TLDR: South Korea debates stablecoin rules, with banks pushing for control. Bank of Korea insists banks must lead stablecoin issuance. Tech giants like Naver advance stablecoin projects despite delays. Regulatory standoff delays South Korea’s stablecoin framework rollout. South Korea lawmakers review bills for stablecoin regulation amid debate. South Korea is facing challenges in finalizing its [...] The post South Korea Faces Roadblocks in Stablecoin Regulation appeared first on CoinCentral.TLDR: South Korea debates stablecoin rules, with banks pushing for control. Bank of Korea insists banks must lead stablecoin issuance. Tech giants like Naver advance stablecoin projects despite delays. Regulatory standoff delays South Korea’s stablecoin framework rollout. South Korea lawmakers review bills for stablecoin regulation amid debate. South Korea is facing challenges in finalizing its [...] The post South Korea Faces Roadblocks in Stablecoin Regulation appeared first on CoinCentral.

South Korea Faces Roadblocks in Stablecoin Regulation

TLDR:

  • South Korea debates stablecoin rules, with banks pushing for control.
  • Bank of Korea insists banks must lead stablecoin issuance.
  • Tech giants like Naver advance stablecoin projects despite delays.
  • Regulatory standoff delays South Korea’s stablecoin framework rollout.
  • South Korea lawmakers review bills for stablecoin regulation amid debate.

South Korea is facing challenges in finalizing its regulatory framework for locally issued stablecoins. The country’s central bank, the Bank of Korea (BOK), and financial regulators have reached a standstill over the role of banks in stablecoin issuance. The dispute has led to delays in the expected rollout of a stablecoin regulatory framework, which was anticipated to be introduced by the end of  2025.

BOK’s Stance on Bank Involvement

The Bank of Korea (BOK) insists that any stablecoin issuer should be majority-owned by a consortium of banks. According to the BOK, banks should own at least 51% of the issuer to secure regulatory approval. The central bank argues that this structure will mitigate financial risks and ensure compliance with anti-money laundering protocols.

The BOK’s position stems from its concerns over financial and foreign exchange stability. It believes that only banks, with their regulatory oversight and experience, can adequately handle the potential risks of stablecoins. Moreover, the BOK has cautioned against allowing non-bank entities to lead stablecoin issuance, suggesting that such a move could undermine existing financial regulations.

Disagreements Over Non-Bank Participation

While the Bank of Korea holds firm on its position, other regulators are open to a more inclusive approach. The Financial Services Commission (FSC) has shown a willingness to allow a broader range of industry players to participate in stablecoin issuance. This includes technology firms, which have increasingly shown interest in the stablecoin market.

Some experts argue that allowing tech companies to issue stablecoins could foster innovation and competition. However, concerns about potential monopolies and the concentration of financial power in non-bank entities remain a key issue. The debate continues as the country works to establish a clear and balanced regulatory framework.

Three Bills Under Review by South Korean Lawmakers

South Korean lawmakers are currently reviewing three separate bills aimed at regulating stablecoin issuance. These bills were submitted by both the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) and the opposition People Power Party (PPP). Each bill proposes a minimum capital requirement of 5 billion won ($3.4 million) for stablecoin issuers.

Key areas of disagreement remain. One significant point of contention is whether stablecoin issuers should be permitted to offer interest on holdings. Some bills, such as those from the DPK, advocate for allowing interest payments, while others seek to prohibit them, citing concerns about the impact on financial stability.

Despite these disagreements, progress continues in the National Assembly, with lawmakers aiming to address these contentious issues in the coming months. As the bills are reviewed, the future of stablecoin regulation in South Korea hangs in the balance.

Tech Giants Push Ahead with Stablecoin Initiatives

In the midst of regulatory uncertainty, South Korean tech giants are moving ahead with their stablecoin projects. Naver, one of the country’s largest tech firms, is preparing to launch a stablecoin wallet in collaboration with Hashed and the Busan Digital Exchange. The initiative highlights the growing interest in stablecoins and the need for clearer regulatory guidance.

Additionally, a potential merger between Naver Financial and Dunamu, the operator of the Upbit exchange, could further accelerate the development of stablecoin-related services in South Korea. As regulatory discussions continue, these companies are positioning themselves to lead the charge in the stablecoin space.

South Korea’s regulatory framework for stablecoins remains in limbo as the central bank and other regulators continue to debate the role of banks and non-bank entities. With lawmakers reviewing several bills, the future of stablecoin regulation in South Korea is far from settled.

The post South Korea Faces Roadblocks in Stablecoin Regulation appeared first on CoinCentral.

Piyasa Fırsatı
Lorenzo Protocol Logosu
Lorenzo Protocol Fiyatı(BANK)
$0.03403
$0.03403$0.03403
-3.37%
USD
Lorenzo Protocol (BANK) Canlı Fiyat Grafiği
Sorumluluk Reddi: Bu sitede yeniden yayınlanan makaleler, halka açık platformlardan alınmıştır ve yalnızca bilgilendirme amaçlıdır. MEXC'nin görüşlerini yansıtmayabilir. Tüm hakları telif sahiplerine aittir. Herhangi bir içeriğin üçüncü taraf haklarını ihlal ettiğini düşünüyorsanız, kaldırılması için lütfen service@support.mexc.com ile iletişime geçin. MEXC, içeriğin doğruluğu, eksiksizliği veya güncelliği konusunda hiçbir garanti vermez ve sağlanan bilgilere dayalı olarak alınan herhangi bir eylemden sorumlu değildir. İçerik, finansal, yasal veya diğer profesyonel tavsiye niteliğinde değildir ve MEXC tarafından bir tavsiye veya onay olarak değerlendirilmemelidir.