Over half of total disposal gains came from two delisted coins
'Separate foundations on paper — no procedural problem,' exchange says
Gopax sold two coins tied to companies facing allegations of unlicensed fundraising, earning more than 100 million won ($74,500) in gains last year. The exchange said it did not sell at peak prices, but gradually disposed of the digital assets in small portions to raise operating funds.
According to DART, the Financial Supervisory Service's electronic disclosure system, Streami — the operator of Gopax — booked 161.21 million won in gains from disposing of self-acquired digital assets last year. Disposal losses over the same period came to 213.14 million won, leaving a net disposal loss of about 51.93 million won.
Of the total disposal gains, about 126.14 million won came from two coins, referred to as Coin A and Coin B, which individually generated gains of 22.19 million won and 103.94 million won, respectively. Together they accounted for roughly 78 percent of Gopax's total digital asset disposal gains.
Both coins are linked to companies that have faced allegations of unlicensed fundraising. The companies are accused of soliciting investors with promises of high returns and dividends while operating without registering as virtual asset service providers.
Gopax listed both coins in 2024 but ended trading support for Coin A in September last year and for Coin B in May this year. The two coins were reportedly trading in the 3,000-won range just before their listings on Gopax and surged to tens of thousands of won during the period they were supported.
"It is completely untrue that we sold the two coins at their peak," Gopax said. "It was not a targeted sale of those specific coins — we were gradually selling off coins received as trading fees across the board in small portions." The exchange added that it disposed of some of its holdings to secure operating funds.
Gopax also drew a line against suggestions that it was aware of problems with the issuers at the time of listing. "Had we known these were controversial coins, we would not have listed them in the first place," a Gopax official said. "We were also unaware that the companies involved were under investigation."
On the allegation that the two coins share the same issuer, the official said: "Even if they are connected to the same company, they are separate foundations on paper, so there is no procedural problem with reviewing each one individually. We were not able to determine at the time that there were problems with the companies."
kyoung@heraldcorp.com
