Do you need to gather four banks to issue? ⋯ K-Stablecoin, is it trapped by the 'majority of banks' shackles?

Source: BlockMedia Original Title: Do four banks need to be gathered for issuance?⋯ K-Stablecoin, trapped by ‘majority bank’ shackles Original Link: As the coordination of the Basic Digital Asset Act approaches its final stages, industry-wide rebuttals and concerns are being raised regarding the structure proposed by financial authorities for issuing Korean won stablecoins.

According to the digital asset industry, the financial authorities have proposed a plan to allow the issuance of Korean won stablecoins starting with a consortium in which banks hold 50%+1 share, and then gradually expanding participation to technology companies and others.

However, under the current Banking Act, banks can only hold up to 15% of shares in other companies. If this coordination plan is applied as is, it would require at least four banks to participate in the consortium or for separate special provisions to be established. Some suggest that amendments to supervisory regulations could add ‘stablecoin issuance business’ to the list of bank subsidiaries, which are currently limited to securities, insurance, and savings banks.

In response, the financial authorities state, “There are no internally confirmed details yet.” The industry also believes that it will not be easy for this coordination plan to pass through the National Assembly as is.

Reactions are also spreading among non-bank sectors. If a structure where banks hold more than 50% of shares is finalized, stablecoin issuance would effectively be under bank control only. A digital asset industry source said, “If banks solidify a structure where they hold a majority stake, the risk for securities firms will increase sharply,” adding, “There are concerns and confusion even within the securities industry.”

Controversy over the role of the Bank of Korea continues as well. The Bank of Korea is an independent institution guaranteed by the government and the National Assembly, and there are concerns that if it publicly opposes the government’s stablecoin plan in the future, it will be difficult to control.

‘Consultative Body’ Cannot Reach a Conclusion… Limitations in Decision-Making Structure

The financial authorities have included in the coordination plan that, since the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and the Bank of Korea participate as members of the Financial Services Commission, the legal framework should be in the form of a ‘consultative body’ rather than a ‘coordinating body’ for resolving issues.

However, the industry points out that this logic is merely repetitive. Although consultations among related agencies are ongoing, no conclusion has been reached, and since the body is not a decision-making entity, there is no final authority. A financial investment industry insider said, “The fact that past government and party consultations and re-negotiations also failed to reach a conclusion shows the limitations of the consultative structure,” adding, “There is no plan for who will convene, take responsibility, or make the final decision if opinions differ.”

These discussions are also directly affecting securities firms’ digital asset strategies. Previously, Mirae Asset Group was considering acquiring an exchange through Mirae Asset Consulting, which industry insiders interpret as a platform-building strategy encompassing digital asset distribution and issuance. However, if a majority bank stake structure is solidified, the strategic significance of acquiring an exchange could weaken.

Allow IMA but Only Banks for Stablecoins?

The background for the securities industry’s objections to the financial authorities’ ‘majority bank stake’ plan includes accusations of contradictions with the regulatory precedents set by the authorities themselves. Recently, the Financial Services Commission designated securities firms as comprehensive investment account(IMA) operators, allowing them to launch principal-protected financial products where securities firms guarantee principal repayment with their own credit.

In the capital markets law framework, principal protection is considered one of the most sensitive areas in terms of consumer protection and financial stability. The industry views this decision as an official recognition of securities firms’ financial soundness, internal controls, and risk management capabilities.

Nevertheless, in the digital asset sector, there is a conflicting policy stance that “securities firms are untrustworthy, and issuance is only possible by banks,” leading to a clash of policy logic. Both IMA and stablecoins fundamentally involve issuers promising repayment or payment ability, but allowing products with principal repayment obligations for securities firms while blocking digital asset issuance based on industry classification appears inconsistent, industry insiders argue.

A financial investment industry source said, “It is unconvincing to say that digital asset issuance cannot be trusted when the issuer is recognized as sound enough to handle principal guarantee products,” adding, “There is a lack of objective and empirical evidence to support the idea that the issuer must be a bank.”

Another securities industry insider stated, “Securities firms are more focused on issuance and related derivative or structured products based on that, rather than distribution,” and emphasized, “Even within a bank-centered structure, role sharing among industries must occur for the digital asset market to grow properly,” adding, “It is also necessary to open participation structures that allow securities firms to perform issuance-related roles.”