdiction
Insight into talent acquisition, client onboarding, and distribution in markets where language, culture, and acquisition channels don't follow standard APAC assumptions
Perspective on adjacent Southeast Asian markets worth monitoring for the next regional move
Bangkok is consolidating as Southeast Asia's broker hub for CLMV access, while Vietnam's trading volumes have made it harder to ignore from any regional headquarters. Most brokers know both exist. Fewer have tested what operating there actually requires.
This session gathers practitioners with on-the-ground experience in both markets to examine what it takes to build and run operations in Thailand and Vietnam.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of setup requirements in both markets: entity structures, timelines, and what first-time operators tend to get wrong
Understanding of the offshore broker model and how compliant operators work within domestic restrictions in each jurisdiction
Insight into talent acquisition, client onboarding, and distribution in markets where language, culture, and acquisition channels don't follow standard APAC assumptions
Perspective on adjacent Southeast Asian markets worth monitoring for the next regional move
Bangkok is consolidating as Southeast Asia's broker hub for CLMV access, while Vietnam's trading volumes have made it harder to ignore from any regional headquarters. Most brokers know both exist. Fewer have tested what operating there actually requires.
This session gathers practitioners with on-the-ground experience in both markets to examine what it takes to build and run operations in Thailand and Vietnam.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of setup requirements in both markets: entity structures, timelines, and what first-time operators tend to get wrong
Understanding of the offshore broker model and how compliant operators work within domestic restrictions in each jurisdiction
Insight into talent acquisition, client onboarding, and distribution in markets where language, culture, and acquisition channels don't follow standard APAC assumptions
Perspective on adjacent Southeast Asian markets worth monitoring for the next regional move
Join The Club: What Premium Clients Want
Join The Club: What Premium Clients Want
Join The Club: What Premium Clients Want
Join The Club: What Premium Clients Want
Join The Club: What Premium Clients Want
Join The Club: What Premium Clients Want
High-net-worth traders account for an outsized portion of revenues for various retail brokers.
This session will gather heads of premium, acquisition, and product experts to reveal how they build their client base in Asia.
Attendees will walk away with:
Understanding of how brokers view premium clients (beyond deposit size).
Insight into which services, products, and benefits increase trust and LTV.
Examples of offerings that scale without inflating cost or operational burden.
Lessons from leading brokers on growing premium segments and what’s next.
High-net-worth traders account for an outsized portion of revenues for various retail brokers.
This session will gather heads of premium, acquisition, and product experts to reveal how they build their client base in Asia.
Attendees will walk away with:
Understanding of how brokers view premium clients (beyond deposit size).
Insight into which services, products, and benefits increase trust and LTV.
Examples of offerings that scale without inflating cost or operational burden.
Lessons from leading brokers on growing premium segments and what’s next.
High-net-worth traders account for an outsized portion of revenues for various retail brokers.
This session will gather heads of premium, acquisition, and product experts to reveal how they build their client base in Asia.
Attendees will walk away with:
Understanding of how brokers view premium clients (beyond deposit size).
Insight into which services, products, and benefits increase trust and LTV.
Examples of offerings that scale without inflating cost or operational burden.
Lessons from leading brokers on growing premium segments and what’s next.
High-net-worth traders account for an outsized portion of revenues for various retail brokers.
This session will gather heads of premium, acquisition, and product experts to reveal how they build their client base in Asia.
Attendees will walk away with:
Understanding of how brokers view premium clients (beyond deposit size).
Insight into which services, products, and benefits increase trust and LTV.
Examples of offerings that scale without inflating cost or operational burden.
Lessons from leading brokers on growing premium segments and what’s next.
High-net-worth traders account for an outsized portion of revenues for various retail brokers.
This session will gather heads of premium, acquisition, and product experts to reveal how they build their client base in Asia.
Attendees will walk away with:
Understanding of how brokers view premium clients (beyond deposit size).
Insight into which services, products, and benefits increase trust and LTV.
Examples of offerings that scale without inflating cost or operational burden.
Lessons from leading brokers on growing premium segments and what’s next.
High-net-worth traders account for an outsized portion of revenues for various retail brokers.
This session will gather heads of premium, acquisition, and product experts to reveal how they build their client base in Asia.
