A policy report published on July 29, 2026, by Hashed Open Research and the Solana Policy Institute called for interim stablecoin rules ahead of South Korea’s broader Digital Asset Basic Act. The document puts capital thresholds and bank control at the center of Korea’s stablecoin policy debate.
The report argues that a staged framework would give market participants clarity while lawmakers reconcile competing bills. That approach treats stablecoin regulation as too urgent to wait for a fully consolidated digital-asset law.
Capital Standards and Issuer Control Divide Draft Bills
One recommendation is to classify stablecoins as a “means of payment” under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act. That would fold stablecoin oversight into existing currency-control frameworks, making payment classification the starting point for reserve and issuance supervision.
Capital requirements remain contested. Representative Byung-deok Min’s draft proposes a KRW500 million floor, equal to roughly $367,890, while proposals from Representatives Do-geol Ahn and Eun-hye Kim set the threshold at KRW5 billion, or about $3.68 million.
That difference would create very different markets. A lower capital threshold could support broader issuer diversity, while a KRW5 billion requirement would favor larger, better-capitalized issuers with stronger compliance and reserve-management capacity.
The most politically sensitive issue is the “51% rule.” The debated clause would require banks to hold majority ownership in consortia issuing won-pegged stablecoins, leaving fintech firms to manage operations, making issuer control the main fault line between stability and innovation.
The Bank of Korea supports a bank-led model on financial-stability and capital-flow grounds. Critics warn that majority bank ownership could restrict competition and limit fintech participation, creating a stablecoin market dominated by incumbent financial institutions.
Foreign Tokens Face Possible Local Compliance Barriers
The report also highlights likely constraints on foreign-issued stablecoins such as USDT and USDC. Future rules could require local branches, reserve standards or domestic approval, making offshore stablecoin access a central regulatory question.
Those constraints would affect liquidity and custody arrangements. If dollar stablecoins face local compliance obligations, exchanges and payment firms may need to adjust listing policies, settlement corridors and reserve-review processes, creating new operational friction for cross-border stablecoin flows.
The Financial Services Commission has begun consolidating about ten pending digital-asset and stablecoin bills into a single Digital Asset Basic Act. That consolidation will determine which issuer models, capital requirements and investor-protection rules survive into the final framework.
Democratic Party lawmaker Ahn Dogeol has described a possible compromise in which banks keep majority ownership while fintech and non-bank firms handle operations. That structure would preserve bank-led prudential oversight while allowing fintech firms to build user-facing stablecoin services.
The policy uncertainty is already operational. Issuers, custodians, exchanges and payment firms must prepare for reserve controls, ownership restrictions, capital requirements, AML obligations and tighter review of foreign-token usage.
A lower capital floor and fintech-friendly ownership model would encourage multiple issuers, while higher capital standards and bank control would concentrate won-stablecoin issuance inside regulated financial conglomerates.
The next signal will come from the FSC’s consolidation process and any interim licensing guidance. Until then, firms should treat South Korea’s stablecoin market as a fast-developing regulatory corridor where issuer eligibility, reserve management and bank partnerships will decide market access.
