South Korea’s long-delayed crypto rulebook is finally closing in on a finish line. Lee Eog-weon, chairman of the Financial Services Commission, told lawmakers during a parliamentary hearing that government discussions on the Digital Asset Basic Act were nearing completion, and that officials would push to introduce the bill “as soon as possible,” according to a report from TradingView News citing The Block. The comments, delivered as the tax debate around digital assets keeps simmering, are the clearest signal yet that Asia’s most active retail crypto market is close to getting an actual legal framework for exchanges and stablecoins.
For an industry that has operated for years under a patchwork of guidance, enforcement actions, and informal central bank pressure, the south korea crypto bill news lands as a genuine inflection point. It does not mean the law is finished. It means the interagency haggling that has stalled the bill is finally winding down, clearing the way for formal submission to South Korea’s National Assembly.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
What the Digital Asset Basic Act Would Actually Do
The Digital Asset Basic Act is designed to give South Korea something it has never had in one unified statute: a legal foundation for digital assets that covers licensing for cryptocurrency exchanges, rules for how stablecoins can be issued, and clearer legal definitions of what counts as a digital asset in the first place, according to reporting referenced by TradingView News and TechFlow Post. Right now, exchanges operate under financial-crime and reporting rules that were never built with crypto specifically in mind, and stablecoins exist in a legal gray zone with no dedicated licensing regime at all.
That gray zone matters more in South Korea than almost anywhere else. The country has one of the highest rates of retail crypto participation in the world, with won-denominated trading volume on domestic exchanges regularly rivaling the country’s own stock market on active days, per market commentary tracked by outlets covering the sector. A law that finally draws hard lines around who can run an exchange, and who can issue a stablecoin, would replace years of ad hoc regulatory improvisation with something exchanges, banks, and fintechs can actually build compliance programs around.
Lee Eog-weon’s Comments to Parliament
Lee Eog-weon’s remarks came during a parliamentary audit session in which the FSC chairman was pressed on the status of exchange licensing and stablecoin rules. He said discussions on the Digital Asset Basic Act were nearing completion and that the government would work to introduce it as soon as possible, a statement reported by TradingView News via The Block’s coverage of the hearing.
Separately, the Financial Services Commission told lawmakers it plans to establish safeguards to ensure the public nature and neutrality of exchanges, so that they can guarantee fairness and accountability in market operations, according to a report from Asia Economy (Asiae) on the same audit. The regulator also said it is designing the framework in consultation with relevant agencies, taking into account global legislation and domestic market conditions, and that it will complete those interagency consultations as soon as possible to support substantive progress in legislative discussions in the National Assembly, per the Asiae account of the hearing.
Those are the words of a regulator managing expectations rather than one announcing a finished product. “Nearing completion” describes the state of government-side discussions, not a filed, voted, or enacted law. That distinction matters for anyone trying to time a business decision around this south korea crypto bill process.
Exchange Licensing: What’s Reportedly on the Table
The exchange-licensing piece of the Digital Asset Basic Act is intended to formalize who can operate a cryptocurrency exchange in South Korea and under what conditions, according to the reporting reviewed for this story. The FSC’s comment about “safeguards” for the “public nature and neutrality” of exchanges suggests regulators are worried about concentration and conflicts of interest among the handful of large domestic platforms that currently dominate won-crypto trading.
What hasn’t been settled, based on the available reporting, is the detail that actually matters to operators: capital requirements, ownership caps, custody standards, and the specific conduct rules that would come with a license. Those final exchange-licensing requirements were not established in the cited reports as of this week, and anyone claiming otherwise is getting ahead of where the process actually stands. The FSC’s own language, that it is still “designing the framework in consultation with relevant agencies,” is a tell that the licensing mechanics are still being negotiated across ministries.
Stablecoin Rules and the 50%+1 Bank Ownership Proposal
The stablecoin half of the bill is where the most concrete detail has leaked out so far. A proposal under discussion for won-denominated stablecoin issuance would require banks to hold at least 50% plus one share in any issuing consortium, according to a report from Bloomingbit covering the run-up to the National Assembly’s November session. That is a bank-led model: rather than letting fintechs or exchanges issue won stablecoins independently, the structure on the table would keep commercial banks as the controlling stakeholder in any consortium that wants to mint one.
