South Korea’s central bank wants commercial banks to control won-pegged stablecoins. Lawmakers aren’t convinced. The korea stablecoin debate just delayed legislation for the third time.
Not a consensus issue.
The Bank of Korea submitted a report to the National Assembly Strategy and Finance Committee arguing that won stablecoins are “currency-like substitutes” that pose monetary policy risks, foreign exchange vulnerabilities, and financial stability threats. The central bank says banks should issue them first. Everyone else can wait.
The korea stablecoin framework was supposed to pass in October. Then November. Now lawmakers say maybe January—but no final timeline exists. The holdup centers on one question: who gets to issue won-pegged tokens, and how much control should banks hold?
Banks are already regulated, the BOK argues. They face capital requirements, governance standards, and compliance oversight. Non-bank issuers don’t. Letting tech companies or crypto firms issue won stablecoins independently could violate Korea’s separation of banking and commerce principles, according to the central bank’s position.
The report also warns that stablecoins could circumvent foreign exchange regulations, including mandatory prior reporting requirements. That’s a national concern, not just an industry one.
**The BOK’s Structural Proposal**
Beyond limiting initial issuance to banks, the Bank of Korea reportedly proposed a bank-led consortium model and a statutory interagency body to coordinate approvals and supervision. The model borrows from the US GENIUS Act framework, which involves the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in cross-agency oversight.
The idea: create a coordinated regulatory structure before stablecoins launch, not after problems emerge. Programmable stablecoins could support digital asset innovation and function as payment tools, the BOK acknowledged. But the infrastructure needs safeguards first.
Expansion beyond banks would proceed gradually, only after risk assessments confirm stability. That’s the roadmap. The korea stablecoin issuance plan prioritizes caution over speed.
**Industry Pushback Intensifies**
Not everyone agrees with the bank-first approach. Sangmin Seo, chair of the Kaia DLT Foundation, told Cointelegraph the argument for banks leading the korea stablecoin rollout lacks a “logical foundation.” Clearer rules for all issuers could minimize risks without limiting competition, Seo said.
That tension—regulatory control versus industry access—drives the legislative stalemate. On November 25, 2025, regulators remained split over whether banks should hold a majority stake in stablecoin issuers. The disagreement killed the October timeline.
By December 15, lawmakers said they expected a resolution in January. That’s the third projected deadline. No vote has been scheduled.
**What’s at Stake**
Won-pegged stablecoins could reshape Korea’s digital payments landscape. They’d offer a domestically anchored digital currency for crypto trading, DeFi applications, and cross-border transactions. But they’d also introduce exchange rate exposure and liquidity risks if not properly managed.
The BOK’s concerns about monetary policy aren’t abstract. If won stablecoins scale without oversight, they could affect currency supply, interest rate transmission, and capital flow management. The central bank doesn’t want to regulate a crisis after it happens.
But freezing out non-bank issuers could stifle innovation and hand incumbents a monopoly. That’s the industry argument. Banks move slowly. Crypto firms move fast. Limiting the korea stablecoin framework to traditional institutions could leave Korea behind competitors like Hong Kong and Singapore, which are advancing their own stablecoin regimes.
**Comparative Context: The GENIUS Act Model**
The BOK cited the US GENIUS Act as an example of coordinated oversight. That framework creates interagency supervision involving banking regulators and the Treasury. It doesn’t ban non-bank issuers, but it imposes strict reserve, audit, and redemption requirements.
Korea’s approach appears more restrictive. The bank-first proposal delays non-bank participation indefinitely, pending future risk assessments. No timeline for that expansion exists in the current proposal.
The debate mirrors regulatory splits worldwide. The European Union’s MiCA framework allows regulated non-banks to issue stablecoins under strict conditions. Japan permits licensed trust companies. Korea is still deciding.
**What Happens Next**
The National Assembly could vote in January. Or delay again. The split between regulators suggests no consensus has emerged on the majority-stake question.
If banks win, expect a consortium-led structure with limited tokens and gradual expansion. If the compromise allows non-bank issuers under strict rules, Korea’s stablecoin market could develop faster—but with more regulatory complexity.
Cointelegraph reached out to the Bank of Korea for additional detail but received no response by publication.
One thing is certain: the korea stablecoin framework won’t move until the bank control question gets answered. The BOK has drawn its line. Lawmakers have to decide whether to cross it.
