Skip to main content

2 posts tagged with "financial regulation"

Financial regulation and compliance

View all tags

Korea's 15-20% Exchange Ownership Caps: A Regulatory Earthquake Reshaping Asia's Crypto Landscape

· 10 min read
Dora Noda
Dora Noda
Software Engineer

South Korea just dropped a regulatory bombshell that could fundamentally restructure the world's second-largest crypto trading market. On December 30, 2025, the Financial Services Commission (FSC) unveiled plans to cap major shareholder ownership in cryptocurrency exchanges at 15-20%—a move that would force the founders of Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, and Korbit to sell billions of dollars in equity.

The implications extend far beyond Korea's borders. With Korean won already rivaling the US dollar as the world's most-traded fiat currency for crypto, and $110 billion already fleeing to foreign exchanges in 2025 alone, the question isn't just how Korean exchanges will adapt—it's whether Korea will retain its position as Asia's retail crypto powerhouse, or cede ground to Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai.

The Numbers Behind the Bombshell​

The FSC's proposal targets exchanges classified as "core infrastructure"—defined as platforms with over 11 million users. This captures Korea's Big Four: Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, and Korbit.

Here's what the current ownership structure looks like versus what compliance would require:

ExchangeMajor ShareholderCurrent StakeRequired Reduction
Upbit (Dunamu)Song Chi-hyung25%~5-10%
CoinoneCha Myung-hoon54%~34-39%
BithumbHolding Company73%~53-58%
KorbitNXC + SK Square~92% combined~72-77%
GOPAXBinance67.45%~47-52%

The math is brutal. Coinone's founder would need to sell more than half his stake. Bithumb's holding company would need to divest over 70% of its position. Binance's control of GOPAX becomes untenable.

The FSC frames this as transforming founder-controlled private enterprises into quasi-public infrastructure—similar to Alternative Trading Systems (ATS) under Korea's Capital Markets Act. The proposal also signals a shift from the current registration system to a full licensing regime, with regulators conducting fitness reviews of major shareholders.

A Market Too Big to Ignore—and Too Concentrated to Ignore​

Korea's crypto market is a paradox: massive in scale, dangerously concentrated in structure.

The numbers tell the story:

  • $663 billion in crypto trading volume in 2025
  • 16 million+ users (32% of the nation's population)
  • Korean won ranks as the #2 fiat currency for global crypto trading, sometimes surpassing USD
  • Daily trades frequently exceeded $12 billion

But within this market, Upbit dominates with near-monopoly force. In H1 2025, Upbit controlled 71.6% of all trading volume—833 trillion won ($642 billion). Bithumb captured 25.8% with 300 trillion won. The remaining players—Coinone, Korbit, GOPAX—collectively account for less than 5%.

The FSC's concern isn't abstract. When a single platform handles 70%+ of a nation's crypto trading, operational failures, security breaches, or governance scandals don't just affect investors—they become systemic risks to financial stability.

Recent data reinforces this worry. During Bitcoin's December 2024 rally to all-time highs, Upbit's market share spiked from 56.5% to 78.2% in a single month as retail traders consolidated on the dominant platform. That's the kind of concentration that keeps regulators awake at night.

The Capital Flight Already Happening​

Korea's regulatory posture has already triggered a capital exodus that dwarfs the proposed ownership restructuring in significance.

In the first nine months of 2025 alone, Korean investors transferred 160 trillion won ($110 billion) to foreign exchanges—triple the outflow from all of 2023.

Why? Domestic exchanges are limited to spot trading. No futures. No perpetuals. No leverage. Korean traders who want derivatives—and the volume data suggests millions of them do—have no choice but to go offshore.

The beneficiaries are clear:

  • Binance: ₩2.73 trillion in fee income from Korean users
  • Bybit: ₩1.12 trillion
  • OKX: ₩580 billion

Combined, these three platforms extracted ₩4.77 trillion from Korean users in 2025—2.7x the combined revenue of Upbit and Bithumb. The regulatory framework designed to protect Korean investors is instead pushing them to less-regulated venues while transferring billions in economic activity abroad.

The FSC's ownership caps could accelerate this trend. If forced divestments create uncertainty about exchange stability, or if major shareholders exit the market entirely, retail confidence could collapse—pushing even more volume offshore.

The Asia Crypto Hub Competition​

Korea's regulatory gamble plays out against a fierce regional competition for crypto industry dominance. Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai are all vying to become the definitive Asian crypto hub—and each has different strategic advantages.