It is worth being precise about what is and isn’t locked in here. The 50%+1 bank-stake structure is described as a proposal under discussion, not a finalized rule. Stablecoin-reserve requirements, issuer capital requirements, and the broader ownership rules around non-bank participants were not established in the cited reporting. What is confirmed is the baseline fact that makes all of this urgent: South Korea had no stablecoin-specific law in force establishing a stablecoin-issuer license as of the cited October 2026 reporting, per Stablecoin Trade Journal’s review of where Korean law currently stands. Every bank, fintech, and exchange angling to issue a won stablecoin today is doing so without a dedicated legal basis for that activity.
Timeline: A November Review and a 2026 Passage Goal
The National Assembly’s Political Affairs Committee planned to begin reviewing the Digital Asset Basic Act at a bill-review subcommittee in November 2026, with the stated goal of passing it within 2026, according to Bloomingbit’s reporting on the legislative calendar. That is an aggressive window. Bills referred to subcommittee review in South Korea’s National Assembly frequently slip past their original target dates, especially when, as here, multiple ministries and the central bank all have a stake in the outcome.
An unnamed Financial Services Commission official put it plainly to Korea JoongAng Daily: there are a few final matters that still need to be settled, and discussions are underway, so the bill should be sent to the National Assembly soon. That is consistent with Lee Eog-weon’s parliamentary comments. Both signal a process that is close, not finished, and both come from the regulator that would have to live with whatever the final text says.
Why This Took So Long
South Korea has circled comprehensive crypto legislation for years without landing one. Earlier phases of the country’s Virtual Asset User Protection framework focused narrowly on investor protection and market abuse rather than licensing or stablecoin issuance, leaving exchanges to operate under financial-reporting obligations borrowed from traditional finance. That left a structural gap: strong rules against fraud and manipulation, but no comprehensive licensing regime and no stablecoin-specific statute at all.
The tax debate referenced in The Block’s reporting has been a parallel drag on the process. South Korea has repeatedly delayed implementation of a crypto capital-gains tax originally slated for earlier years, and that unresolved tax question has periodically bled into the broader legislative conversation around the Digital Asset Basic Act, complicating what should, in theory, be a separate licensing-and-issuance framework.
Market Impact: Exchanges, Banks, and Would-Be Stablecoin Issuers
For South Korea’s dominant won-crypto exchanges, a licensing regime is a double-edged outcome. It would finally give them a legal basis to describe to banking partners, institutional clients, and international counterparts instead of operating under investor-protection rules alone. It would also, almost certainly, raise the operating bar: capital requirements, custody standards, and the “public nature and neutrality” safeguards the FSC has flagged all point toward compliance costs that smaller platforms may struggle to absorb.
For banks, the 50%+1 ownership proposal is the headline. If it survives into the final text, South Korea’s commercial banks would become the gatekeepers of any won-stablecoin consortium, a far more conservative model than jurisdictions that let licensed nonbank issuers compete directly. Korean banks have reportedly been testing stablecoin infrastructure in anticipation of exactly this kind of framework, according to Korea JoongAng Daily’s coverage of the stalled rules, positioning themselves to move fast once a license actually exists. Fintechs and exchanges hoping to issue stablecoins independently would, under that structure, need a bank partner rather than a path to issue on their own.
How South Korea’s Approach Compares to the US and EU
South Korea is not writing its crypto rulebook in a vacuum. The United States finalized its own federal stablecoin framework under the GENIUS Act, with the OCC’s implementing rule for bank-issued stablecoins set to take effect in January 2027, as tech-insider covered in its report on the OCC’s GENIUS Act stablecoin rule. That US model licenses qualified nonbank issuers alongside banks, a structurally different approach from the bank-controlled consortium South Korea is reportedly weighing. The European Union, meanwhile, has already moved through MiCA’s licensing deadlines for exchanges and stablecoin issuers, a process tech-insider detailed in its coverage of MiCA’s rollout after the EU’s compliance deadline.
Seen against those two benchmarks, South Korea’s Digital Asset Basic Act looks like a hybrid in the making: EU-style comprehensive licensing ambitions, paired with a bank-centric stablecoin-issuance model that leans more conservative than the US approach. tech-insider’s earlier look at how the US and EU diverge on crypto rules, in its piece on GENIUS Act vs MiCA regulatory differences, is a useful reference point for where South Korea’s proposal might land once the final text clears the National Assembly.
