LettersMind the gap between Hong Kong digital asset policy and practice
Readers discuss digital asset audits, the danger of setting a ride-hailing cap, and the bigger picture on allowing dogs in restaurants
In barely a year, the Securities and Futures Commission published its ASPIRe road map for growing Hong Kong’s virtual asset market, consulted on new regimes for dealers and custodians, and allowed platforms to offer more products and liquidity. Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing has set out what listed companies must disclose about digital-asset activity. The architecture is nearly built.
Something is missing one layer down, where no circular reaches: the audit committee. A growing number of listed companies hold digital assets, take them in payment, or partner with a licensee. For them the question is no longer what to disclose – HKEX has answered that – but how the board knows that what it discloses is true.
Valuation is subtler. Under the international interpretation Hong Kong follows, a holding of cryptocurrency is neither cash nor a financial asset: depending on why it is held, it can be inventory or an intangible, and stablecoins may be different again. Two companies holding identical positions can report them at cost, at the lower of cost and net realisable value, or at fair value – each defensibly.