GENIUS Act vs Digital Asset Basic Act: Comparing U.S. and South Korean Stablecoin Rules

ccn.com發佈於 2025-06-10更新於 2025-06-10

Key Takeaways
  • South Korea and the U.S. are moving forward with landmark legislation regulating stablecoins.
  • The U.S. proposes a dual regulatory framework based on issuer size, while South Korea opts for centralized approval under its Financial Services Commission.
  • Both governments have received pushback for parts of their regulatory push, as pressure mounts to provide clear legislation in the rapidly growing asset class.

South Korea’s newly appointed President, Lee Jae-myung, has announced that the country plans to fast-track his pledge to allow companies to issue stablecoins.

The move comes as the U.S. prepares for a key vote on stablecoin legislation this week, signaling a global shift as governments begin to craft policies that balance innovation with regulatory oversight.

While the U.S. and South Korean bills aim to legitimize stablecoins, they reflect different regulatory philosophies and economic strategies.

South Korean Stablecoin Push

On Tuesday, June 10, the ruling Democratic Party introduced the Digital Asset Basic Act, a proposed law intended to boost local innovation and improve market transparency.

According to Bloomberg , South Korean companies will be permitted to issue stablecoins if they have at least 500 million won (approximately $367,876) in equity capital.

Issuers must guarantee refunds through their reserves, and the Financial Services Commission must approve all stablecoins and other asset-linked digital assets.

GENIUS Act

The GENIUS Act, officially known as the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, has returned to the U.S. Senate for a crucial vote.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on two significant amendments on June 10, setting up a final procedural vote expected later this week.

The landmark bill aims to establish clear federal and state-level rules for stablecoin issuers, including regulatory oversight and anti-money laundering requirements.

The GENIUS Act has faced repeated delays , particularly from Democratic lawmakers calling for stricter provisions.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren called for limiting stablecoin issuance to traditional banking institutions, but that amendment was ultimately voted down.

“The bill invites scammers into the market by refusing to prohibit people convicted of fraud and money laundering from owning stablecoins,” Warren said .

In response, Sen. Bill Hagerty, who introduced the bill in February, defended it, stating, “It presents common-sense rules that protect consumers, promote competition, and foster innovation.

“It’s time we provide the clarity and stability that our country and its innovators so desperately need.”

GENIUS Act vs. Digital Asset Basic Act

At a broad level, both the GENIUS Act and South Korea’s Digital Asset Basic Act aim to place stablecoins within clear legal frameworks.

Both propose licensing requirements and seek to promote the safer adoption of stablecoins for everyday use.

However, their structures and ambitions diverge.

The GENIUS Act focuses on payment stablecoins and avoids sweeping all digital assets under the same framework.

In contrast, under a comprehensive digital finance umbrella, South Korea’s Digital Asset Basic Act is designed to regulate a broader range of digital assets, including other asset-linked tokens.

The GENIUS Act introduces a dual regulatory model: Large issuers with over $10 billion in circulation fall under federal oversight, while smaller issuers may be managed at the state level.

South Korea, by contrast, requires all stablecoin issuance to be centrally approved by the Financial Services Commission.

While this move promises consistency, it concentrates regulatory power into a single authority, which has drawn criticism from the Bank of Korea.

Another area that differs is the specificity of consumer protection in the GENIUS Act.

The U.S. bill mandates strong transparency requirements and anti-fraud measures, including the enforcement of anti-money laundering and know-your-customer compliance.

Meanwhile, while South Korea’s bill emphasizes transparency and reserve guarantees, it does not yet provide detailed rules around user-facing protections.

Stablecoin Boom

These legislative efforts come as stablecoin use continues to surge globally.

According to Yonhap News, South Korea’s trading of stablecoins like USDT and USDC reached 57 trillion won in the first quarter across five domestic exchanges.

Globally, the stablecoin market is valued at around $254 billion, with Standard Chartered projecting that figure could reach $2 trillion by 2028 if the U.S. passes comprehensive regulation.

