Crisis Management for a Conflict with North Korea
This is the best North Korea conflict crisis support available today. Predict, plan, build, prepare, train, and test in the right way.
제동 걸린 가상자산 2단계 입법…업계가 바라보는 쟁점은
Brakes Applied to Phase 2 Virtual Asset Legislation… Key Issues from the Industry's Perspective
ZD Net Korea | Local Language | News | Dec. 12, 2025 | Regulation
Phase 2 legislation intended to establish a comprehensive institutional framework for the virtual asset market in Korea has been delayed due to the government's failure to submit key bills by the scheduled deadline. The Financial Services Commission (FSC) had planned to present drafts of a basic digital asset law and Korean-won stablecoin regulations to the National Assembly by December 10, but missed this cutoff, disrupting the anticipated legislative review for the year. These bills are critical as they address issuance, distribution, authorization, and disclosure standards, areas not covered in the initial phase, leading to significant industry disappointment.
The delay is attributed mainly to ongoing disagreements between the FSC and the Bank of Korea regarding the issuance structure for Korean-won stablecoins. The Bank of Korea advocates for a consortium model dominated by commercial banks, citing concerns about financial stability and the payments system, suggesting a bank-centered issuer design to mitigate risks to monetary policy and reserve assets. Conversely, the FSC opposes restrictive shareholding rules, fearing they would limit participation from non-bank entities like fintech and payment firms, thereby reducing industrial diversity. The FSC favors global trends that maintain open issuer participation while controlling risks through capital and liquidity requirements.
These institutional conflicts extend to supervisory authority allocation. The FSC insists on centralized authorization and supervision of stablecoins under its control, aligning with financial regulatory principles. Meanwhile, the Bank of Korea seeks effective involvement from the authorization phase based on payments and settlement stability concerns. Proposals to grant the Bank rights such as participation in inspections or emergency measures were opposed by the FSC, which argues that such involvement would complicate supervision and burden market players.
The regulatory uncertainty is creating anxiety within the virtual asset sector, as stablecoin institutionalization is seen as key to expanding practical applications like payments, remittances, and on-chain financial services. Legal ambiguity around issuance qualifications and supervision is hindering project development, with some banks and fintech companies considering consortium models but unable to proceed fully due to the lack of clear standards. Prolonged delays may push the market toward adopting foreign regulatory frameworks or foreign-currency-backed stablecoins.
The resolution of this dispute is viewed as pivotal for the future direction of Korea’s digital asset industry. The finalized approach to stablecoin issuance and supervision will determine whether the market becomes bank-centric or remains open to diverse private-sector participants. Industry stakeholders warn that overly narrow issuer scopes risk entrenching banks as dominant players, while overly broad regulation raises concerns about reserve asset management and de-pegging risks. The distribution of supervisory authority and safeguards will shape both the sector’s growth speed and its credibility.