South Korea keeps November in sight for its second-stage crypto bill
South Korea’s Financial Services Commission says its second-stage crypto legislation is still on track for a November National Assembly review, with stablecoins shaping up as the main political fault line.
- November review still planned
- Stablecoin issuer rules remain the key fight
- Bank-led models still have strong backing
- U.S. policy is adding outside pressure
Seo Na yoon, head of the FSC’s virtual asset division, told a National Assembly seminar in Seoul on Sept. 22 that the regulator is not slowing down the Digital Asset Framework Act. The bill is expected to move to a National Assembly subcommittee review in November, despite speculation that the process was losing steam.
Seo was blunt about it.
“The FSC is not dragging its feet at all. We share the same view, ” Seo said.
“The direction has already been set, and while detailed discussions may be necessary in the process, there is certainly no intention on the FSC’s part to delay.”
She also brushed aside the idea that personnel changes at the regulator would knock the schedule off course.
“A change in the responsible official cannot cause a delay in the schedule, ” Seo said. “We will make every effort to ensure discussions proceed according to the planned timeline.”
That timeline matters because South Korea is trying to move from a first-stage crypto law focused on user protection to a broader framework that covers issuance, disclosures, stablecoins, and market structure. The current law, the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, was built to deal with unfair trading and basic consumer safeguards. The next layer is where lawmakers decide who gets to issue what, under what rules, and with what kind of supervision.
That is the real issue here. Not “does crypto exist?” That battle is over. The question now is who gets to build the rails for digital money.
Ten bills, one messy legislative pile
There are currently ten digital asset and stablecoin bills pending in the National Assembly. The FSC had previously told lawmakers it wanted to work with the ruling Democratic Party on a consolidated bill, which is the sensible move if anyone wants a framework instead of a pile of competing drafts gathering dust.
Rep. Min Byung duk introduced one of the proposals in June 2025 and said a public hearing on the Digital Asset Framework Act was expected at the end of September. Other Democratic Party lawmakers, Ahn Do geol, Kim Hyun jung, Lee Kang il and Park Sang hyuk, have also submitted proposals. People Power Party lawmakers Kim Eun hye, Kim Jae seop, Choi Bo yoon, Lee Sung kwon and Kim Sung won have introduced separate bills.
That many proposals can be useful if it sharpens the debate. It can also turn into regulatory mush if nobody is willing to narrow the field and settle the core questions.
And the core questions are not subtle: who can issue stablecoins, how reserves are managed, what disclosures are required, and how much of the system sits inside the banking sector versus outside it.
Stablecoins are where the knives come out
The biggest policy fight is over stablecoins, especially won-denominated stablecoins, tokens designed to maintain a stable value against the Korean won. These are not just another crypto product for traders to fling around. They are payment infrastructure in token form, which is why regulators care so much about who controls them.
The Bank of Korea wants a bank-led structure for won-backed stablecoins. In July, the central bank reaffirmed that position and said banks should initially take the lead through consortiums, meaning groups of banks or institutions working together to issue the tokens.
From a regulator’s point of view, that is easy to defend. Banks are already supervised, already capitalized, and already embedded in the payment system. If you want fewer surprises, putting banks in charge sounds neat and tidy.
But tidy is not always the same as smart. A bank-led model can also become a gatekeeping model. It may reduce risk, but it can also lock out nonbank innovators and turn stablecoin issuance into yet another club for incumbents. The trade-off is obvious: more control, less openness. That is the price of “safety” when the people writing the rules have a habit of confusing caution with progress.
South Korea’s government placed digital asset legislation in its policy plans for the second half of 2026. A roadmap announced in July included stablecoin legislation, crypto ETFs, tokenized government bonds, and a legal framework for cross-border stablecoin transactions. The FSC also said in its presidential business briefing that it planned to complete second-stage legislation related to stablecoins within 2026.
That is an ambitious window. And the pressure is not just coming from Seoul.
Washington is still part of the picture
Min Byung duk said U.S. developments around the CLARITY Act and GENIUS Act give South Korea a reason to move decisively. At the seminar, he pointed to the scale of activity in the U.S. stablecoin market and warned that Korean lawmakers could be forced to deal with foreign products spilling in before their own framework is ready.
