South Korean Lawmakers Give Regulators Dec. 10 Deadline to Deliver Stablecoin Bill Amid Bank-Ownership Dispute
South Korean ruling-party lawmakers, led by Kang Joon-hyun, have set a Dec. 10, 2025 deadline for financial regulators to submit a draft stablecoin law. The push follows months of deadlock between the Bank of Korea (BOK) and the Financial Services Commission (FSC) over whether banks should hold majority (≥51%) ownership of stablecoin issuers. The BOK argues a bank-majority model is needed to ensure deposit-like oversight, anti-money-laundering controls and financial stability; the FSC treats stablecoins as virtual assets and supports broader issuer eligibility to protect innovation. The Political Affairs Committee is reviewing three competing bills; if regulators miss the deadline, lawmakers plan to draft and advance legislation during an extraordinary National Assembly session in January 2026. Domestic demand is significant: USD-pegged stablecoin trading volume hit 56.95 trillion won in Q1 2025, and both lawmakers and President Lee Jae-myung have advocated a won-pegged stablecoin to curb capital outflows. Industry stakeholders oppose a bank-centric model, calling for issuer-agnostic rules and published BOK guidelines on risk mitigation and trust criteria. The deadline signals strong legislative intent to resolve regulatory gridlock — traders should watch for a regulator bill or unilateral legislation, as either outcome will shape issuer eligibility, custody/operational requirements and market structure for stablecoins in South Korea, potentially affecting liquidity, onshore stablecoin adoption, and trading flows.
Neutral
The deadline heightens legal certainty but is ambiguous in direction: it increases the likelihood of a regulatory framework that will clarify issuer eligibility, custody and compliance — all factors that reduce regulatory risk for stablecoins in Korea. Clarified rules can be positive for market structure and liquidity over the medium term, but the specifics matter. A bank-majority requirement (as pushed by the BOK) would concentrate issuance to incumbent banks, likely reducing the number of issuers, limiting innovation, and tightening onshore supply — a potentially bearish outcome for non-bank stablecoin volumes and competing stablecoin projects. Conversely, an issuer-agnostic, FSC-favored framework would support broader participation and innovation, likely bullish for stablecoin liquidity and onshore adoption. Short term, uncertainty and political brinkmanship (Dec. 10 ultimatum and possible unilateral legislation) may suppress trading activity and onshore product launches as market participants await clarity — a neutral-to-slightly-negative price impulse. Long term, any final law that clarifies rules and opens a predictable onshore path for stablecoins should be supportive of adoption and liquidity; a restrictive bank-dominant law would be relatively bearish for non-bank stablecoins and for trading volumes tied to offshore USD-pegged tokens. Traders should monitor: the content of the regulator bill (issuer eligibility, equity requirements, custody and AML rules), the Political Affairs Committee’s draft, and signals from the BOK and FSC. Those variables will determine whether the net market impact is bullish (broader issuance) or bearish (bank-only issuance).