Comparing the Three Major Frameworks
| Jurisdiction | Framework | Stablecoin issuer model | Status as of Oct. 22, 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|
| South Korea | Digital Asset Basic Act | Bank-led consortium proposal (50%+1 bank stake) | Discussions nearing completion; subcommittee review planned for November 2026 |
| United States | GENIUS Act | Licensed bank and qualified nonbank issuers | Signed into law; OCC implementing rule takes effect January 2027 |
| European Union | MiCA | Licensed e-money and credit institutions | Licensing regime already in force post-compliance deadline |
That table is necessarily a snapshot. South Korea’s row will keep changing as the bill moves through committee, and the specific capital, reserve, and ownership rules behind its “bank-led consortium proposal” label remain under discussion rather than finalized.
Legislative Timeline So Far
| Date / period | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| October 2026 | FSC Chairman Lee Eog-weon tells parliament discussions on the Digital Asset Basic Act are nearing completion | TradingView News / The Block |
| October 2026 | FSC describes plans for exchange “neutrality” safeguards and ongoing interagency consultation during parliamentary audit | Asia Economy (Asiae) |
| October 2026 | FSC official says a few final matters remain before the bill can be sent to the National Assembly | Korea JoongAng Daily |
| November 2026 | Political Affairs Committee’s bill-review subcommittee planned to begin formal review | Bloomingbit |
| By end of 2026 | Stated goal for passage of the Digital Asset Basic Act | Bloomingbit |
Historical Context: South Korea’s Crypto Regulation Journey
South Korea has treated crypto as a mass-market phenomenon that needed containment rather than a niche to be ignored, going back to the exchange-crackdown rumors of the late 2010s and the real-name banking requirements that followed, which forced every domestic exchange account to be tied to a verified bank account at a partner bank. Those real-name rules became the de facto gatekeeping mechanism for who could trade at all, in the absence of anything resembling a modern licensing statute.
The Virtual Asset User Protection Act that followed years later addressed market abuse, insider trading, and custody of customer assets, but it stopped short of building the kind of comprehensive, Basic-Act-style framework now under discussion. The Digital Asset Basic Act is best understood as the second, more structural phase of that same multi-year project: having protected users from exchange malpractice, Seoul is now trying to decide who gets to run an exchange and who gets to issue a stablecoin in the first place.
Why the Bank-Led Stablecoin Model Is Controversial
The reported 50%+1 bank-ownership threshold for won-stablecoin consortia is likely to draw pushback from the fintech side of the industry once the bill text becomes public. A majority-bank-controlled issuance model concentrates stablecoin economics with incumbents that already dominate South Korea’s payments rails, at the expense of exchanges and fintechs that have spent years building the technical infrastructure to issue digital assets themselves.
Supporters of the bank-led approach argue it mirrors conservative instincts South Korean regulators have shown throughout this process: real-name banking for exchange accounts, strict custody requirements under the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, and now a majority-bank-stake rule for stablecoins. Each step keeps a regulated bank in the loop as a check on a market regulators still view as prone to runs and operational failure. Whether that logic survives the National Assembly’s subcommittee review, where non-bank industry lobbying tends to be loudest, is one of the bigger open questions heading into November.
What Could Still Change Before the Bill Is Finalized
Several pieces of the Digital Asset Basic Act remain genuinely unsettled, based on the reporting available as of October 22, 2026. Final exchange-licensing requirements, including capital thresholds and ownership caps, have not been established. Stablecoin-reserve rules, meaning what backs a won stablecoin and how those reserves must be held, have not been established. Issuer capital requirements and the exact ownership structure for non-bank participants in stablecoin consortia have not been established. And critically, no implementation date or passage date has been confirmed beyond the stated goal of passing the bill within 2026.
That is a lot of load-bearing detail still to be filled in during a subcommittee review process that, per Bloomingbit’s reporting, was only scheduled to begin in November. Anyone building a compliance plan, a licensing application, or a stablecoin product around this bill right now is building against a moving target.
Predictions: What Happens Next
- The November subcommittee review will likely run past its original timeline, given how many agencies are still involved in finalizing exchange-licensing and stablecoin-reserve details.
- The 50%+1 bank-ownership threshold for stablecoin consortia will face organized pushback from exchanges and fintechs during subcommittee hearings, and could be softened or made conditional before final passage.
- South Korea’s major exchanges will begin publicly lobbying for lighter-touch licensing terms once draft bill text becomes available, mirroring how incumbents responded to MiCA’s licensing deadlines in the EU.
