South Korea moves to block USDT and USDC from corporate trading – Details

ambcryptoPublicado em 2026-03-08Última atualização em 2026-03-08

Resumo

South Korea's Financial Services Commission (FSC) is moving to exclude USD-based stablecoins like USDT and USDC from its upcoming corporate crypto trading guidelines. This decision aims to prevent indiscriminate investments in the early market stages and is partly due to the current legal framework not recognizing stablecoins as a valid external payment method. The proposed rules will allow eligible firms to invest up to 5% of their capital in crypto, but only in top assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum, traded through regulated exchanges. This aligns with South Korea's broader push to promote the Korean Won-pegged stablecoins and reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar, a trend also emerging in other countries like China and Russia.

South Korea is mulling banning USD-based stablecoins, especially Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC, from its upcoming corporate crypto rules.

According to a local publication, the country’s watchdog, the Financial Services Commission (FSC), will exclude dollar-denominated stablecoins from the ‘corporate virtual currency trading’ guidelines.

The report noted the move was designed to “prevent indiscriminate investments’ in the early stages of the market.

Additionally, the current legal framework, the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, does not treat stablecoins as a means of external payment. A recent push for the amendment of the Act to include stablecoins has yet to be ratified.

Even so, local firms had requested that stablecoins be included to help them hedge against exchange rate risks and drive faster settlements.

South Korea proposed crypto rules

For over nine years, South Korea’s crypto scene has mostly been dominated by individual retail investors. However, there has been strong institutional crypto adoption across the U.S., the E.U., and parts of Asia.

As such, South Korea has opted to set clear rules for local corporations seeking to engage in the sector.

These rules will be rolled out in the upcoming FSC’s corporate crypto trading rules.

Per the proposal, eligible firms will invest up to 5% of their capital in crypto. However, the investment will be restricted only to the top crypto assets, including Bitcoin [BTC] and Ethereum [ETH].

Besides, transactions will be conducted strictly through regulated exchanges such as Upbit and Bithumb.

That said, South Korea has been pushing for stablecoins denominated in Korean Won (KRW) since last year to reduce reliance on US dollar alternatives.

So, the need for monetary sovereignty could also be another key reason for excluding USDT and USDC. In fact, China and Russia have made similar moves, underscoring stablecoin adoption as a national security issue among key players.

Stablecoins, or digital currencies pegged to various traditional currencies, have grown to over $300 billion amid explosive global adoption. The crypto rails have made stablecoins a low-cost and fast way to send remittances and international payments.

Stablecoin activity in Asia

However, U.S dollar-based USDT and USDC control over 90% of the market share. But there’s a likely looming showdown as various jurisdictions position themselves to fight US dollar dominance.

Interestingly, Asia has emerged as a key stablecoin corridor, accounting for 60% ($245 billion) of total activity in 2025. Asia-originated activity is primarily driven by Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. But most of these countries are pushing to secure their turf from U.S dollar stablecoins.

It remains to be seen how these proposed foreign stablecoins will compete with USDC and USDT in the near future.


Final Summary

  • South Korean regulators and lawmakers are considering excluding USDT and USDC from corporate crypto trading guidelines
  • Broader Asia dominated global stablecoin activity, driving $245B in 2025, but individual countries are pushing for stablecoins pegged to their local currencies.

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhy is South Korea considering banning USDT and USDC from corporate crypto trading?

ASouth Korea is considering this ban to prevent indiscriminate investments in the early stages of the market, and because the current Foreign Exchange Transactions Act does not treat stablecoins as a means of external payment. Additionally, the country is pushing for monetary sovereignty by promoting stablecoins denominated in the Korean Won (KRW).

QWhat is the maximum percentage of capital that eligible South Korean firms can invest in crypto under the new proposal?

AEligible firms will be allowed to invest up to 5% of their capital in crypto, but this investment will be restricted to top crypto assets like Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH).

QWhich regulated exchanges will be used for corporate crypto transactions in South Korea?

ACorporate crypto transactions will be conducted strictly through regulated exchanges such as Upbit and Bithumb.

QWhat percentage of global stablecoin activity did Asia account for in 2025, according to the article?

AAsia accounted for 60% of total global stablecoin activity in 2025, which amounted to $245 billion.

QWhat are the two main reasons cited for the push towards local currency stablecoins in various countries?

AThe two main reasons are to reduce reliance on U.S. dollar alternatives and to address stablecoin adoption as a matter of national security, as seen in the moves by countries like China and Russia.

Leituras Relacionadas

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbitHá 3h

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbitHá 3h

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手Há 3h

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手Há 3h

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbitHá 5h

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbitHá 5h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片