South Korea delays stablecoin bill as FSC and BOK clash over bank-led issuance
South Korea has postponed submission of the proposed "Basic Digital Asset Act (Phase 2)" after the Financial Services Commission (FSC) missed a Dec. 10 deadline, citing the need for further coordination with the Bank of Korea (BOK) and other agencies. The bill would set licensing, capital, disclosure and enforcement rules for stablecoins and other digital assets. The central dispute concerns issuance rules: the BOK wants stablecoin issuers to be majority-owned (≥51%) by a bank consortium and seeks unanimous sign-off from relevant authorities to safeguard currency stability. The FSC prefers a more flexible model aligned with frameworks like the EU’s MiCA and Japan’s fintech-led issuance approach. Lawmakers and the ruling party’s Digital Asset Task Force argue a bank-centred model could stifle innovation; observers suggest possible compromise tying ownership thresholds to issuer business models. The ruling party still aims to table the bill by January 2026. The delay extends regulatory uncertainty for Korean stablecoin projects and market participants while agencies negotiate approval powers, timelines and operational requirements. Key entities: Financial Services Commission (FSC), Bank of Korea (BOK), Democratic Party Digital Asset Task Force. Keywords: stablecoin regulation, Bank of Korea, Financial Services Commission, issuer ownership, consortium model, regulatory delay.
Neutral
The delay increases near-term regulatory uncertainty for Korean stablecoin projects but does not directly change fundamentals that would push prices strongly up or down. Short-term effects: neutral-to-slightly-bearish for nascent local stablecoins and related tokens because prolonged uncertainty can delay launches, partnerships and liquidity provisioning, dampening adoption and trading volume. Market participants may reduce risk exposure to projects tied to Korean on‑ramps until rules clarify. Long-term effects: outcomes depend on the final law. If a bank-majority ownership model is imposed, innovation and non-bank issuers could be constrained, likely reducing competition and innovation—a mildly bearish structural signal for decentralized stablecoin projects operating in or targeting Korea. Conversely, a compromise or flexible, MiCA-like regime would be more supportive of fintech issuance and could be neutral-to-bullish for broader stablecoin adoption and ancillary token markets. Overall, because the story is about inter-agency negotiation and timing rather than an immediate policy shock or enforcement action, classify impact as neutral.