Tether and Circle remain dominant in the space, commanding over 85% of the market, with total circulating values of $150 billion and $61 billion, respectively.

Was this Article helpful? Yes No

你可能也喜歡

Tiger Research:扎克伯格开始押注预测市场,而亚洲国家却仍视其为赌博

预测市场已从概念走向成熟,2020年后交易量显著增长,目前月交易量超140亿美元。Meta创始人扎克伯格亲自带队开发预测市场应用Arena,标志着该领域商业模式得到验证。 预测市场历史悠久,早期形式包括18世纪伦敦的政治投注和19世纪纽约的选举期货。1988年爱荷华大学创建的电子市场是其学术起点,其表现常优于传统民调。其核心是二元期权结构,事件发生则支付1美元,否则为0,交易价格直接反映市场认为的事件发生概率。 如今预测市场涵盖体育、政治、经济等广泛话题,通过订单簿形成价格,由去中心化或中心化的“预言机”机制判定结果并结算。其核心优势在于“皮肤在游戏中”机制——参与者用真金白银下注,错误预测会导致亏损,这迫使市场整合更客观、及时的信息,从而 often生成比传统民调或专家预测更可靠的预测,在金融、政治等领域已有实证。 然而,全球监管态度分化。美国通过司法裁决将其纳入金融监管范畴,而亚洲主要国家仍普遍将其视为赌博进行限制。文章指出,亚洲的这种监管立场可能导致三个问题:催生监管套利,使资本和用户流向离岸风险平台;导致反映本地社会情绪的重要数据流失海外,削弱国家信息主权;并无法有效保护用户。文章呼吁,亚洲监管思维需从“堵截”转向“疏导”,通过前瞻性讨论将预测市场纳入正规体系,将其产生的数据转化为社会资产。

marsbit1 小時前

Tiger Research:扎克伯格开始押注预测市场,而亚洲国家却仍视其为赌博

marsbit1 小時前

Vitalik 眼中以太坊的下一个 10 年

2026年7月,Vitalik Buterin公布了名为“Lean Ethereum”的长期路线图,规划了未来三到四年的协议全面重构。该计划被视为继Merge之后以太坊的第三次重大演进,旨在通过一系列升级解决扩容、安全、隐私等核心问题。 **核心目标与技术升级:** 1. **性能飞跃**:目标是将L1吞吐量提升至每秒1 gigagas,实现数百倍增长,并大幅缩短最终确定性时间至近实时。 2. **验证模式变革**:计划将递归STARK证明纳入协议核心,用高效的证明验证替代当前所有节点重新执行交易的模式,以提升效率。 3. **状态与存储重构**:拟引入分层状态架构,设立一个容量更大、费用更低的新型存储层,鼓励应用迁移以显著降低手续费。 4. **增强安全与隐私**:将抗量子密码学(如Winternitz签名)提升为优先事项,并将原生隐私支持作为协议设计的一级目标。 5. **EVM引擎潜在更换**:考虑用对证明更友好的架构(如RISC-V)替代或补充EVM,以降低证明生成成本,但此提议尚存争议,特别是与部分L2(如Arbitrum)的技术路线存在博弈。 **市场影响与观察点:** 路线图主要通过提升L1交易活动来增加ETH销毁量,从而可能正面影响其价值。但这是一个长期过程,短期内不影响现状。市场更应关注几个近期可验证的节点:Glamsterdam升级能否顺利实施并提升gas上限、L2活动及blob需求增长、L1费用收入与ETH销毁量的变化、L2发展对L1的反哺效应,以及ETH相对于BTC的市场表现。 这份路线图提升了以太坊的长期潜能上限,但并未解决中期的代币经济价值捕获问题。其实施效果需通过未来数年的具体技术落地和市场指标来验证。

链捕手3 小時前

Vitalik 眼中以太坊的下一个 10 年

链捕手3 小時前

交易

現貨
活动图片