Circle CEO's Seoul Visit: No Korean Won Stablecoin Issuance, But Met All Major Korean Banks

marsbit2026-04-23 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-04-23 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire's recent activities in Seoul indicate a strategic shift for the company, moving away from issuing a Korean won-backed stablecoin and instead focusing on embedding itself as a key infrastructure provider within Korea’s financial and crypto ecosystem. Despite Korea accounting for nearly 30% of global crypto trading volume—with a market characterized by high retail participation and altcoin dominance—Circle has chosen not to compete for the role of stablecoin issuer. Instead, Allaire met with major Korean banks (including Shinhan, KB, and Woori), financial groups, leading exchanges (Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone), and tech firms like Kakao. This approach reflects a broader industry transition: the core of stablecoin competition is shifting from issuance rights to systemic positioning. With Korean regulators still debating whether banks or tech companies should issue stablecoins, Circle is avoiding regulatory uncertainty by strengthening its role as a service and technology partner. The company is deepening integration with trading platforms, building connections, and promoting stablecoin infrastructure. This positions Circle to benefit regardless of which entity eventually issues a won stablecoin. Allaire also noted the potential for a Chinese yuan stablecoin in the next 3–5 years, underscoring a regional trend of stablecoins becoming more regulated and integrated with traditional finance. Ultimately, Circle’s strategy highlights that future influence in ...

Discussions around stablecoins have long focused on one question: who will issue the next dominant stablecoin.

However, a series of recent actions by stablecoin issuer Circle in Korea are diminishing the significance of this question itself. (Related reading: On the Eve of Korean Stablecoin Launch: As Regulation Thaws, Circle and Tether Send Different Signals)

In the latest statement, Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire clearly stated: there are no immediate plans to launch a Korean Won stablecoin. Simultaneously, Circle is intensively advancing in Seoul:

Deepening cooperation with the exchange ecosystem
Establishing connections with banks and financial groups
Promoting the deployment of stablecoin infrastructure

This combination of "avoiding issuance while strengthening links" essentially points to a more critical change: the core of stablecoin competition is shifting from "issuance rights" to "systemic positioning."

The Korean Market: High Activity Coexists with Low Structure

Understanding Circle's strategy requires first看清ing the structure of the Korean market. According to data from crypto data firm Kaiko:

Korea accounts for about 30% of global crypto trading volume
Altcoin trading comprises up to 85% of this
Bitcoin and Ethereum combined account for less than 15%

Behind these figures lies not just "active trading," but three deeper characteristics:

Sentiment-driven: Funds concentrate on high-volatility assets, showing significant short-term gaming features
Retail-driven: Institutional participation is novice, market depth is insufficient
Structural imbalance: Liquidity quality is lower than in mature markets (e.g., Japan)

This means Korea is not a "mature financial market," but rather a "high-traffic market that hasn't completed structural upgrades." And this is precisely the timing of Circle's entry.

Circle's Three Key Actions

Within this market structure, Circle's布局 shows a highly consistent direction.

1. Embedding into Trading Flow Entrances

Circle expanded its cooperative relationships with Dunamu (operator of Upbit) and Bithumb. The core of this is not simple business expansion, but embedding USDC and related services into Korea's core trading infrastructure. This corresponds to a key position—the entrance point for capital flow.

2. Connecting with Core Financial System Institutions

Reports indicate Allaire's meetings included: Shinhan Bank, one of Korea's largest commercial banks; KB Financial Group, a leading comprehensive financial holding group; Woori Bank, Korea's second-largest national commercial bank and the only state-owned bank; Kakao Group, the Korean instant messaging giant; Hashed, a Korean crypto venture capital firm; and Coinone, Korea's third-largest exchange.

This combination has a clear direction:

Banking system: Potential issuers
Tech platforms: User entry points
Exchanges: Liquidity cores

Its essence is to complete the connection and binding of multiple stakeholders before regulation is finalized.

