South Korea Crypto Bill Stalls Amid Stablecoin Rule Disputes

TheNewsCryptoPublicado a 2025-12-30Actualizado a 2025-12-30

Resumen

South Korea's Digital Asset Basic Act, a key piece of cryptocurrency legislation, has been delayed into next year due to a policy deadlock among regulators. The primary disagreement centers on stablecoin regulations, specifically over which entities should be permitted to issue them. The Bank of Korea advocates for banks to be the primary, if not exclusive, issuers to protect monetary stability. In contrast, the Financial Services Commission (FSC) opposes rigid rules that could exclude non-bank fintech companies, arguing it would stifle competition and innovation. Further tensions exist over the oversight structure for these assets. Despite this regulatory slowdown, the country shows signs of a broader crypto thaw, including lifted investment restrictions for venture capital firms and Binance's re-entry into the market.

A major hurdle has been thrown in South Korea’s quest to give its digital assets regulatory oversight, as ministers are yet to agree on how to deal with stablecoins, delaying the proposed crypto legislation into next year.

According to Yonhap News Agency, there have been hold-ups in the progress of the Digital Asset Basic Act due to disagreements among financial regulators, and it remains an integral part of cryptocurrency reform in South Korea.

Stablecoin Rules Trigger Policy Deadlock

At the center of the delay sits a dispute over who should have the authority to issue stablecoins. The Financial Services Commission has led talks on drafting investor protection rules, driven by the rapid growth of stablecoin usage in domestic markets. However, consensus on issuer eligibility remains elusive.

The debate has intensified as South Korea looks to model parts of its framework on the US GENIUS Act, which introduced clearer reserve and compliance standards for stablecoin issuers. Under current proposals, issuers would need to fully back stablecoins with reserves held by qualified custodians such as commercial banks.

The Bank of Korea has taken a firm stance, arguing that banks should serve as the primary and possibly exclusive stablecoin issuers. Central bank officials say limiting issuance to bank-led groups would protect monetary stability and reduce systemic financial risk.

At the same time, however, the FSC challenged rigid rules on ownership when it decided that firms that are not banks should not be barred from the fintech industry. Excluding such firms may hamper competition and innovation in payments technology, which would be damaging to the South Korean vision to remain competitive in the fintech sector worldwide.

Oversight Structure Adds to Tensions

There are also disputes regarding governance. The BOK wants a separate committee to oversee and license issuers of stablecoins, whereas the FSC argues that it would be manageable within current administrative bodies without increasing bureaucracy.

Such issues have delayed the passage of the legislation, with the ruling Democratic Party now working on an overall cryptocurrency draft bill. Congressmen are working on packaging multiple proposals into one legislation that will end the impasse over the passage of the cryptocurrency regulatory law.

Beyond stablecoins, the draft legislation would tighten disclosure standards for digital asset service providers and strengthen customer protection requirements. Lawmakers have also reopened discussions around domestic initial coin offerings, which South Korea banned in 2017, signaling a potential policy shift.

Signs of a Broader Crypto Thaw

The regulatory slowdown comes even as South Korea shows signs of warming to the crypto industry. In September, authorities lifted restrictions that barred venture capital firms from investing in crypto companies, allowing them to apply for official venture certification.

In another notable development, Binance completed its acquisition of Gopax, marking its official return to the South Korean market after several years away.

Despite these positive signals, the lack of agreement on stablecoin regulation remains a thorn in policymakers’ sides. As regulators aren’t aligned over the issuer eligibility and oversight structures related to these digital assets, South Korea’s crypto reform agenda probably won’t move forward anytime soon.

Highlighted Crypto News Today

BlackRock’s BUIDL Crosses $2B in Assets as Tokenized Finance Gains Momentum

TagsCrypto BillCrypto LegalizationFSCSouth KoreaStablecoin

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main reason for the delay in South Korea's Digital Asset Basic Act?

AThe delay is primarily due to disagreements among financial regulators, particularly over how to deal with stablecoins, including disputes on issuer eligibility and oversight authority.

QWhich two major financial institutions are in disagreement over stablecoin issuance in South Korea?

AThe Bank of Korea (BOK) and the Financial Services Commission (FSC) are in disagreement. The BOK argues that only banks should issue stablecoins, while the FSC believes non-bank firms should not be excluded to foster competition and innovation.

QWhat US legislation is South Korea looking to model parts of its stablecoin framework on?

ASouth Korea is looking to model parts of its framework on the US GENIUS Act, which introduced clearer reserve and compliance standards for stablecoin issuers.

