Eight out of 10 domestic blockchain companies say the delayed enactment of the Basic Digital Asset Act, centered on the introduction of a won-pegged stablecoin, is disrupting their business. Some in the industry have gone as far as to say they are "exhausted by a regulatory approach that amounts to false hope," prompting calls for systematic support for blockchain technology, which is essential for the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) agents and payments.
In an urgent survey conducted by Seoul Economic Daily from the 24th to the 29th of 32 companies—including domestic cryptocurrency exchanges such as Dunamu and Bithumb, as well as custody, infrastructure, research and consulting, gaming, and non-fungible token (NFT) firms—78.1% of respondents (25 companies) said the legislative delay in the Digital Asset Act "affects their business."
The reasons varied. Companies said that the lack of domestic legislation makes it difficult to build cooperative relationships beyond a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with overseas partners, and that attracting investment is also challenging. Some firms pointed to delays in activating Korea's Web3-based payment and business-to-business (B2B) corporate market, as well as the loss of opportunities to capture domestic and overseas markets first. A, the head of a blockchain infrastructure technology company, said, "We are preparing to build a remittance infrastructure for won- and foreign-currency-based stablecoins, but the legal status of stablecoins, regulations on issuance and circulation, and virtual asset service provider (VASP) requirements are unclear, making it difficult to build cooperation beyond an MOU even with overseas partners." He added, "In the end, we are even considering pursuing the related business through an overseas subsidiary."
When asked about the most pressing task to be resolved first, enactment of the Digital Asset Act (56.3%) ranked at the top. It was followed by allowing corporate cryptocurrency accounts (21.9%) and building a blockchain ecosystem (12.5%).
The situation was urgent for industry CEOs and executives. B, the head of a domestic blockchain company, said, "I wish they would at least tell us what's allowed and what's not," lamenting, "All blockchain companies are growing exhausted by a regulatory discussion that amounts to false hope."
The Digital Asset Act, originally pushed with the goal of enactment by the end of last year, has remained silent even after the June 3 local elections. Within the industry and financial authorities, the prevailing reaction is, "Hasn't passage this year already become a lost cause?" Considering the formation of the second-half organization of the 22nd National Assembly and the parliamentary audit schedule, the government's bill must be presented now for discussion to be possible around year-end. C, the head of a wallet company, lamented, "As the enactment of the Digital Asset Act and the introduction of a won-pegged stablecoin are delayed, we are not only postponing the launch of new features but also losing the opportunity to capture the market ahead of global competitors."
Concerns were also raised that domestic regulation is failing to keep pace with global trends. While the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore are building overall regulatory frameworks, Korea alone is falling behind. D, the head of a blockchain industry firm, said, "Under an outdated regulatory system that does not fit the reality of the Korean economy, we are completely unprepared for the future changes that blockchain technology will bring." He pointed out, "Since industrial competitiveness is declining due to excessive intervention by financial authorities, now is the time to change the regulatory philosophy itself." E, an official at an infrastructure company, argued, "Shadow regulation without a legal basis has suppressed the industry, greatly shrinking the domestic ecosystem."
There were also opinions that balance must be struck across the entire digital asset industry. F, an executive in the blockchain industry, said, "The current legislative discussion is concentrated on the distribution of power at the circulation stage, such as the major shareholder stakes of exchanges and the stablecoin issuance status of banks." He stressed, "We need to move away from an exchange-centered mindset. If the infrastructure at the issuance stage is weak, trust will collapse no matter how sophisticated the regulation is."
Advice also emerged that there must be deliberation at the legal level on how to distinguish between security tokens and cryptocurrencies. G, the head of a blockchain company, said, "While the Digital Asset Act governs cryptocurrencies in general, security tokens operate separately within the framework of the Capital Markets Act." He expressed regret, saying, "Because the two tracks keep overlapping in practice, issuers have to recalculate legal risks every time."
Industry officials also requested that the government shift "from positive regulation to negative regulation," provide "gradual permission for derivatives investment," allow "a broad regulatory sandbox," and pursue "active cooperation among ministries."
