2026-01-09 08:28:28

There has been a recent development in South Korea's financial circle. The regulatory authorities have finalized a new set of regulations for stablecoin issuance—only banks leading and holding the majority stake can do this, and the threshold is also quite high, with paid-in capital of at least 5 billion Korean won.

Compared to the US, where technology companies are relatively more open to issuing stablecoins. South Korea's move is to tighten control, with the power firmly in the hands of the national financial system. There are two benefits to this approach: first, it ensures the stability of the financial system; second, it provides an extra layer of protection for users' funds. Backing by bank credit is more reassuring than relying on a tech company's self-declared authority.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

23 Likes

Reward
23
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BlockchainNewbie

· 01-12 07:31

Here comes the regulation again, Korea is really scared. Starting from 5 billion KRW, small companies can't even get their foot in the door.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropDreamer

· 01-10 16:12

5 billion Korean Won threshold? Ha, blocking retail investors from entering, this is the tactic of centralized power.

View OriginalReply0

CountdownToBroke

· 01-10 03:44

Here we go again with the tightening. Korea's approach is just not trusting tech companies. A threshold of 5 billion KRW, small players are directly out, leaving only banks to monopolize. Bank backing sounds reassuring, but how outrageous are the fees? The US is opening up while Korea remains conservative; the gap is truly remarkable. Let's wait and see if black market stablecoins will appear later.

View OriginalReply0

FloorPriceNightmare

· 01-09 08:56

They're starting to regulate again. The 5 billion won threshold directly discourages small players, and the bank monopoly tactic is really top-notch. Compared to the laissez-faire approach in the US, Korea is indeed safer, but the space for innovation is being squeezed to death. Stablecoins are meant to break decentralization, but it ended up back to the bank's way, which is a bit ironic. Financial security and innovative freedom are always a trade-off. It seems Korea has chosen the conservative path.

View OriginalReply0

HashBard

· 01-09 08:52

honestly this just feels like korea's playing it safe while the us let tech bros run wild with stablecoins lol... but ngl the bank-backed narrative is kinda the boring centralization pill nobody asked for tbh

Reply0

MemecoinTrader

· 01-09 08:43

lmao korea really said "nah, we're gatekeeping stablecoins" ... classic move when you realize the real alpha is controlling the narrative, not just the tech stack. banking cartels + regulatory capture = *chef's kiss* for sentiment manipulation. watch how fast retail fomo's into whatever narrative the chaebol drops next. they're literally playing 4d chess while crypto bros think it's checkers.

Reply0

LiquidatedAgain

· 01-09 08:38

Here comes a new set of regulations again. Korea is probably afraid that tech companies will run away and cause people to get liquidated. Over in the US, tech companies can issue freely, but here we still rely on banks for backing. Basically, the risk control points are different. The 5 billion won threshold means retail investors have even less chance; it's all about big financial groups. Thinking back to the last time a stablecoin de-pegged, many people were liquidated... These rules are actually lessons learned the hard way. Bank backing is indeed reliable, but tightening control means there's no room for innovation. It's that old problem again.

View OriginalReply0

GasWaster69

· 01-09 08:33

Another set of new regulations is coming. Korea really wants to hold all the power in their hands. Bank guarantees are indeed reliable, but will this lead to excessive centralization... The threshold of 5 billion KRW, small projects are directly sacrificed, and the monopolistic flavor is a bit strong. This is completely opposite to the US's open approach. To put it simply, it's about distrust in tech companies. Stability is one thing, but what about innovation? It's all being stifled. Wait, doesn't this actually give bigger conglomerates more influence? It doesn't seem that simple.

View OriginalReply0