QWhat are some positive signs of South Korea warming to the crypto industry despite the regulatory delays?

APositive signs include lifting restrictions on venture capital firms investing in crypto companies, allowing them to apply for official venture certification, and Binance's completed acquisition of Gopax, marking its return to the South Korean market.

QBesides stablecoins, what other areas does the draft cryptocurrency legislation aim to address?

AThe draft legislation also aims to tighten disclosure standards for digital asset service providers, strengthen customer protection requirements, and reopen discussions around domestic initial coin offerings (ICOs), which were banned in 2017.

Lecturas Relacionadas

The Era Has Arrived Where Human Writers Must Prove They Are Not Machines

The article describes an era where AI-generated content is flooding the market, forcing human authors to prove they are not machines. It begins with the example of dozens of AI-written, error-ridden biographies of Henry Kissinger appearing on Amazon within hours of his death, a pattern repeated for other deceased celebrities and even living experts who find fraudulent books under their names. This spam content has exploded, with monthly new book releases on platforms like Amazon reaching 300,000 by late 2025. The issue spans genres, from suspiciously high proportions of AI-written teen romance and self-help books to dangerous, AI-generated foraging guides containing lethal advice. The platforms' automated review systems, designed to catch plagiarism and banned words, are ill-equipped to detect AI-generated text that avoids these pitfalls while being nonsensical or fraudulent. The problem has infiltrated traditional publishing. A major publisher, Hachette, had to recall a bestselling horror novel after AI detection tools suggested 78% of its content was machine-generated. An acclaimed European philosophy book was later revealed to be entirely written by AI under a fake author persona. In response, authors are fighting back. At the 2026 London Book Fair, 10,000 writers published a blank book titled "Don't Steal This Book" containing only their signatures—using emptiness as a protest weapon in an age of AI overproduction. Initiatives like the "Human Author Certification" program have emerged, ironically placing the burden on humans to prove their work is not machine-made. The article warns of a vicious cycle: AI-generated low-quality books pollute the data used to train future AI models, leading to "model collapse" and an ever-worsening flood of digital waste, eroding trust in publishing and devaluing human creativity.

marsbitHace 16 min(s)

The Era Has Arrived Where Human Writers Must Prove They Are Not Machines

marsbitHace 16 min(s)

The King of Blind Date Attire in Korea: How SK Hynix Made a Comeback Against Samsung?

In South Korea's dating scene, SK Hynix employees are now highly sought after, a status shift fueled by the company's astronomical profits and employee bonuses, projected to reach up to 6.1 million RMB per person by 2027. This marks a dramatic reversal for the long-time second-place player in memory semiconductors, which has now surpassed its rival Samsung in annual operating profit. The turnaround story began in 2008 when a struggling Hynix, emerging from bankruptcy restructuring, took a risky bet by agreeing to develop High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) with AMD. At the time, HBM had no clear market beyond high-end graphics cards and was a costly, complex technology. Major players like Samsung, pursuing its own HMC technology, declined. For Hynix, with only memory as its core business, it was a gamble born of necessity. The pivotal moment came in 2012 when SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won acquired Hynix. Defying industry downturns, he invested heavily in R&D and fabrication, sustaining the HBM project through over a decade of commercial uncertainty and internal challenges. A key break occurred around 2016-2017 when Samsung faced production issues supplying HBM2 for Google's TPU, allowing SK Hynix to gain a crucial foothold in the data center market. The AI explosion post-ChatGPT in 2022 was the catalyst, turning HBM into a critical bottleneck for AI accelerators like NVIDIA's GPUs. By 2025, SK Hynix captured 62% of the global HBM market, leaving Samsung at 17%. For the first time, its annual operating profit exceeded Samsung's. Analysts point to the "innovator's dilemma" to explain Samsung's miss: its vast, successful business portfolio made it risk-averse, preventing an all-in bet on the initially niche HBM technology. In contrast, SK Hynix, as a challenger with its back against the wall, had no choice but to commit fully. The story highlights how Korea's chaebol system allows for ultra-long-term bets beyond quarterly pressures. However, SK Hynix's lead isn't guaranteed. Samsung is aggressively catching up on HBM4, and challenges like customer concentration (heavy reliance on NVIDIA) and technical hurdles in advanced packaging remain. The narrative underscores a market truth: the greatest alpha often comes from betting on uncertain, long-term directions others dismiss, much like HBM in 2008.

marsbitHace 56 min(s)

The King of Blind Date Attire in Korea: How SK Hynix Made a Comeback Against Samsung?

marsbitHace 56 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片