Debate over various regulations that arose during the introduction of the Digital Asset Basic Act (second-phase virtual asset law) has not ended. In particular, arguments continue over whether banks or technology corporations should be the issuers of a won-denominated stablecoin and whether it is appropriate to cap the equity ratio of a virtual asset exchange's controlling shareholder. The industry is voicing concern that "if disagreements continue and legislation is delayed, Korea's financial market could fall behind the global trend."
According to the financial sector on the 30th, the Democratic Party of Korea has formed a digital asset task force (TF) and is discussing introducing the second-phase virtual asset bill by the Lunar New Year holiday.
Talks over who should issue a won-denominated stablecoin remain stalled. Lawmaker An Do-geol, a member of the digital asset TF, said the previous day that "opinions were split in half on the plan to set the issuer's equity structure for a won stablecoin at 'bank 50% + 1 share.'"
The struggle for control over a won stablecoin has continued for eight months since about June last year. The Bank of Korea argues that banks should hold a majority equity stake and lead issuance to protect investors and maintain the effectiveness of currency policy. In contrast, the Financial Services Commission contends that private technology corporations should also be able to issue it to quickly activate the market and expand the ecosystem. As this deadlock has dragged on, the second-phase virtual asset bill, which was planned last year, has been pushed back several times.
In the industry, there are concerns that "if a bank majority equity stake is mandated, it would be closer to a 'new type of deposit product' than a stablecoin," adding, "this does not match the global market trend and will result in stablecoin issuance itself failing to gain momentum."
The United States, Europe, Japan, and Singapore have set regulations that limit stablecoin issuance authority to banks and private corporations authorized by the government. Nowhere forces a majority equity stake by a specific sector, including banks.
The industry is also deeply worried about the "plan to cap an exchange controlling shareholder's equity at 15%–20%." Lee Eog-weon, chair of the Financial Services Commission (FSC), recently said, "Given the public infrastructure nature of (exchanges), regulating ownership equity is effective and necessary." The digital asset TF has yet to reach a conclusion on this.
At Upbit, Chair Song Chi-hyung of Dunamu holds 25.25%, and at Bithumb, Bithumb Holdings holds 73.56% equity. Coinone (CEO Cha Myung-hoon 53.44%), Korbit (NXC 60.5%), and Gopax (Binance 67.45%) also have controlling shareholder equity above 15%. If this regulation is included in the bill and passed, exchange controlling shareholders would be forced to sell equity. The ongoing Dunamu–Naver Financial merger and Mirae Asset's acquisition of Korbit could also face problems.
A virtual asset industry official said, "It can take months to years for a controlling shareholder to sell equity and restructure corporate governance, and I question whether this really serves to invigorate the virtual asset market."
While Korea's virtual asset market has stagnated due to a regulatory vacuum, major advanced countries have been gradually preparing related laws. The United States allowed a virtual asset ETF in Jan. 2024 and passed a stablecoin regulatory bill in June last year. The European Union (EU) will introduce the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA), which standardizes virtual asset regulation, in Dec. 2024 and is pursuing follow-up legislation.