Hong Kong: The Aggressive Comeback​

Hong Kong has emerged from China's shadow with surprising momentum. By June 2025, the city had granted 11 Virtual Asset Trading Platform (VATP) licenses, with more pending. The Stablecoin Ordinance, implemented August 2025, created Asia's first comprehensive licensing regime for stablecoin issuers—with the first licenses expected in early 2026.

The numbers are compelling: Hong Kong led Eastern Asia with 85.6% growth in crypto activity in 2024, according to Chainalysis. The city is explicitly positioning itself to attract crypto talent and firms from competitors like the US, Singapore, and Dubai.

Singapore: The Cautious Incumbent​

Singapore's approach is the opposite of Korea's heavy-handed intervention. Under the Payment Services Act and Digital Payment Token regime, the Monetary Authority of Singapore emphasizes stability, compliance, and long-term risk management.

The tradeoff is speed. While Singapore's reputation for regulatory clarity and institutional trust is unmatched, its cautious stance means slower adoption. The June 2025 Digital Token Service Provider framework set strict requirements that restrict many overseas-focused issuers.

For Korean exchanges facing ownership caps, Singapore offers a potential safe harbor—but only if they can meet MAS's exacting standards.

Dubai: The Wild Card​

Dubai's Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority (VARA) has positioned the emirate as the "anything goes" alternative to more restrictive Asian jurisdictions. With no personal income tax, a dedicated crypto regulatory framework, and aggressive courting of exchanges and projects, Dubai has attracted major players looking to escape regulatory pressure elsewhere.

If Korea's ownership caps trigger a wave of exchange migrations, Dubai is well-positioned to capture the flow.

What Happens to the Exchanges?​

The FSC's proposal creates three possible paths for Korea's major exchanges:

Scenario 1: Forced Divestment and Restructuring​

If the regulations pass as proposed, major shareholders face a stark choice: sell down stakes to comply, or fight the law in court. Given the political momentum behind the proposal, compliance seems more likely.

The question is who buys. Institutional investors? Foreign strategic acquirers? A distributed pool of retail shareholders? Each buyer profile creates different governance dynamics and operational priorities.

For Bithumb, already pursuing a 2026 NASDAQ IPO, forced divestment might actually accelerate the public listing timeline. Going public naturally diversifies ownership while providing liquidity for existing shareholders.

For Upbit, a potential merger with internet giant Naver could provide cover for ownership restructuring while creating a formidable combined entity.

Scenario 2: Regulatory Rollback​

The crypto industry isn't accepting the proposal quietly. Exchange operators have responded with sharp criticism, arguing that forced ownership dispersion would:

  • Eliminate accountable controlling shareholders, creating ambiguity about responsibility when problems arise
  • Infringe on property rights without clear constitutional justification
  • Weaken domestic exchanges against international competitors
  • Trigger investor flight as uncertainty increases

Industry groups are pushing for behavioral regulations and voting rights restrictions as alternatives to forced divestment. Given the proposal's still-preliminary status—the FSC has emphasized that specific thresholds remain under discussion—there's room for negotiation.

Scenario 3: Market Consolidation​

If smaller exchanges can't afford the compliance costs and governance restructuring required under the new regime, the Big Four could become the Big Two—or even the Big One.

Upbit's dominant market position means it has the resources to navigate regulatory complexity. Smaller players like Coinone, Korbit, and GOPAX may find themselves squeezed between ownership restructuring costs and inability to compete with Upbit's scale.

The irony: a regulation designed to disperse ownership concentration could inadvertently increase market concentration as weaker players exit.

The Stablecoin Deadlock​

Complicating everything is Korea's ongoing battle over stablecoin regulation. The Digital Asset Basic Act, originally expected in late 2025, has stalled over a fundamental disagreement:

  • The Bank of Korea insists only banks with 51% ownership should issue stablecoins
  • The FSC warns this approach could hinder innovation and cede the market to foreign issuers

This deadlock has pushed the bill's passage to January 2026 at earliest, with full implementation unlikely before 2027. Meanwhile, Korean traders who want stablecoin exposure are—once again—forced offshore.

The pattern is clear: Korean regulators are caught between protecting domestic financial stability and losing market share to more permissive jurisdictions. Every restriction that "protects" Korean investors also pushes them toward foreign platforms.

What This Means for the Region​

Korea's ownership cap proposal has implications beyond its borders:

For foreign exchanges: Korea represents one of the most lucrative retail markets globally. If domestic regulatory pressure increases, offshore platforms stand to capture even more of that volume. The $110 billion already flowing to foreign exchanges in 2025 could be just the beginning.

For competing Asian hubs: Korea's regulatory uncertainty creates opportunity. Hong Kong's licensing momentum, Singapore's institutional credibility, and Dubai's permissive stance all become more attractive as Korean exchanges face forced restructuring.

