DPK Task Force adopts 'innovation first' principle for won stablecoins, rules out bank monopoly [Crypto Briefing]

According to The Financial News, the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) plans to finalize its party line on the "General Act on Digital Assets," which will include a regulatory framework for won-denominated stablecoins, on the 27th. At a full meeting on the 20th, the DPK Digital Asset Task Force set out the principle that "innovation and growth opportunities should take precedence when selecting issuers." This stance conflicts with the Bank of Korea (BOK)'s proposed requirement that banks hold at least a 51% equity stake, making coordination between the government and the ruling party inevitable during the legislative process.
The DPK Digital Asset Task Force held a full meeting that afternoon to discuss integrating the various bills that lawmakers have submitted so far.
Because the General Act on Digital Assets will regulate the broader virtual asset market as well as won stablecoins, the Task Force was unable to complete all integration work that day. However, it plans to convene another full meeting on the 27th to draw up a final draft.
Although detailed provisions have not been disclosed, the DPK is broadly taking a stance that focuses on "innovation" in relation to won stablecoins. Ahn Do-geol, who serves as secretary of the Task Force, stated, "We reached a consensus that, when it comes to issuers of won stablecoins, the priority should be on creating opportunities for innovation and growth," adding, "There were also views that we must strike a balance in a way that promotes the safety of the financial order."
Against this backdrop, many observers believe the ruling party’s bill is unlikely to include the "51% bank equity rule" currently under review by the authorities, with the Bank of Korea (BOK) at the center. The BOK has previously argued, including in its own "White Paper on Stablecoins," that won stablecoins should be issued primarily by the banking sector to safeguard financial stability. The Financial Services Commission (FSC), which is preparing the government’s draft of the General Act on Digital Assets, is also reportedly reviewing this approach.

Industry players are also pushing back against a bank-centered issuance framework. They argue that if the system is built around commercial banks, private-sector participation will be restricted and innovation could be stifled. They also view as unreasonable the idea of first issuing through banks for stability and only gradually opening the market to private firms. For products such as won stablecoins, early market dominance is crucial, and if banks secure market share first, private companies will be disadvantaged as latecomers.
Professor Jung Ji-yeol of Hanyang University noted, "A bank-centered issuance framework can be understood as an approach aimed at securing the stability and credibility of the financial system," but cautioned, "If private-sector participation is excluded, the strengths of stablecoins—namely 'technological innovation' and 'integration with a wide range of services'—could be undermined."
Soo-hyun Jung, a senior researcher at Shinhan Investment & Securities, explained, "For won stablecoins, it is crucial to secure a large share of the market early on," and added, "If issuance is allowed on a bank-centered basis, private firms are likely to become latecomers, which is why there appears to be resistance to accepting the government’s proposal."
Some, however, argue that completely excluding banks from participation is not realistic. There are calls in some quarters to select issuers under the same conditions regardless of whether they are commercial banks or private firms, but critics point out that it would be difficult for private companies to build systems on par with commercial banks.
Jung said, "From the private sector’s perspective, it is understandable to argue that the same conditions should apply regardless of whether the issuer is a bank or a private company." He continued, "However, requirements such as maintaining a certain minimum capital base and establishing a robust Anti-Money Laundering (AML) framework are, in reality, difficult for private fintech firms to meet at the same level as banks, so the idea is not very realistic. In that case, the system would effectively end up being bank-centered anyway."
yimsh0214@fnnews.com Im Sang-hyuk Reporter