3. Clearly Avoiding Issuance Rights Competition

With Korea's stablecoin path still undetermined, Circle chose not to participate in issuing a Korean Won stablecoin. This decision is not conservative, but based on a clearer judgment: issuance rights are still being contested, but infrastructure demand is already certain.

Korea's Core Contradiction: The Dispute Over Issuance Rights

The current分歧 over stablecoins in Korea centers on: some forces within the policy layer favor issuance by tech companies, while the banking system and central bank advocate for bank-led issuance.

The essence of this conflict is: are stablecoins financial instruments or internet products?

Until this question is resolved:

The issuing entity cannot be determined
Business models are difficult to solidify
The market landscape remains unstable

This is perhaps the fundamental reason why Circle chose to "bypass the issuance right."

From Issuer to Infrastructure Provider

Integrating the above actions leads to a clear conclusion: Circle is transitioning from a "stablecoin issuer" to a "stablecoin infrastructure provider."

This transformation is reflected on three levels:

Revenue structure: Shifting from issuance scale to technology and service capabilities
Risk structure: Avoiding direct exposure to regulatory uncertainty
Market adaptation: Flexibly embedding into different regulatory systems

Under this model, regardless of who ultimately issues the stablecoin, Circle can participate.

Circle's Asia Observations

After the Korea trip, Jeremy Allaire also mentioned that a Chinese Yuan (RMB) stablecoin presents a huge opportunity, and China might launch one within the next 3 to 5 years.

This statement did not address the method or participation, and is closer to a general observation on regional trends. But combined with Circle's actual actions in Korea, it can be understood as a more holistic view of Asia. From the current situation, although the paths of China and Korea differ, they show several common characteristics:

Stablecoins are entering the core agenda of regulation
Relationships with the traditional financial system are increasingly close
Participating entities are becoming more diverse

In this process, the role of stablecoins is changing: from an early crypto trading medium to a broader financial infrastructure.

Circle's布局 in Korea, along with its continued attention to the Chinese market, essentially point to the same thing: finding a position to embed within this infrastructure evolution process.

The Future Stablecoin System

Behind Circle's strategy change lies a corresponding macro trend. The future stablecoin system will likely appear as:

Coexistence of multiple sovereign currencies
Constrained by strong regulatory frameworks
Deep integration with the traditional financial system

In this landscape, issuance rights belong to nations or licensed institutions, and technology and clearing capabilities also become new competitive cores. Therefore, for institutions like Circle, their value is no longer limited to USDC itself, but lies in whether they can become the connection layer and infrastructure layer between different stablecoin systems.

Who Issues is No Longer the Core Question

While the market is still discussing: Who will issue the stablecoin? Which country will land it first?

Circle has already provided another answer through its actions: what determines the long-term position is not the issuance right, but whether one is embedded in the system.

In the future stablecoin landscape, a structure is likely to emerge:

Highly localized issuers
Highly收敛 (convergent/concentrated) regulation
Underlying capabilities provided by a few globalized institutions

In this structure: some companies will not appear on the front line, but will exist in every transaction.

*This content is for reference only and does not constitute any investment advice. The market carries risks, investment requires caution.

İlgili Sorular

QWhat was the main strategy of Circle during its recent activities in South Korea, according to the article?

ACircle's main strategy was to avoid issuing a Korean won stablecoin and instead focus on embedding itself as a stablecoin infrastructure provider by deepening cooperation with exchanges, establishing connections with banks and financial groups, and promoting the implementation of stablecoin infrastructure.

QWhat are the three key characteristics of the South Korean crypto market structure mentioned in the article?

AThe three key characteristics are: 1) Emotion-driven, with funds concentrated in high-volatility assets and significant short-term speculation; 2) Retail-driven, with low institutional participation and insufficient market depth; 3) Structural imbalance, with lower liquidity quality compared to mature markets like Japan.

QWhy did Circle choose not to participate in the competition for issuing a Korean won stablecoin?