For global crypto markets: Korean retail traders are a major source of volume, particularly for altcoins. Any disruption to Korean trading activity—whether from exchange instability, regulatory uncertainty, or capital flight—reverberates through global crypto markets.

The Road Ahead​

The FSC's ownership cap proposal remains preliminary, with implementation unlikely before late 2026 at earliest. But the direction is clear: Korea is moving toward treating crypto exchanges as quasi-public utilities requiring distributed ownership and enhanced regulatory oversight.

For the exchanges, the next 12-18 months will require navigating unprecedented uncertainty while maintaining operational stability. For Korean retail traders—16 million of them—the question is whether domestic platforms can remain competitive, or whether the future of Korean crypto trading lies increasingly offshore.

The Asia crypto hub race continues, and Korea just made its position significantly more complicated.

References​

The GENIUS Act Turns Stablecoins into Real Payment Rails — Here’s What It Unlocks for Builders

· 8 min read
Dora Noda
Dora Noda
Software Engineer

U.S. stablecoins just graduated from a legal gray area to a federally regulated payments instrument. The new GENIUS Act establishes a comprehensive rulebook for issuing, backing, redeeming, and supervising USD-pegged stablecoins. This newfound clarity doesn’t stifle innovation—it standardizes the core assumptions that developers and businesses can safely build upon, unlocking the next wave of financial infrastructure.

What the Law Locks In​

The Act creates a stable foundation by codifying several non-negotiable principles for payment stablecoins.

  • Full-Reserve, Cash-Like Design: Issuers must maintain 1:1 identifiable reserves in highly liquid assets, such as cash, demand deposits, short-dated U.S. Treasuries, and government money market funds. They are required to publish the composition of these reserves on their website monthly. Crucially, rehypothecation—lending out or reusing customer assets—is strictly prohibited.
  • Disciplined Redemption: Issuers must publish a clear redemption policy and disclose all associated fees. The ability to halt redemptions is removed from the issuer’s discretion; limits can only be imposed when ordered by regulators under extraordinary circumstances.
  • Rigorous Supervision and Reporting: Monthly reserve reports must be examined by a PCAOB-registered public accounting firm, with the CEO and CFO personally certifying their accuracy. Compliance with Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and sanctions rules is now an explicit requirement.
  • Clear Licensing Paths: The Act defines who can issue stablecoins. The framework includes bank subsidiaries, federally licensed nonbank issuers supervised by the OCC, and state-qualified issuers under a $10 billion threshold, above which federal oversight generally applies.
  • Securities and Commodities Clarity: In a landmark move, a compliant payment stablecoin is explicitly defined as not being a security, commodity, or a share in an investment company. This resolves years of ambiguity and provides a clear path for custody providers, brokers, and market infrastructure.
  • Consumer Protection in Failure: Should an issuer fail, stablecoin holders are granted first-priority access to the required reserves. The law directs courts to begin distributing these funds quickly, protecting end-users.
  • Self-Custody and P2P Carve-Outs: The Act acknowledges the nature of blockchains by explicitly protecting direct, lawful peer-to-peer transfers and the use of self-custody wallets from certain restrictions.
  • Standards and Timelines: Regulators have approximately one year to issue implementing rules and are empowered to set interoperability standards. Builders should anticipate forthcoming API and specification updates.

The “No-Interest” Rule and the Rewards Debate​

A key provision in the GENIUS Act bars issuers from paying any form of interest or yield to holders simply for holding the stablecoin. This cements the product’s identity as digital cash, not a deposit substitute.

However, a potential loophole has been widely discussed. While the statute restricts issuers, it doesn’t directly block exchanges, affiliates, or other third parties from offering "rewards" programs that function like interest. Banking associations are already lobbying for this gap to be closed. This is an area where builders should expect further rulemaking or legislative clarification.

Globally, the regulatory landscape is varied but trending toward stricter rules. The EU’s MiCA framework, for instance, prohibits both issuers and service providers from paying interest on certain stablecoins. Hong Kong has also launched a licensing regime with similar considerations. For those building cross-border solutions, designing for the strictest venue from the start is the most resilient strategy.

Why This Unlocks New Markets for Blockchain Infrastructure​

With a clear regulatory perimeter, the focus shifts from speculation to utility. This opens up a greenfield opportunity for building the picks-and-shovels infrastructure that a mature stablecoin ecosystem requires.

