Business

The story so far: Hong Kong is taking a decisive step forward in regulating certain types of cryptocurrencies, as it prepares to enforce the Stablecoins Ordinance from August 1. The new regulations come amidst an explosion of interest in stablecoins and their promising applications in both personal finance and international business. While crypto users who support official regulation are excited, the authorities have advised caution.

What is the new stablecoin licensing system in Hong Kong?

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority announced that the Stablecoins Ordinance will come into effect on 1 August this year. This means it will be illegal for people to “offer any unlicensed fiat-referenced stablecoin (FRS) to a retail investor, or actively market the issue of unlicensed FRS to the public of Hong Kong,” according to Eddie Yue, Chief Executive of the HKMA.

Furthermore, companies that want to legally issue stablecoins to users in Hong Kong will have to obtain a licence from the Monetary Authority as well as meet set requirements when it comes to managing reserve assets and redemption, asset stabilisation, and processing user requests. In addition to this, they will have to comply with the applicable regulations that prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, thus making sure that their assets are properly disclosed and audited.

The HKMA warned that the regulations are not a red carpet for interested parties to begin issuing stablecoins, and that in the beginning it would “at most grant a handful of stablecoin issuer licences. In other words, a large number of applicants will be disappointed,” per Mr. Yue in an official statement.

What are stablecoins?

Stablecoins are a class of cryptocurrencies, with their values linked to assets. Unlike better known cryptocurrency coins such as Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) or even tokens such as Shiba Inu (SHIB), whose values can wildly rise and fall due to investor sentiments and other factors, stablecoins are designed to maintain relatively steady prices. Hence, their name.

This so-called stability is achieved through the process of “pegging” the stablecoin to an asset such as fiat currency (like U.S. Dollars, EU Euros, Hong Kong Dollars, etc.), a commodity (like gold), other cryptocurrencies (such as Bitcoin), by regulating their value via computer algorithms, or by mixing multiple strategies. While the price of Bitcoin might rise or fall in the coming years, a USD-pegged stablecoin should ideally remain around $1.

Stablecoins are different from CBDCs, or Central Bank Digital Currencies, which are digital currencies officially issued and controlled by a government’s central bank. Meanwhile, stablecoins can be privately issued and can also be pegged to foreign currencies.

Why do stablecoins require regulation?

Stablecoins play an important role both within and outside the crypto ecosystem, even if they might not balloon in price like Bitcoin. Crypto investors often use stablecoins to facilitate easy trading on crypto exchanges. Others around the world have used stablecoins to maintain the value of their savings when their native currencies are depreciating, or to save money on cross-border transactions. Argentina, Turkey, and even Taliban-occupied Afghanistan are some places where stablecoins are not just for trading, but a way to make daily life possible.

The numbers tell a compelling story as well. Tether (USDT), the fourth largest cryptocurrency by market capitalisation and the largest stablecoin, per CoinMarketCap, has a circulating supply of 163.75 billion USDT. Meanwhile, more than $250 billion worth of stablecoins are estimated to be in circulation worldwide.

Naturally, more governments are concerned about whether the highly engineered use of stablecoins could one day affect the value of the original fiat currencies or commodities backing them up. Furthermore, what is the guarantee that every stablecoin pegged to the dollar, euro, pound, or peso is actually backed up by its issuer? Currently, it is largely up to stablecoin users to audit their issuers’ reserves and make sure that their stablecoins are adequately backed. When a stablecoin issuer suddenly adds millions of dollars in assets, it naturally raises questions about where the money to back this is coming from, or whether it really exists. This is where regulation comes in.

Do stablecoins exhibit volatility despite being pegged to currencies?

Despite their name and their backing, stablecoins can also exhibit volatility. In response to both technical factors and world events, stablecoins sometimes come unpegged and their prices may rise or fall beyond the usual range, with sudden drops triggering panic amongst investors. For example, USDT, which is pegged to the U.S. Dollar, has in the past fallen to prices as low as around $0.92.

Stablecoins have also collapsed entirely. In May 2022, Terra’s cryptocurrency LUNA and its linked algorithmic stablecoin UST both lost most of their value in a matter of hours. Panicking investors who no longer trusted these assets quickly sold them off to minimise losses, and the prices fell close to zero. Billions of dollars were wiped from the crypto sector and the ensuing liquidity crunch triggered asset freezes across global crypto exchanges and fintech platforms.

