Skip to content
- The Digital Asset Basic Act is facing delays due to disputes over stablecoins.
- Regulators disagree on issuer control, oversight, and capital rules.
- Lawmakers prepare an alternative plan amid policy uncertainty.
According to the report, the government has delayed submission of the Digital Asset Basic Act due to unresolved policy conflicts. These conflicts involve stablecoin issuers and major regulatory bodies. Officials expect the proposal to move to next year.
The Financial Services Commission continues its internal review. The delay reflects tension between innovation goals and financial stability. Lawmakers and the financial sector confirmed the status on the thirtieth. They noted that several key provisions remain unsettled.
These issues will shape the structure of the domestic digital asset market for years. Investor protection stands at the center of the draft law. Stablecoin issuers would need to hold reserve assets in low-risk instruments. These include bank deposits and government bonds.
Stablecoin Issuer Structure Sparks Major Dispute
Issuers would also need to deposit or entrust at least the full issued amount with banks or approved custodians. This rule aims to protect investors during crises. It seeks to prevent issuer insolvency from passing losses to users. Regulators view this safeguard as essential for market trust. The proposal also tightens obligations for digital asset operators.
It raises disclosure standards to levels seen in traditional finance. Operators must present clear explanations and transparent terms. Advertising rules would become stricter. In cases of hacking or system failure, operators would face strong liability for damages. These standards follow the framework of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.
Authorities want higher responsibility across the sector. The bill also allows domestic digital asset sales under strict disclosure rules. This change targets long-standing avoidance practices. Many projects issued tokens overseas and later listed them locally.
This pattern followed the 2017 administrative ban on domestic initial coin offerings. Regulators favor direct oversight rather than indirect entry. The largest dispute concerns stablecoin issuers. The Bank of Korea supports a conservative structure. It argues that only consortia with banks holding a majority stake should issue stablecoins.
Central Bank and Regulator Clash on Bank Ownership Rules
The central bank links this model to operational stability and compliance. The Financial Services Commission disagrees. It believes strict limits on bank ownership could hinder innovation. The commission favors broader participation by technology firms.
It argues that flexible structures can still support effective oversight. Another disagreement involves approval governance. The central bank supports a unanimous agreement body among relevant agencies. The commission rejects this approach.
It points to an existing administrative framework that already includes institutions. Debate also continues over capital requirements. Proposed thresholds range from 500 million won to 25 billion won. Policymakers also discuss whether to separate stablecoin issuance from exchange distribution.
Related Reading: Bitcoin Surges to $150K+ by 2026 End: Haseeb Qureshi’s Bold Prediction