“When I went to the U.S. to check, there are 200 [stablecoins] being prepared in the market right now, ” Min said.
“If even a few dozen are approved after the law takes effect on Jan. 18, those few dozen will pour into [our market].”
The U.S. side is messy, which is hardly shocking. The U.S. Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act after a 50 to 49 cloture vote. The GENIUS Act, which established a federal framework for payment stablecoins, was signed into law on July 18, 2025. Federal agencies were given one year to write the implementing rules, and the deadline passed in July 2026 without all required regulations being finalized. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is expected to finalize its stablecoin rule later in 2026.
That matters because crypto does not respect neat national boundaries, no matter how much regulators wish it would. If U.S.-linked stablecoin products reach scale first, Korean exchanges, payment firms, and users will feel the impact whether lawmakers are ready or not.
Min’s warning is basically this: if Seoul waits too long, it may end up reacting to imported market structure instead of shaping its own.
Why this law is more than another crypto bill
The Digital Asset Framework Act is not just a cleanup bill for the crypto industry. It is a shot at defining the next phase of digital finance in South Korea. That means dealing with issuance, distribution, disclosures, and the plumbing behind stablecoins, the boring parts that decide who controls the exciting parts.
If the November review stays on schedule, South Korea could be closer to a real legal framework that goes beyond consumer protection and starts mapping the market itself. That would give issuers and exchanges more clarity, and it would give regulators more tools to separate serious businesses from the usual scammer circus.
If the process slips, uncertainty stretches on. That hurts firms trying to build compliant products, and it gives bad actors room to keep exploiting the gray zones. Crypto thrives on open systems, not open season for fraud.
The unresolved question is stablecoin access. Will banks get the lead role from day one? Will consortiums be mandatory? Will nonbank firms be allowed in, and if so, how? Those answers will determine whether South Korea builds a tightly controlled digital payments rail or a more competitive market that still keeps strong safeguards in place.
There is a real policy tension here, and it is not fake. Banks want control because they hate uncontrolled competition almost as much as central banks hate losing visibility. Innovators want room to build because “trust us, we’re the bank” is not exactly the spirit of financial disruption. Somewhere between those positions is a workable system, if lawmakers can be bothered to draw it honestly.
For a deeper look at the legal backdrop, see the Guide to Korea's Stablecoin Regulation Framework. And if you want the blunt version of why the central bank keeps pushing back, the Bank of Korea Rejects Non-Bank Stablecoins: Risk of Chaos and Bank of Korea Warns: Non-Bank Stablecoins Risk Financial explain the central bank’s favorite alarm bells. The same warning has also been repeated in a follow-up at Bank of Korea Warns: Non-Bank Stablecoins Risk Financial.
Key questions and takeaways
-
Why does November matter?
The FSC says the Digital Asset Framework Act is still slated for National Assembly subcommittee review in November. That keeps the bill on a live timetable instead of letting it drift.
-
What is the Digital Asset Framework Act?
It is South Korea’s planned second-stage crypto law. It is expected to cover issuance, disclosures, stablecoins, and broader market structure.
-
Why are stablecoins the main fight?
Stablecoins sit at the center of payments, banking, and monetary policy. Whoever controls won-backed stablecoin issuance could shape how digital money moves through the Korean economy.
-
Why does the Bank of Korea want a bank-led model?
The central bank sees banks as safer and easier to supervise. The downside is that this can limit competition and keep new entrants outside the core system.
-
How does the U.S. affect South Korea’s timetable?
U.S. stablecoin rules can spill across borders because issuers and users do not stay neatly inside one market. If American products move first, South Korea may feel pressure to respond faster.
-
Can South Korea finish this within 2026?
That is the stated goal, but stablecoin issuer eligibility and supervision rules remain the hardest part. The timetable is possible, but only if lawmakers settle the core design issues.
-
What happens if nonbanks are left out?
A bank-only model would likely reduce risk, but it could also narrow competition and slow innovation. South Korea would get a more controlled market, but not necessarily a more dynamic one.
South Korea is not deciding whether crypto belongs in the financial system. It already does. The real decision now is who controls the rails, who gets access, and whether the country wants a cautious banking cartel or a broader, more competitive stablecoin market.
Further reading
A couple of unrelated references surfaced along the way, worth a look if you like wandering off the beaten path.