Have other countries started to regulate stablecoins?

U.S. President Donald Trump in July signed the GENIUS Act that is designed to regulate stablecoins and protect the U.S. dollar, much to the joy of his pro-crypto supporters.

Per the White House, the GENIUS Act requires 100% reserve backing with liquid assets like U.S. dollars or short-term Treasuries for stablecoins. Those issuing this asset will also have to make monthly, public disclosures of the composition of their reserves, apart from complying with marketing rules.

Other countries that have started to regulate stablecoins include Japan and Singapore, per AFP, while multiple other jurisdictions have more generic regulations that cover stablecoins along with other cryptocurrencies.

Though the Chinese government heavily restricts crypto-related activities in its jurisdiction, some of the country’s tech giants hope that Hong Kong’s upcoming regulatory regime will provide an outlet for their own stablecoin ventures.

Published – August 02, 2025 07:59 am IST

A Florida jury on Friday found Tesla liable to pay $243 million to victims of a 2019 fatal crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S, a verdict that could encourage more legal action against Elon Musk’s electric vehicle company.

The verdict is a rare win for victims of accidents involving Autopilot. Mr. Musk has been pushing to rapidly expand Tesla’s recently launched robotaxi business based on an advanced version of its driver assistance software.

Tesla shares fell 1.8% on Friday (August 1, 2025), and are down 25% this year.

Jurors in Miami federal court awarded the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon, as well as her former boyfriend Dillon Angulo, $129 million in compensatory damages plus $200 million in punitive damages, according to a verdict sheet.

Tesla was held liable for 33% of the compensatory damages, or $42.6 million.

Jurors found the driver George McGee liable for 67%, but he was not a defendant and will not have to pay his share.

“Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled-access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans,” Brett Schreiber, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

“Today’s verdict represents justice for Naibel’s tragic death and Dillon’s lifelong injuries,” he added.

Tesla said it will appeal.

“Today’s verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardise Tesla’s and the entire industry’s efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology,” the company said.

The plaintiffs had sought $345 million of damages. Their lawyers said the trial was the first involving the wrongful death of a third party resulting from Autopilot.

IMPACT ON FUTURE CASES

Tesla has faced many similar lawsuits over its vehicles’ self-driving capabilities, but they have been resolved or dismissed without getting to trial.

In June, a judge rejected Tesla’s bid to dismiss the Florida case. Experts said Friday’s verdict may spur more lawsuits, and could make future settlements more costly.

“It’s a big deal,” said Alex Lemann, a law professor at Marquette University. “This is the first time that Tesla has been hit with a judgment in one of the many, many fatalities that have happened as a result of its Autopilot technology.”

The verdict could also impede efforts by Mr. Musk, the world’s richest person, to convince investors that Tesla can become a leader in so-called autonomous driving for private vehicles as well as robotaxis it plans to start producing next year.

As Tesla’s electric vehicle sales fall, much of its nearly $1 trillion market value hinges on Mr. Musk’s ability to pivot the company into robotics and artificial intelligence.

DRIVER’S ROLE

The trial concerned an April 25, 2019 incident where George McGee drove his 2019 Model S at about 62 mph (100 kph) through an intersection into the victims’ parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it on a shoulder.

Mr. McGee had reached down to pick up a cellphone he dropped on his car’s floorboard and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign and stop light before hitting the victims’ SUV.

Benavides Leon was allegedly thrown 75 feet (23 metres) to her death, while Angulo suffered serious injuries.

“We have a driver who was acting less than perfectly, and yet the jury still found Tesla contributed to the crash,” said Philip Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor and expert in autonomous technology.

“The only way the jury could have possibly ruled against Tesla was by finding a defect with the Autopilot software,” he added. “That’s a big deal.”

Tesla, in its statement, said Mr. McGee was entirely at fault.

“To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash,” the company said. “This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs’ lawyers blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.”

Published – August 02, 2025 06:43 am IST

India’s exports of petroleum products such as diesel and jet fuel to the U.S. continue to be exempted from the levy of any import duty or tariff, and President Donald Trump has, for now, not indicated the penalty he plans to impose to deter New Delhi’s energy trade with Russia.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump had announced plans to impose a 25% tariff on India, along with an additional penalty, citing concerns over the country’s energy and defence ties with Russia, as well as existing trade barriers.

