Upbit's market share, which had fallen to the low 50% range last month, climbed to nearly 70%. However, some are saying the exchange may have pushed through listings of controversial coins to boost its market share.

According to the virtual asset industry on the 6th, the number of coins listed on Upbit last month totaled 10, the most among domestic exchanges. Last month, Bithumb listed seven, GOPAX three, Korbit three, and Coinone one.

Number of coin listings on the virtual asset exchange Upbit and Bithumb last month./Courtesy of Tiger Research

Tiger Research, a virtual asset-focused research firm, said new listings on domestic exchanges act as a liquidity ignition device. On the 27th, the Pearl (PRL) coin, which was listed simultaneously on Upbit and Bithumb, saw its trading volume surge 5,500% on listing day. The day before listing, the trading value was $6.3 million, which rose to $352.84 million immediately after listing.

Thanks to new coin listings, Upbit's market share, which had dropped to the 50% range last month, rose to 68.7% as of 12 a.m. that day. Bithumb was second at 27.2%, ▲Coinone 2.3% ▲Korbit 0.6% ▲GOPAX 0.05%.

Industry figures are questioning Upbit's listing verification system for listing some virtual assets that had issues such as hacking. Onyx (XCN), which was listed on Upbit on the 27th of last month, previously suffered two hacks that resulted in an outflow of assets totaling $5.9 million (about 8.7 billion won).

Upbit and Bithumb recognized questions over circulating supply during the process of listing the Pearl coin and delayed the start time for transaction support. The circulating supply issue involved allegations that an insider of the Pearl project dumped a large amount on overseas exchanges before listing on domestic exchanges. At the time, Pearl's price rose more than 50% on overseas exchanges on news of its listing on Upbit and Bithumb.

Upbit later announced that it would list Pearl, judging that the circulating supply issue had been resolved, but criticism arose that there are limits to pre-screening because the exchange failed to identify allegations that were also raised in the community in advance.

※ This article has been translated by AI. Share your feedback here.