ACircle chose not to participate because the issue of who holds the stablecoin issuance rights in South Korea is still under debate and regulatory uncertainty, with policymakers divided between tech companies and banks. Circle instead focused on the already certain demand for infrastructure.

QWhat shift in role is Circle undergoing, as indicated by its actions in South Korea?

ACircle is shifting from being a stablecoin issuer to becoming a stablecoin infrastructure provider, focusing on technology and service capabilities, avoiding direct regulatory risks, and flexibly embedding itself into different regulatory systems.

QWhat did Jeremy Allaire suggest about the future of the Chinese Yuan stablecoin, and how does it relate to Circle's overall strategy?

AJeremy Allaire suggested that there is a huge opportunity for a Chinese Yuan stablecoin and that China might launch one within the next 3 to 5 years. This aligns with Circle's broader Asian strategy of observing regional trends and seeking to embed itself as infrastructure in the evolution of stablecoin systems, regardless of the specific issuance path taken by different countries.

İlgili Okumalar

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

China's A-share market recently faced selling pressure, especially in tech sectors, initially triggered by a global tech sell-off that began in South Korea. However, the article argues this is a case of "mistaken injury" and highlights the market's underlying resilience. This resilience stems from three main pillars: **1) Tech Sector Fundamentals:** Unlike Korea's market dominated by a few memory chip stocks, China's tech sector is diversified across computing, communications, electronics, and semiconductors, supported by dual narratives of global AI supply chains and domestic substitution. Core areas like optical modules and fiber optics continue to show strong earnings growth. **2) "National Team" Support:** State-backed institutions and large corporations have made significant market purchases and announced buybacks, providing liquidity and signaling confidence. This is seen as a stabilizing policy signal, often associated with market bottoms. **3) Broader Market Pillars:** Other major sectors are showing endogenous recovery momentum. Consumer stocks benefit from stabilizing CPI and signs of sector recovery (e.g., liquor price hikes). Cyclical sectors like aluminum have high earnings, potential price increases due to tight supply, and low valuations. The financial sector offers stable dividends and low valuations. The conclusion is that the sell-off was driven by external contagion, not a collapse in fundamentals. With strong policy support and recovering momentum across key sectors, the A-share market possesses the toughness to regain stability.

marsbit7 dk önce

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbit7 dk önce

Quantum Computers Haven't Arrived Yet, but Satoshi's 1.1 Million Bitcoin Pose the First Problem

A zero-knowledge proof tool can help modern Bitcoin wallets migrate assets before quantum attacks in milliseconds. However, approximately 1.1 million bitcoins mined by Satoshi Nakamoto before 2012 are fundamentally unprotected by such solutions, as they reside in older P2PK addresses lacking the hierarchical structure required for this cryptographic rescue. This exposes a critical divide: post-2012 HD wallets can potentially "upgrade" signatures using tools like Project Eleven's, while early coins are cryptographically isolated. The community faces a political, not technical, dilemma with four contentious options: 1) Let quantum attackers seize the coins, risking market instability; 2) Hard fork to freeze vulnerable addresses, seen as violating property rights; 3) Implement extreme spending limits to slow any attack; 4) Redistribute "orphaned" coins, breaking immutability. Each solution threatens a core Bitcoin tenet. The market is already pricing in this governance risk, as evidenced by institutional divestment citing uncertainty. The true crisis isn't the arrival of quantum computing, but the community's inability to reconcile its foundational principles with an existential technological shift.

marsbit14 dk önce

Quantum Computers Haven't Arrived Yet, but Satoshi's 1.1 Million Bitcoin Pose the First Problem

marsbit14 dk önce

Where Will the Next Bull Market's Main Battlefield Be? The Answer Lies in These Two Types of Assets

