Share
South Korea’s stablecoin debate is no longer about technical readiness or market demand. It has narrowed to a more basic question: who gets to issue something that behaves like money? In a recent submission to parliament, the Bank of Korea drew a firm line, arguing that privately issued won-backed stablecoins pose risks to foreign exchange rules and monetary policy that regulators are not ready to absorb.
In its report to the National Assembly Strategy and Finance Committee, the central bank described won-pegged stablecoins as “currency-like substitutes.” The way this has been framed matters, because once a token starts functioning like cash, the BOK treats it as part of the monetary system rather than a neutral payment tool.
The bank warned that privately issued stablecoins could move value across borders without the reporting steps required under Korea’s foreign exchange rules. For a country that actively manages capital flows, that creates blind spots and reflects a concern about scale, even if early volumes stay small and the real risk only emerges as usage grows and enforcement lags behind.
LATEST: 🏦 The Bank of Korea is pushing to restrict won stablecoin issuance to commercial banks only, arguing private issuers could destabilize monetary policy and bypass foreign exchange regulations. pic.twitter.com/fFUnMEl1Vc
— CoinMarketCap (@CoinMarketCap) February 23, 2026
The BOK’s proposal keeps issuance inside the banking system, at least to begin with, relying on institutions that already operate under capital, governance, and compliance requirements tied to deposit-taking and payments. From the central bank’s view, those controls lower the chance that redemption stress or liquidity problems spill into the wider economy.
The report also points to a bank-led consortium model and an interagency policy body to coordinate approvals and supervision. As a reference, the BOK cited the United States’ GENIUS Act, which sets up shared oversight involving the United States Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The comparison shows the kind of regulatory structure the BOK is pushing for: centralized coordination rather than fragmented oversight.
That bank-first stance is facing resistance, with industry groups arguing that restricting issuance to banks protects incumbents rather than managing risk. Sangmin Seo, chair of the Kaia DLT Foundation, has said the logic for bank-only issuance does not hold if clear, enforceable rules apply to all issuers.
Regulators aren’t aligned either; as of late 2025, disagreements over whether banks should hold majority stakes in stablecoin issuers had already delayed legislation that was expected months earlier. Lawmakers flagged January 2026 as a possible resolution window, yet no firm timeline has emerged.
South Korea's Financial Services Commission (FSC) has missed its internal deadline to submit the crucial Stablecoin Bill to the National Assembly.
This delay extends uncertainty for exchanges, issuers, and investors hoping for clear rules on won-pegged and foreign stablecoins.… pic.twitter.com/VWUHNKzYEi
— Conor Kenny (@conorfkenny) December 15, 2025
This debate is about control, not code. By treating won-backed stablecoins as monetary substitutes, the BOK is signaling that private tokens will not get a free pass simply because they run on new rails. If you are watching Korea’s digital asset policy, the message is clear: innovation is tolerated, but only within boundaries defined by monetary control and foreign-exchange discipline.
Share
