- Singapore is cracking down on third-party sales, purchases of Worldcoin accounts
- Regulators around the world aren’t very happy with Worldcoin’s practices
Worldcoin has been at the center of many controversies over the past year. The retina-scanning crypto start-up that is popularly known for capturing identifying data is in the news today again after Singapore’s Gan Kim Yong alluded to an ongoing investigation into third-party Worldcoin account sales and purchases.
Yong, the nation-state’s Deputy PM and Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, claimed in Parliament that seven people are currently under investigation. These seven “subjects” are alleged to have offered services of buying or selling Worldcoin accounts. This is an offense under Singapore’s Payment Services Act of 2019. As per his statement,
“… Worldcoin does not perform a payment service under the PS Act. However, persons who buy or sell Worldcoin accounts and tokens as a business may be providing a payment service.”
Yong’s statement was in response to parliamentary questions raised by two Ministers of Parliament – Rachel Ong and Derrick Goh. This, on the back of the country’s police warning its citizens against selling their Worldcoin accounts or tokens last month.
Worldcoin’s global dilemma!
Here, it’s worth stressing that this isn’t Worldcoin’s first rodeo with laws and regulations around the world though. Since it handles a lot of sensitive information, including biometric data, regulators have been reiterating that the start-up must always adhere to data protection and privacy laws.
In Argentina, for instance, Worldcoin was a surge in popularity on the back of inflation that was as high as 250%. And yet, it was investigated by the Agency for Access to Public Information for its data collection practices. Provinces like Buenos Aires even penalized the Foundation upwards of 190 million pesos, accursing it of not handling biometric data properly.
Similarly, regulators in both Hong Kong and Colombia have claimed that Worldcoin has consistently violated their local data privacy laws.
