[Edaily Marketin YunJi Kim Reporter] As last-minute negotiations surrounding the Framework Act on Digital Assets are underway, differences in position between policy authorities and the industry persist regarding the issuance structure of stablecoins and regulations on equity stakes in virtual asset exchanges. With the policy goals of financial stability and industry promotion intertwined, analysts suggest that this legislation will go beyond mere regulation to effectively determine the governance structure of the domestic digital asset industry.

Debate

Over Bank-Centric 51% Rule… Concerns Over Stifling Innovation

According to industry sources on the 4th, the ruling party’s Digital Asset Framework Act Task Force (TF) is currently coordinating a unified draft of the Digital Asset Framework Act. Following a recent meeting to discuss the bill’s direction, the ruling party will hold a closed-door party-government consultation on the 5th to finalize the unified draft proposed by the government and the ruling party. Subsequently, the process of introducing the bill through lawmakers is expected to proceed based on the ruling party’s proposal.

The key points of contention in the current discussions are the stablecoin issuance structure and equity regulations for virtual asset exchanges. First, regarding the stablecoin issuance structure, the “51% rule”—which the Bank of Korea has long advocated—has emerged as a central issue. This proposal stipulates that only consortia in which banks hold a majority stake should be recognized as stablecoin issuers. The intent is to ensure financial stability and manage the soundness of issuers.

However, concerns have been raised both within the task force and in the industry that introducing a bank-led consortium structure could stifle innovation. Although the draft Framework Act on Digital Assets does not include relevant provisions, it is reported that at a recent meeting, advisory committee members shared a consensus that the regulatory process should not hinder industry innovation. This is the backdrop against which discussions regarding the stablecoin issuance structure and exchange ownership regulations are facing difficulties right up to the final stages.

An industry source familiar with the matter said, “If the structure results in banks holding a majority stake, there is a possibility that it will solidify into a conservative, risk-management-focused structure,” adding, “This could limit service innovation.”

Last-Minute Coordination on Exchange Ownership Regulations… 30% Compromise Likely Regulations on

virtual asset

exchange ownership

are also a key issue. Currently, the task force is continuing discussions to find a compromise between the 15–20% ownership cap being reviewed by financial authorities and industry opposition. The task force appears to be considering allowing the largest shareholder’s stake to reach approximately 30% as a realistic alternative.

The Financial Services Commission (FSC) initially took the position that exchanges should be regarded as public infrastructure and that improvements to their governance structures were necessary. Accordingly, it has been reviewing a plan to limit the shareholdings of major exchange shareholders to the 15–20% range—the level applicable to alternative trading systems under the current Capital Markets Act.

However, the industry is pushing back, arguing that introducing ownership limits after the sector has already grown could constitute an infringement of property rights. This is because, for major exchanges such as Dunamu—which operates Upbit—the ownership structure of founders and their affiliates could be significantly disrupted.

It is reported that a significant number of task force (TF) advisory committee members have also expressed negative views on the restriction of major shareholders’ stakes. One advisory committee member stated in a written opinion, “Although the task force requested reports on the government’s proposal multiple times, the Financial Services Commission did not respond until it suddenly raised the issue of exchange ownership limits at the end of last year,” adding, “Many experts and advisory committee members expressed opposition, citing logical grounds.” He continued, “If legislation on ownership limits is pushed through without sufficient discussion and persuasion, it will be difficult for the resulting system to reflect the views of the industry.”

In the National Assembly as well, there is a growing consensus that a compromise must be found that balances regulatory objectives with the needs of the industry. A National Assembly official familiar with the matter said, “The key is to find a compromise that achieves regulatory objectives without undermining the industry’s competitiveness,” adding, “A final plan will be formulated by synthesizing the views of the government, political circles, and the industry.”