South Korea is currently embroiled in a critical phase of its regulatory efforts regarding digital assets, particularly stablecoins. The ruling Democratic Party has established a deadline of December 10, 2025, for the government to present a consolidated, government-backed bill addressing stablecoin regulation. Should regulators miss this deadline, lawmakers have indicated their readiness to advance independent legislation, reflecting the urgency to create clear guidelines for won-backed stablecoins.
The core of this regulatory standoff revolves around a significant power struggle between the Bank of Korea (BOK) and the Financial Services Commission (FSC). Both entities recognize the necessity for formal regulation of stablecoins, yet they differ sharply on the regulatory framework and authority over issuance. The BOK advocates for a stringent regulatory structure requiring banks to hold a minimum of 51% ownership of any stablecoin issuer, citing concerns over monetary stability, bank liquidity, and anti-money laundering (AML) safeguards.
Conversely, the FSC argues that such concentration of power within the central bank could hinder innovation, particularly from South Korea”s robust technology sector. The FSC proposes a more open and flexible issuance framework, allowing non-bank entities—such as major tech companies like Naver and Kakao—to engage directly in the creation and management of stablecoins. This disagreement has caused significant delays in the progress of three competing stablecoin bills currently under consideration in the National Assembly.
Despite the legislative gridlock, the private sector is moving forward. A coalition of prominent commercial banks is exploring a won-backed stablecoin aimed at enhancing domestic payments and financial services across platforms. Concurrently, technology giants are advancing independently with blockchain payment solutions and early-stage stablecoin prototypes, increasing the pressure on regulators to finalize a framework before innovation outstrips legislative oversight.
Analysts in Seoul are predicting a potential compromise that would create a dual-authority regulatory model. Under this framework, the FSC would be responsible for licensing, supervising business practices, and ensuring compliance, thus fostering fair competition among financial and tech players. Meanwhile, the BOK would maintain oversight of reserves, monetary stability, and systemic risk, akin to the roles central banks play in monitoring settlement infrastructures.
As the December deadline approaches, the South Korean government must present a unified bill, or the ruling party appears poised to push its own draft through committee. This signals that South Korea is not viewing stablecoins merely as an experimental concept but as a vital part of its future financial landscape. The coming weeks will be crucial in determining whether the nation can achieve regulatory coherence or if it will descend into a rare political conflict over the future of digital currency.
