Why South Korea Can’t Agree on Who Should Issue Stablecoins

Key takeaways

• Korea’s crypto bill is stalled over stablecoin issuer rules.

• The central bank wants banks to remain in control, often framed as a “51%” threshold.

• Regulators and lawmakers fear a bank-only model would limit competition.

• Firms are lining up, with Toss planning a won-backed stablecoin once rules are finalized.

South Korea’s next major crypto law is being held up by a seemingly simple question: Who gets to issue a won-backed stablecoin?

The proposed Digital Asset Basic Act has slowed as regulators clash over whether stablecoins should be treated as bank-like money or as a licensed digital-asset product.

At the center is the Bank of Korea’s push for a “banks-first” model, ideally through bank-led consortia with at least 51% bank ownership, arguing that stablecoins could, in their view, spill over into monetary policy, capital flows and financial stability if they scale too quickly.

The Financial Services Commission and lawmakers, meanwhile, are wary that a bank-dominated regime could materially limit competition and slow innovation.

The standoff is now expected to push the bill into 2026.

Why Korea cares about won-stablecoins

Stablecoins in South Korea are already important to local traders who move value into crypto markets, often via dollar-pegged tokens to access offshore liquidity. If stablecoin use scales, it could amplify cross-border flows and complicate foreign-exchange management, especially in a market where crypto participation and retail exposure are unusually high.

That is why the Bank of Korea continues to frame issuer rules as a “financial stability” decision. Officials argue that a cautious, staged rollout, starting with tightly regulated banks, reduces the risk of sudden outflows or a loss of control over how “private money” circulates.

At the same time, policymakers who want more companies to be allowed to issue won-backed stablecoins view the issue as one of competitiveness. If Korea does not build a trusted local option, users will continue to rely on foreign stablecoins, leaving the country with less regulatory visibility and fewer opportunities to grow a domestic stablecoin industry.

Did you know? In the 12 months through June 2025, stablecoin purchases denominated in Korean won totaled about $64 billion in South Korea, according to Chainalysis.

The regulatory backdrop

South Korea’s first major crypto regulatory act was the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users. It is built around market safety, including the segregation and custody of customer funds, with banks designated as custodians for user deposits. The framework also mandates cold-wallet storage, criminal penalties for unfair trading and insurance or reserve requirements to cover hacks and system failures.

However, that “phase 1” framework is mainly focused on how exchanges and service providers protect users. The unresolved dispute lies in the next step, the proposed Digital Asset Basic Act, where lawmakers and regulators aim to define stablecoin issuance, supervision and issuer eligibility.

This is precisely where the bill is bogging down. When Korea tries to answer the question of who can issue stablecoins, the Bank of Korea and the financial regulator diverge.

Did you know? South Korea’s crypto rules require licensed service providers to keep at least 80% of customer assets in offline cold wallets to protect against hacks and theft.

Three institutions, three incentives

South Korea’s stablecoin standoff is ultimately a dispute over which institution should have primary responsibility when private money becomes systemically important.

The Bank of Korea is approaching won-backed stablecoins as a potential extension of the payments system and, therefore, as a monetary policy and financial stability issue. Its senior leadership has argued for a gradual rollout that begins with tightly regulated commercial banks and only later expands to the broader financial sector to reduce the risk of disruptive capital flows and knock-on effects during periods of market stress.

The Financial Services Commission views the same product as a regulated financial innovation that can be supervised through licensing, disclosure, reserve standards and ongoing enforcement, without hard-wiring the market to banks as the default winners.

That is why the FSC has pushed back against the idea that issuer eligibility should be determined mainly by ownership structure and why leaked and proposed approaches have reportedly examined multiple models rather than treating bank control as the only safe option.

Then there are lawmakers and party task forces, who are weighing political promises, industry pressure and the optics of competitiveness.

Some proposals have contemplated relatively low capital thresholds for issuers, which the central bank has described as increasing instability risks. Others argue that a bank-first regime could simply delay product market fit and push activity toward offshore dollar stablecoins.

Even the “51% rule” debate has a local twist. The Bank of Korea has warned that allowing non-bank corporates to take the lead could collide with Korea’s long-standing separation between industrial and financial capital.

Did you know? Major Korean exchanges such as Bithumb and Coinone added USDT/KRW trading pairs starting in December 2023, making stablecoins easier to access directly with the won.

The “51% rule”: What it is, why it exists and why it’s controversial

In its strictest form, the Korean media-dubbed “51% rule” suggests that a won-backed stablecoin issuer should be a consortium led by commercial banks, with banks holding at least a 51% ownership stake. This structure would effectively ensure that banks control governance, risk management and, crucially, redemption operations.

The logic is that if stablecoins begin functioning like money at scale, they can influence monetary policy transmission, capital flows and financial stability. A bank-led structure is intended to import prudential discipline from day one, including capital standards, supervisory culture, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) controls and crisis management, rather than attempting to bolt those safeguards on after a non-bank issuer has already reached systemic size.

The opposition is just as direct. The Financial Services Commission and pro-industry lawmakers argue that hard-wiring bank control into the rules could reduce competition, slow experimentation and effectively shut out capable fintech or payments firms that might deliver better distribution and user experience.

Critics also point out that mandatory ownership thresholds are an indirect way to regulate risk and not the only one, given the availability of reserve requirements, audits, redemption rules and supervisory powers.

It’s not just about who issues stablecoins

Even if South Korea ultimately allows non-banks to issue won-backed stablecoins, regulators still have plenty of levers to prevent the product from exhibiting shadow-bank-like risk characteristics.

The government’s draft approach has focused on reserve quality and segregation, steering issuers toward highly liquid, low-risk backing such as bank deposits and government debt. Reserves would be held through third-party custody and structurally separated from the issuer to reduce bankruptcy spillover.

Then there is the “money-like” principle of quick redemption at par. Publicly discussed proposals include clear redemption rules and tight timelines, which are designed to prevent a stablecoin from turning into a gated fund during periods of market stress.

Korea’s broader regulatory posture already points in this direction. The Financial Services Commission has been building a user-protection regime around custody standards and strict operational requirements, such as offline storage thresholds for customer assets, showing that regulators are comfortable setting concrete technical guardrails rather than relying solely on licensing decisions.

Industry pressure and what to watch in 2026

There is urgency. The regulatory standoff is unfolding while the market is already preparing for won-backed stablecoins.

Major commercial banks are gearing up for a bank-led model, while large consumer platforms and crypto-native players are exploring how they could issue or distribute a won-pegged token if the rules allow it. Multiple banks and major companies are reportedly positioning for this market even as the policy debate drags on.

Fintech firms, however, do not want to operate inside a bank-controlled consortium. Toss is a clear example. The company has said it is preparing to issue a won-based stablecoin once a regulatory framework is in place, treating legislation as the gate that determines whether the product can launch.

This push and pull is why delays matter. The longer Korea debates issuer eligibility, the more everyday stablecoin activity defaults to offshore, dollar-based infrastructure, and the harder it becomes to argue that the slow pace reflects a deliberate choice rather than lost time.

So, what happens in 2026? Scenarios under consideration include:

• Staged licensing, with banks first and broader participation later, is an approach the Bank of Korea has publicly supported.

• Open licensing with a “systemic” tier, where larger issuers face heavier requirements.

• Bank-led consortia that are allowed but not mandatory, easing the fight over the “51% rule.”