Attendees will walk away with:
Understanding of how brokers view premium clients (beyond deposit size).
Insight into which services, products, and benefits increase trust and LTV.
Examples of offerings that scale without inflating cost or operational burden.
Lessons from leading brokers on growing premium segments and what’s next.
Buying The Deep: Digital Asset Adoption in APAC and Beyond
Buying The Deep: Digital Asset Adoption in APAC and Beyond
Buying The Deep: Digital Asset Adoption in APAC and Beyond
Buying The Deep: Digital Asset Adoption in APAC and Beyond
Buying The Deep: Digital Asset Adoption in APAC and Beyond
Buying The Deep: Digital Asset Adoption in APAC and Beyond
The persisting price drops test the industry's commitment to crypto adoption. While on-chain innovation is making headway across market mechanics, from stablecoins to tokenization, investors remains cautious.
This session brings together market structure experts and institutional investors to explore how a prolonged bear market affects their long-term strategy, and where the opportunities lie ahead of the next cycle.
Attendees will walk away with:
First-hand account of the bear market's impact on various industry players
Understanding of what custody, connectivity, and settlement gaps still hamper growth in APAC
Insight into how client mandates and operational readiness are shaping who moves and who waits
Perspective on what institutional investors need to move toward actual digital asset capital deployment
The persisting price drops test the industry's commitment to crypto adoption. While on-chain innovation is making headway across market mechanics, from stablecoins to tokenization, investors remains cautious.
This session brings together market structure experts and institutional investors to explore how a prolonged bear market affects their long-term strategy, and where the opportunities lie ahead of the next cycle.
Attendees will walk away with:
First-hand account of the bear market's impact on various industry players
Understanding of what custody, connectivity, and settlement gaps still hamper growth in APAC
Insight into how client mandates and operational readiness are shaping who moves and who waits
Perspective on what institutional investors need to move toward actual digital asset capital deployment
The persisting price drops test the industry's commitment to crypto adoption. While on-chain innovation is making headway across market mechanics, from stablecoins to tokenization, investors remains cautious.
This session brings together market structure experts and institutional investors to explore how a prolonged bear market affects their long-term strategy, and where the opportunities lie ahead of the next cycle.
Attendees will walk away with:
First-hand account of the bear market's impact on various industry players
Understanding of what custody, connectivity, and settlement gaps still hamper growth in APAC
Insight into how client mandates and operational readiness are shaping who moves and who waits
Perspective on what institutional investors need to move toward actual digital asset capital deployment
The persisting price drops test the industry's commitment to crypto adoption. While on-chain innovation is making headway across market mechanics, from stablecoins to tokenization, investors remains cautious.
This session brings together market structure experts and institutional investors to explore how a prolonged bear market affects their long-term strategy, and where the opportunities lie ahead of the next cycle.
Attendees will walk away with:
First-hand account of the bear market's impact on various industry players
Understanding of what custody, connectivity, and settlement gaps still hamper growth in APAC
Insight into how client mandates and operational readiness are shaping who moves and who waits
Perspective on what institutional investors need to move toward actual digital asset capital deployment
The persisting price drops test the industry's commitment to crypto adoption. While on-chain innovation is making headway across market mechanics, from stablecoins to tokenization, investors remains cautious.
This session brings together market structure experts and institutional investors to explore how a prolonged bear market affects their long-term strategy, and where the opportunities lie ahead of the next cycle.
Attendees will walk away with:
First-hand account of the bear market's impact on various industry players
Understanding of what custody, connectivity, and settlement gaps still hamper growth in APAC
Insight into how client mandates and operational readiness are shaping who moves and who waits
Perspective on what institutional investors need to move toward actual digital asset capital deployment
The persisting price drops test the industry's commitment to crypto adoption. While on-chain innovation is making headway across market mechanics, from stablecoins to tokenization, investors remains cautious.
This session brings together market structure experts and institutional investors to explore how a prolonged bear market affects their long-term strategy, and where the opportunities lie ahead of the next cycle.
Attendees will walk away with:
First-hand account of the bear market's impact on various industry players
Understanding of what custody, connectivity, and settlement gaps still hamper growth in APAC
Insight into how client mandates and operational readiness are shaping who moves and who waits
Perspective on what institutional investors need to move toward actual digital asset capital deployment