Matt Hougan, Bitwise's CIO, identifies the fusion of traditional finance and on-chain finance as the core driver for the next crypto bull market. He expects this cycle, propelled by real-world utility and global finance adoption, to be the largest yet, centered on stablecoins, asset tokenization, 24/7 trading, instant settlement, and institutional DeFi growth. The article outlines two primary investment approaches tied to this trend. The first focuses on native crypto applications with strong revenues and sustainable tokenomics, exemplified by Hyperliquid (HYPE). Its Layer-1 chain is gaining significant trading volume from traditional assets like oil and equities. Its model of using 99% of revenues for token buybacks is a key strength. The second approach targets established traditional firms building at scale on crypto rails, like Robinhood. The launch of its Robinhood Chain, enabling global trading of tokenized stocks and DeFi activities, represents a major move towards this fusion. The author also notes other serious contenders like Coinbase, Figure, BlackRock, and JPMorgan. Ultimately, the thesis is that the most profound success will come when blockchain technology seamlessly integrates into finance, becoming invisible to end-users. Investors are advised to position ahead of this convergence.

Foresight News18 dk önce

Where Will the Next Bull Market's Main Battlefield Be? The Answer Lies in These Two Types of Assets

Foresight News18 dk önce

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress is struggling to advance the crypto market structure bill known as the Clarity Act, with bipartisan compromise proving difficult. Key hurdles include unresolved disputes over "yield" products and, more critically, the inclusion of strong ethics provisions for elected officials—a non-negotiable demand for many Democrats. While a compromise on yield was reached in May, securing only limited Democratic support in committee, the separate Senate Agriculture Committee version later passed with no Democratic votes due to the ethics impasse. As Republicans push for a full Senate vote in July, demands for ethics rules have expanded, and other contentious issues like developer protections and concerns from law enforcement and large banks further complicate negotiations. Despite consensus on the need for legislation, the path forward is unclear. Recent discussions between senators and White House officials aim to find acceptable ethics language. Some lawmakers question whether a compromise text can garner enough bipartisan support, with one Democrat stating the current proposal lacks the strong ethics provisions required for their vote. Potential short-term goals for the crypto community include symbolic Senate action before the August recess, a longer-term aim for passage by 2026, or establishing a detailed framework that addresses ethics and other compromises. The process remains arduous, relying on the traditional, vote-by-vote effort to build bipartisan support.

marsbit26 dk önce

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

marsbit26 dk önce

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

"The Rivalry Between Kalshi and Polymarket Founders Turns Bitter and Litigious" The intense feud between Tarek Mansour, CEO of Kalshi, and Shayne Coplan, founder of Polymarket, has escalated far beyond typical business competition into personal animosity and regulatory battles. Both lead billion-dollar prediction market platforms, but their approaches differ sharply. Kalshi positions itself as the compliant operator, securing U.S. regulatory approval before launching. In contrast, Polymarket initially operated offshore, allowing U.S. users to access its platform via VPN, which drew regulatory scrutiny. The conflict reached a peak in November 2024 when FBI agents raided Coplan's New York apartment. While Coplan publicly blamed political motives, his team privately suspected Kalshi was involved. According to sources, Kalshi's lawyers had previously reported Polymarket's operations to federal prosecutors, highlighting its accessibility to U.S. users despite a ban. This incident fueled mutual accusations and underhanded tactics, including social media smear campaigns and attempts to sabotage each other's major business deals. Their rivalry also played out in Washington, influencing regulatory debates. Kalshi actively lobbied against Polymarket's practices, framing them as illegal and unethical. Polymarket, after facing a CFTC fine and investigation, later acquired a licensed U.S. firm to launch a domestic app, regaining a foothold. Despite the hostility, both companies have seen massive growth, with combined trading volumes soaring. However, increased regulatory scrutiny, particularly around insider trading on Polymarket's platform, continues to pose challenges. The founders' deep-seated mutual disdain ensures their battle for market dominance remains as much a personal vendetta as a commercial one.

marsbit35 dk önce

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

marsbit35 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot