Hashed and Solana Policy Institute urge South Korea to phase in stablecoin rules now
A new policy report argues interim licensing guidance should precede the stalled Digital Asset Basic Act.
Hashed Open Research and the Solana Policy Institute published a policy report on July 30 urging South Korea to introduce interim, phased stablecoin regulation before finalizing the Digital Asset Basic Act. The report frames stablecoin issuer-structure disputes as a key reason the broader legislation remains unfinished.
Key Takeaways
- A new Hashed Open Research and Solana Policy Institute report recommends South Korea roll out phased stablecoin regulation ahead of the Digital Asset Basic Act.
- Interim licensing guidance and “greater flexibility for stablecoin issuers” are positioned as near-term guardrails while lawmakers negotiate the full framework.
- Multiple bills intended to form the Digital Asset Basic Act remain unreconciled, with stablecoin issuance disagreements described as a central delay.
- A compromise structure is being discussed where banks keep majority ownership while fintech and non-bank firms run stablecoin operations.
Hashed/Solana Policy Report Pushes Interim Stablecoin Rules in South Korea
Hashed Open Research and the Solana Policy Institute published a policy report on July 30 calling for South Korea to move stablecoin rules to the front of the regulatory queue. The report’s core recommendation is sequencing: introduce stablecoin issuance and licensing guardrails first, then finish the broader Digital Asset Basic Act once political and technical disputes are resolved.
The report argues South Korea should “allow greater flexibility for stablecoin issuers, provide interim licensing guidance and phase in stablecoin regulation before completing its Digital Asset Basic Act.” It also summarizes a June 23 symposium attended by lawmakers, legal experts, and industry participants, positioning the recommendations as practical steps that can be implemented without waiting for a single comprehensive bill to clear.
For market participants, the immediate relevance is not philosophical. Interim guidance can change who is eligible to issue, what operational standards apply, and whether stablecoin payments sit in a permitted lane or a gray zone.
Digital Asset Basic Act Still Unfinished as Stablecoin Issuance Disputes Persist
The Digital Asset Basic Act is described as South Korea’s first comprehensive digital asset framework, intended to cover stablecoins, issuance, disclosures, and market rules. The report says lawmakers have not reconciled multiple bills meant to form that act, and it explicitly links the delay to disagreements over stablecoin issuance.
That framing matters. It suggests the stablecoin design question, who can issue and under what structure, is not a side debate but a bottleneck for the entire framework. In practice, that kind of uncertainty tends to freeze product launches and partnerships because compliance risk is hard to price when the issuer model itself is contested.
The report’s push for interim licensing guidance reads as an attempt to reduce that uncertainty even if the final legislative package remains stuck.
The Compromise Model on the Table: Bank Majority Ownership, Fintech Operations
Democratic Party lawmaker Ahn Dogeol said policymakers were considering a compromise “under which banks would retain majority ownership while fintech and non-bank firms managed operations.”
A hybrid structure like that signals policymakers may be exploring more than a single issuer archetype. Bank majority ownership can be read as a control and supervision anchor, while allowing fintech and non-bank operators to run day-to-day functions could preserve speed and product iteration.
What remains unclear is how such a model would map into licensing. Ownership, operational responsibility, and liability are the levers that determine who must hold the license, who must meet reserve or risk standards, and who gets regulated as the primary accountable party.
MiCA as the Template: Phased Rollout and Rules for Foreign-Issued Stablecoins
The report points to the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) as a reference for phasing. Kim Hyobong, a partner at Bae, Kim & Lee, urged South Korea to “follow the European Union’s phased rollout of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation” by introducing stablecoin issuance rules ahead of the Digital Asset Basic Act.
Kim also called for clearer boundaries on which crypto activities financial institutions may conduct, resolution of licensing uncertainty for stablecoin payments, and rules for foreign-issued stablecoins.
The forward signal for traders is whether South Korea chooses to treat foreign-issued stablecoins as a first-class policy problem early, rather than leaving it to later enforcement or ad hoc guidance.
Why Interim Licensing Guidance Could Matter Before Any Final Law
Interim stablecoin licensing is the kind of policy move that can reprice regulatory risk quickly because it changes timelines. The threshold that matters is whether South Korean regulators or lawmakers publish draft guidance that defines issuer eligibility, operational requirements, and explicit scope for payments, even if the Digital Asset Basic Act remains unresolved.
The real test is whether the bank-majority/fintech-ops compromise shows up in committee discussions or bill text, because that would indicate convergence on an issuer structure instead of prolonged deadlock. If that structure starts to harden, the setup starts to look structural rather than narrative-driven, especially alongside concrete proposals on foreign-issued stablecoin rules and what financial institutions are allowed to do. In practical terms, this development matters if interim guidance turns stablecoin issuance from a legislative bottleneck into a licensable, bank-adjacent product category with defined operational lanes.
