The Bank of Korea (BOK) urged regulators to restrict won-denominated stablecoin issuance to licensed commercial banks, arguing that non-bank issuers elevate money-laundering, operational, and systemic risk. The central bank positioned the stance as a monetary-sovereignty safeguard aligned with the “금산분리 원칙,” the legal separation of finance and industry.
The recommendation landed during active debate over the draft Digital Asset Basic Act and followed domestic incidents that, in the BOK’s view, exposed gaps in non-bank controls. By linking policy design to recent operational failures, the BOK framed bank-led issuance as a risk-management upgrade rather than a competitive preference.
Why the BOK wants a bank-only issuance perimeter
The BOK described won stablecoins as “quasi-monetary substitutes” and warned that non-bank issuance could weaken established AML/CFT and KYC guardrails. It specifically flagged capital-flow circumvention and a potential erosion of monetary control if issuance expands outside prudentially supervised banks.
The central bank also highlighted “depegging risk” as a systemic vulnerability, arguing that stablecoins failing to maintain a peg can become a shock amplifier. In the BOK’s framing, allowing technology or industrial conglomerates to issue stablecoins would undermine 금산분리 by letting non-banks perform bank-like functions without bank governance, capital, and supervision.
To support its urgency, the BOK pointed to operational failures in the local market, including an erroneous Bithumb distribution described in reporting as a $40 billion “ghost” Bitcoin mistake and disruptions in major payment platforms. The BOK used these examples to argue that banks typically operate with stronger internal controls and oversight frameworks than many non-bank operators.
A bank-led rollout and the legislative trade-offs
The BOK proposed a phased, bank-centric rollout, including a consortium model where banks hold “50%+1” control to ensure decisive supervisory reach. In parallel, the policy debate includes full reserve backing, stricter custody segregation, expanded AML/KYC and reporting obligations, and minimum capital thresholds such as the $3.5 million figure referenced in the draft act discussion.
Financial authorities are described as split on the right perimeter, with the Financial Services Commission cautioning that an exclusive bank-issuance approach could constrain fintech competitiveness while the BOK prioritizes systemic stability. That divergence is now a core variable in Phase 2 negotiations over the Digital Asset Basic Act.
If the BOK’s preferences are reflected in final legislation, issuer eligibility, governance standards, and reporting obligations will likely tighten, especially for non-banks. Firms outside the banking sector should plan for bank-partnership scenarios, stricter reserve attestations, and expanded AML/KYC procedures while lawmakers decide between a bank-gatekeeper model, a consortium compromise, or broader inclusion with higher prudential requirements.