  • Proof-of-Reserves as a Data Product: Transform mandatory monthly disclosures into real-time, on-chain attestations. Build dashboards, oracles, and parsers that provide alerts on reserve composition, tenor, and concentration drift, feeding directly into institutional compliance systems.
  • Redemption-SLA Orchestration: Create services that abstract away the complexity of ACH, FedNow, and wire rails. Offer a unified "redeem at par" coordinator with transparent fee structures, queue management, and incident workflows that meet regulatory expectations for timely redemption.
  • Compliance-as-Code Toolkits: Ship embeddable software modules for BSA/AML/KYC, sanctions screening, Travel Rule payloads, and suspicious activity reporting. These toolkits can come pre-mapped to the specific controls required by the GENIUS Act.
  • Programmable Allowlists: Develop policy-driven allow/deny logic that can be deployed at RPC gateways, custody layers, or within smart contracts. This logic can be enforced across different blockchains and provide a clear audit trail for regulators.
  • Stablecoin Risk Analytics: Build sophisticated tools for wallet and entity heuristics, transaction classification, and de-peg stress monitoring. Offer circuit-breaker recommendations that issuers and exchanges can integrate into their core engines.
  • Interoperability and Bridge Policy Layers: With the Act encouraging interoperability standards, there is a clear need for policy-aware bridges that can propagate compliance metadata and redemption guarantees across Layer-1 and Layer-2 networks.
  • Bank-Grade Issuance Stacks: Provide the tooling for banks and credit unions to run their own issuance, reserve operations, and custody within their existing control frameworks, complete with regulatory capital and risk reporting.
  • Merchant Acceptance Kits: Develop SDKs for point-of-sale systems, payout APIs, and accounting plugins that deliver a card-network-like developer experience for stablecoin payments, including fee management and reconciliation.
  • Failure-Mode Automation: Since holder claims have statutory priority in an insolvency, create resolution playbooks and automated tools that can snapshot holder balances, generate claim files, and orchestrate reserve distributions if an issuer fails.

Architecture Patterns That Will Win​

  • Event-Sourced Compliance Plane: Stream every transfer, KYC update, and reserve change to an immutable log. This allows for the compilation of explainable, auditable reports for both bank and state supervisors on demand.
  • Policy-Aware RPC and Indexers: Enforce rules at the infrastructure level (RPC gateways, indexers), not just within applications. Instrumenting this layer with policy IDs makes auditing straightforward and comprehensive.
  • Attestation Pipelines: Treat reserve reports like financial statements. Build pipelines that ingest, validate, attest, and notarize reserve data on-chain. Expose this verified data via a simple /reserves API for wallets, exchanges, and auditors.
  • Multi-Venue Redemption Router: Orchestrate redemptions across multiple bank accounts, payment rails, and custodians using best-execution logic that optimizes for speed, cost, and counterparty risk.

Open Questions to Track (and How to De-Risk Now)​

  • Rewards vs. Interest: Expect further guidance on what affiliates and exchanges can offer. Until then, design rewards to be non-balance-linked and non-duration-based. Use feature flags for anything that resembles yield.
  • Federal–State Split at $10B Outstanding: Issuers approaching this threshold will need to plan their transition to federal oversight. The smart play is to build your compliance stack to federal standards from day one to avoid costly rewrites.
  • Rulemaking Timeline and Spec Drift: The next 12 months will see evolving drafts of the final rules. Budget for schema changes in your APIs and attestations, and seek early alignment with regulatory expectations.

A Practical Builder’s Checklist​

  1. Map your product to the statute: Identify which GENIUS Act obligations directly impact your service, whether it’s issuance, custody, payments, or analytics.
  2. Instrument transparency: Produce machine-readable artifacts for your reserve data, fee schedules, and redemption policies. Version them and expose them via public endpoints.
  3. Bake in portability: Normalize your system for the strictest global regulations now—like MiCA’s rules on interest—to avoid forking your codebase for different markets later.
  4. Design for audits: Log every compliance decision, whitelist change, and sanctions screening result with a hash, timestamp, and operator identity to create a one-click view for examiners.
  5. Scenario test failure modes: Run tabletop exercises for de-pegging events, bank partner outages, and issuer failures. Wire the resulting playbooks to actionable buttons in your admin consoles.

The Bottom Line​

The GENIUS Act does more than just regulate stablecoins; it standardizes the interface between financial technology and regulatory compliance. For infrastructure builders, this means less time guessing at policy and more time shipping the rails that enterprises, banks, and global platforms can adopt with confidence. By designing to the rulebook today—focusing on reserves, redemptions, reporting, and risk—you can build the foundational platforms that others will plug into as stablecoins become the internet’s default settlement asset.

Note: This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Builders should consult legal counsel for specifics on licensing, supervision, and product design under the Act.