- Banks that have already been testing stablecoin infrastructure, as reported by Korea JoongAng Daily, will move fastest once any license framework exists, giving them a first-mover edge over exchanges and fintechs.
- Even if the National Assembly meets its stated goal of passing the bill within 2026, implementing rules and licensing timelines will likely push actual market changes into 2027, mirroring the gap between the US GENIUS Act’s signing and the OCC’s January 2027 implementing rule.
What Regulators and Officials Are Saying
Lee Eog-weon’s parliamentary statement remains the clearest on-record signal of where things stand: discussions on the Digital Asset Basic Act were nearing completion, and the government would work to introduce it as soon as possible, as reported by TradingView News. The Financial Services Commission has echoed that posture in its own testimony, telling lawmakers it is designing the framework in consultation with relevant agencies, taking into account global legislation and domestic market conditions, according to Asia Economy’s coverage of the audit, and that it will complete consultations with relevant agencies as soon as possible to support substantive progress in legislative discussions in the National Assembly.
An unnamed FSC official added color on the remaining friction points in comments to Korea JoongAng Daily, saying there are a few final matters that still need to be settled, and discussions are underway, so the bill should be sent to the National Assembly soon. Taken together, the on-record language from South Korea’s financial regulator describes a process in its final negotiating stretch, not one that has crossed the finish line.
What This Means for Builders and Investors
For engineering and product teams at exchanges, payment processors, and banks eyeing won-stablecoin issuance, the practical takeaway is to treat the current proposal as a planning signal, not a specification. The structural shape, bank-controlled consortia for stablecoins and a formal licensing track for exchanges, is directionally clear enough to start scoping compliance architecture, KYC flows, and reserve-reporting systems. The specific thresholds that would make or break a given business model, capital minimums, ownership caps, and reserve composition rules, are not yet locked, and building to a number that hasn’t been published is a real risk.
Investors watching South Korea’s listed fintechs and bank holding companies should note that the 50%+1 proposal, if it holds, structurally favors incumbent banks over challenger fintechs in the stablecoin space, a dynamic that could show up in relative valuations once the bill’s actual text becomes public and markets can price the winners and losers more precisely. tech-insider’s earlier analysis of how clearer crypto rules can reshape market signals is a useful frame for thinking about how South Korea’s bill could move trading behavior once it clears committee.
The broader US debate over market-structure clarity, covered in tech-insider’s report on where the CLARITY Act stands, shows a similar pattern: comprehensive crypto frameworks tend to take longer to pass than their initial deadlines suggest, and South Korea’s bill is unlikely to be an exception.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has South Korea’s Digital Asset Basic Act actually passed?
No. As of October 22, 2026, government discussions on the bill were described as nearing completion by FSC Chairman Lee Eog-weon, but the bill had not been submitted, reviewed, or passed by the National Assembly.
When will the National Assembly review the bill?
The Political Affairs Committee’s bill-review subcommittee was planned to begin formal review in November 2026, with a stated goal of passing the act within 2026, according to Bloomingbit.
What would the Digital Asset Basic Act regulate?
It is intended to establish licensing for cryptocurrency exchanges, rules for stablecoin issuance, and clearer legal definitions for digital assets, according to reports covering the bill’s scope.
Is it true banks would need to own 50% of stablecoin issuers?
A proposal under discussion would require banks to hold at least 50% plus one share in any won-stablecoin issuing consortium, per Bloomingbit’s reporting. This is described as a proposal, not a finalized rule.
Does South Korea currently have any stablecoin law?
No. South Korea had no stablecoin-specific law in force establishing a stablecoin-issuer license as of the cited October 2026 reporting from Stablecoin Trade Journal.
How does this compare to the US GENIUS Act?
The GENIUS Act licenses both banks and qualified nonbank issuers, with the OCC’s implementing rule taking effect in January 2027. South Korea’s proposal, by contrast, would concentrate stablecoin issuance control with bank-led consortia.
How does this compare to the EU’s MiCA framework?
MiCA already has a licensing regime in force for exchanges and e-money or credit-institution stablecoin issuers following its compliance deadline, making the EU further along in implementation than South Korea’s still-pending bill.
What’s the biggest unresolved question in the bill?
Exchange-licensing capital and ownership requirements, stablecoin reserve rules, and the final shape of the bank-ownership threshold for issuing consortia were all unresolved in the reporting available as of this story’s publication.