However, the executive order he signed thereafter only gives effect to the 25% tariff on Indian goods coming to the U.S. Even this has an exclusion list that includes finished pharmaceutical products (tablets, injectables and syrups), active pharmaceutical ingredients, electronics and ICT goods (semiconductors, smartphones, SSDs and computers), and petroleum products (crude oil, LNG, refined fuels, electricity and coal).

The executive order also does not indicate any penalty that is to be levied for Russian trade.

According to official data, India exported 4.86 million tonnes of petroleum products to the U.S. in fiscal year 2024-25 (April 2024 to March 2025) for over $4 billion.

Reliance Industries Ltd is the biggest exporter of fuel to the U.S.

With fuel exports continuing to be on the exemption list, it means business as usual for India and companies like Reliance, analysts said.

Also, a relief would be if no penalty is imposed to punish India for its oil imports from Russia, they said, adding that for now, the U.S. administration has not indicated any penalty. “For now, there is nothing but you never know,” an analyst said.

From just 0.2% before the Russia-Ukraine war to now accounting for 35-40% of total crude imports, India’s reliance on Russian oil has surged — drawing fresh scrutiny with Mr. Trump announcing a penalty on top of a 25% tariff, or tax, on all goods going to the U.S.

India historically bought most of its oil from the Middle East, including Iraq and Saudi Arabia. However, things changed when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

India, the world’s third-largest crude importer after China and the U.S., began snapping up Russian oil that was available at a discount after some in the West shunned it as a means to punish Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine.

From a market share of just 0.2% in India’s import basket before the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia overtook Iraq and Saudi Arabia to become India’s No.1 supplier, with a share as high as 40% at one point of time.

This month, Russia supplied 36% of all crude oil, which is converted into fuels like petrol and diesel, that India imported.

Announcing the imposition of 25% tariff or tax on all Indian goods going to the U.S., Mr. Trump had said New Delhi “always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia’s largest buyer of energy, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE.” “India will therefore be paying a tariff of 25%, plus a penalty for the above (Russian purchases), starting on August First,” he said in a post on social media.

India bought 68,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Russia in January 2022, according to global real-time data and analytics provider Kpler. That month, Indian imports from Iraq were 1.23 million bpd and 883,000 bpd from Saudi Arabia.

In June 2022, Russia overtook Iraq to become India’s largest oil supplier. That month, it supplied 1.12 million bpd as compared to 993,000 bpd that came from Iraq and 695,000 bpd from Saudi Arabia.

Russian imports peaked to 2.15 million bpd in May 2023 and have varied since then, depending on the discount at which the oil was available. But the volumes never slipped below 1.4 million bpd, which is more than what India was buying from its top supplier Iraq before the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

In July, imports from Russia averaged 1.8 million bpd, almost double of 950,000 bpd imports from Iraq. Saudi imports stood at 630,000 bpd, according to Kpler.

After the Ukraine war, Western energy sanctions against Russia pushed it to cut prices for those buyers still willing to purchase its crude.

The discounts on Russia’s flagship Urals crude to Brent — the world’s most well-known benchmark — were as high as $40 per barrel at one point but have been trimmed since to less than $ 3.

G7 countries in December 2022 imposed a $60 per barrel price cap on Russian crude. Under the mechanism, European companies were permitted to transport and insure shipments of Russian oil to third countries as long as it is sold below the capped price — an effort to limit the impact of the sanctions on global oil flows but ensure Russia earns less from the trade.

Last month, the European Union decided to lower the price cap to $47.6 and introduced an automatic and dynamic mechanism for its review in the future. The idea is to keep the cap at 15% lower than the average market price.

In addition to stoking India’s economy, cheap Russian oil gave refiners lucrative business — refining that crude and exporting the products to deficit countries.

These included the European Union, which had banned direct crude oil purchases from Russia.

This month, the European Union decided to ban the import of refined oil produced from Russian crude.

Published – August 02, 2025 12:36 am IST

Newly manufactured Maruti Suzuki cars are seen parked inside the company factory in Manesar near Gurugram. File
| Photo Credit: PTI

Karnataka Minister for Electronics, Information Technology, Priyank Kharge during an interview with The Hindu, in New Delhi on Friday, August 1, 2025.
| Photo Credit: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar

Image for representational purposes only.
| Photo Credit: Getty Images