Experts: "Legislation on Won-Based Stablecoins Must Accelerate from an Infrastructure Perspective"

"We Need to Pursue Both Stability and Innovation"

"U.S. Legislation Is Moving Fast, Korea Must Act Quickly Too"

As discussions on the introduction of stablecoin regulatory bills are advancing rapidly in the United States, there have been calls to approach won-based stablecoins from the perspective of digital payment and settlement infrastructure and to accelerate related legislation in Korea.

On the morning of the 17th, at the National Assembly Members' Office Building, a seminar titled "The U.S. Stablecoin Regulatory Framework and Legislative Challenges for Digital Assets in Korea" was held, where Min Byungduk, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, and others were taking photos. Photo by Seungwook Park

Lee Jongseop, professor at Seoul National University's Business School, stated at the seminar titled "The U.S. Stablecoin Regulatory Framework and Legislative Tasks for Digital Assets in Korea," held on the morning of the 17th at the National Assembly Members' Office Building, "We need to consider ways to achieve both stability and innovation for won-based stablecoins as payment and settlement infrastructure."

Professor Lee added, "In the United States, stablecoins based on Solana are used for small but frequent payments, while those based on Ethereum are used for larger transactions. This means that infrastructure is rationally allocated according to each use case. Given this kind of environment, we must examine what conditions are necessary to achieve stability."

There were also calls to accelerate the legislative process. Han Seohee, attorney at Kwangjang Law Firm, said, "In the United States, even notices of proposed rulemaking have been published, and when the related laws go into full effect, Korea will be able to accept stablecoins issued in the U.S. This is why swift legislation in Korea is critical." Min Byung-duk, the Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker who hosted the seminar, also remarked, "Amid the threat of dollarization, where the U.S. dollar could replace our currency, we need to bring the relevant bills to the legislative subcommittee and hold public hearings as soon as possible."

The United States is quickly institutionalizing requirements for stablecoins, including secured assets and repurchase conditions. Last year, the U.S. passed the stablecoin law known as the GENIUS Act, and in February of this year, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to the matter.

Based on the regulatory standards for stablecoin reserve and collateral assets in the U.S., Korea should design a system that suits its own circumstances. Professor Lee pointed out, "If U.S. regulations become more flexible than those in Korea, issuers of U.S. stablecoins will have an advantage over domestic issuers in entering the market. We must consider global consistency, including alignment with U.S. standards."

Niki Ariyasinghe, Vice President for Asia-Pacific and Middle East at Chainlink Labs, a global blockchain infrastructure company, emphasized the importance of accessibility and security from an infrastructure perspective for stablecoins. He explained, "It is necessary to develop real-time verification of assets and deploy technologies that ensure stablecoins are issued in accordance with issuance requirements and that their quantities can be adjusted accordingly."

The need for a payment and settlement system without fees was also raised. Park Hyukjae, Head of East Asia for the BASE division at Coinbase, stated, "For stablecoins to maintain neutrality and innovation as infrastructure and to scale, they should be structured without fees. In the era of agent artificial intelligence (AI), stablecoins will inevitably become a key payment method, so it is essential to build competitiveness in response to this change."

However, concrete discussions on introducing stablecoins—such as on reserve assets—remain sluggish. Assemblyman Min said, "We need active discussions on who will issue stablecoins, what assets will be used as collateral, where they will be stored, how redemption will work, and how security will be managed. Currently, discussions are lacking, and the only suggestion is a '50%+1 share' bank-centered ownership structure for issuers. Rather than assuming stability just because banks are involved as issuers, we must discuss who will manage stablecoins and how security can be maintained, so that stability can be meaningfully addressed during the process."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.