Bank of Korea Backs Bank-Led Stablecoin Issuance Model

Kim Bo-il, head of the BOK’s virtual asset team, described the structure, in which banks hold 50% plus one share of a stablecoin issuer, as a second-best option in the absence of a perfect answer. It is also the leading idea behind the Financial Services Commission’s proposal under the Digital Asset Basic Act, which is still in draft form.

Why Banks Fit Korea’s Existing Rules

Kim’s reasoning is practical. Korean finance already runs on a set of constraints that banks know well:

• Anti-money laundering rules built on real-name verification
• Restrictions on mixing industrial and financial capital
• Foreign exchange controls

Banks already have the compliance systems, operational experience, and internal controls to work within those limits, so a bank-led model creates the least friction between blockchain innovation and current oversight. Kim also acknowledged that blockchain anonymity worries regulators, particularly around money laundering and sanctions evasion. Tying issuance to banks keeps the real-name principle intact.

The plan is deliberately staged. Issuance starts with banks, and eligibility widens to non-banks once stability has been proven. The BOK says it sees real value in blockchain, especially smart contracts and programmability that could streamline financial markets, and it pictures a hybrid system where central bank settlement assets and private stablecoins exist side by side and compete. Kim stressed that even in a fully tokenized system, a monetary anchor remains essential.

The Open Question About Ethereum and Solana

Kim flagged one constraint the BOK has not solved: interoperability with global blockchains such as Ethereum and Solana. Those networks operate independently, and Seoul has to decide how much of its payment system should depend on private, foreign-controlled infrastructure. The BOK called it an unresolved institutional question that will need coordination between financial regulators and blockchain networks.

The trade-off cuts both ways. Won stablecoins confined to Korean networks, or reachable only through expensive bridges, lose much of their usefulness. Stablecoins that connect smoothly to Ethereum or Solana raise the question of whether Seoul gives up some monetary policy leverage to networks it does not control.

A Different Test for Issuers

Not everyone at the seminar framed the debate around who issues. Hwang Seok-jin, a professor at Dongguk University’s Graduate School of International Information, argued that user protection and accountability matter more than whether the issuer is a bank or a fintech. Banks bring financial soundness and compliance discipline, while fintechs bring technical agility and better user experience. Hwang proposed a qualification-based system that lets different kinds of firms issue stablecoins if they meet defined accountability standards, separating regulatory confidence from institutional identity.

Hashlytics Take

The “second-best” label is the most telling part of Kim’s remarks. The BOK is not claiming banks are the best issuers of stablecoins. It is saying banks are the safest fit for rules Korea has no plan to rewrite, namely real-name verification, the separation of industrial and financial capital, and capital controls. That makes the model a regulatory convenience first and a market design second. The risk is the staging. A bank-first rollout hands incumbents a head start, and “expand to non-banks once stability is proven” has no date or test attached yet. Hwang’s qualification idea is the stronger long-term answer, but it needs a draft law to carry it. The interoperability gap matters more than either camp admits, because a won stablecoin that cannot move across chains is a limited product, and one that can move freely puts the question of control back on the table.