On May 22, 2026, two seemingly unrelated regulatory clues tightened simultaneously in Asia: on one side, Korea, where an online petition demanding the abolition of a 22% tax on cryptocurrency investment gains, set to be enforced from January 2027, officially surpassed 50,000 signatures (approximately 52,000), dragging the congressional Finance and Economy Planning Committee to the review table, pulling back the tax plan that had already been written into the schedule to an "undecided draft"; on the other side, China, where Li Chao, deputy director of the Policy Research Office of the National Development and Reform Commission, clarified at a press conference that China has never required technology companies to refuse foreign investment and restated that "opening up to the outside world is a basic national policy," while emphasizing that all foreign investments must be included within the legal framework of the Foreign Investment Law and cannot touch the red line of national security and interests. The former directly concerns the post-tax revenue models and business retention of domestic cryptocurrency investors and trading platforms in Korea, while the latter points to Chinese technology and related cryptocurrency companies, as well as foreign institutions that are waiting and observing. For them, whether the future will face "tax burden pressure" or "access barriers" is becoming the most realistic dilemma in the reconfiguration of Asia, and the distinctly different regulatory signals released from both locations on the same day also mark a clear gap in the divergence of compliance boundaries within the region.

50,000 People Pressuring: Korea's 22% Cryptocurrency Tax Being Forced to the Table

The 22% tax on cryptocurrency investment gains in Korea was originally a "fait accompli" already written into the schedule: under the current arrangement, starting from January 2027, any recognized investment gains in cryptocurrency assets would be subject to a 22% income tax. For trading platforms and high-frequency traders, this means a complete recalculation of business models within two years; for retail investors, it means taking on an additional rigid tax burden on top of already existing price volatility and regulatory uncertainty.

What truly changed the process was May 22, 2026. The online petition demanding the abolition of the 22% tax on cryptocurrency investment gains reached over 50,000 signatures on this day, accumulating around 52,000. According to Korea's existing online petition system, this number is not just an emotional indicator but a procedural trigger—once the number of signatures crossed the threshold, the congressional Finance and Economy Planning Committee must initiate a mandatory review of the petition content, pulling the originally "step-by-step" tax arrangement back to the discussion table. Against the backdrop of officials and media describing the domestic cryptocurrency market as "continually shrinking," this petition was no longer just a complaint from retail investors about heavy taxes, but expanded into a political move of the industry and ordinary investors joining forces against tax burden expectations: on one side is the insistence on collecting taxes as originally planned to consolidate regulatory power, while on the other side is the hope to delay, modify, or even abolish the 22% tax rate to obtain a lifeline for a market that has already contracted; this forced congressional review has become the most crucial face-off of both forces in the short term.

What Korean Exchanges and Retail Investors Await After Mandatory Review

The initiation of the mandatory review means that this 22% tax rate no longer moves forward along the linear path of "being written into law — implementing on time," but is instead fed into the agenda machinery of the congressional Finance and Economy Planning Committee: the operational space between the January 2027 time anchor and the current political pressure has suddenly been expanded. For retail investors, what truly needs to be monitored next is not a specific new proposal, but three expected paths: if the tax rate and timeline remain unchanged, the 22% will take effect as planned from 2027, which may further push the currently "continuously shrinking" market towards "de-risking"—frequent traders might compress transactions in 2026 to lock in gains or losses, with more positions passively turning into long-term hedges or shifting to offshore accounts, leaving the remaining funds willing to stay on domestic platforms more inclined towards low turnover. If the review results merely delay implementation, the buffer of time for space will briefly boost sentiment, with some investors possibly viewing the delay as the "last tax-free window" to increase positions and volatility; however, the unresolved 22% remains like a sword hanging over their heads—the longer the wait, the more the market operates under the shadow of being "potentially intercepted at any moment." If local adjustments occur, such as refining the applicable scope or differentiating treatment of different types of gains, the tax burden would shift from "simple but heavy" to "complex but planners can navigate," leading to a redefinition of the after-tax return structure between high-frequency players and traditional buy-and-hold investors, prompting the reallocation of funds among different currencies and strategies.

For Korea's domestic exchanges, custody, and wealth management platforms, this review has directly torn the technology and compliance roadmap into several versions: on one hand, they must build infrastructures such as withholding, prepayment, profit and loss calculations, and tax reporting assistants for the 22% that is to be implemented in 2027 according to existing laws, while on the other hand, they cannot ignore the systemic reconstruction risks brought about by "delays" or "partial rewrites." Whether to embed tax reporting functionality early in front-end products and whether to provide more refined compliance planning for high-net-worth clients will determine who can turn regulatory pressures into sticky service capabilities after the tax system is established; if the domestic market continues to shrink due to tax burdens and uncertainties, the demand for foreign licenses from these platforms will no longer just be a "growth story," but will be reshaped into a risk hedge— the clearer the handling of resident identification, cross-border reporting, and local tax obligations in Korea, the more likely they are to secure a regulatory and commercial gray area during their overseas operations.

Foreign Investment Panic Reversed: Signals from China’s National Development and Reform Commission to Technology and Blockchain Businesses

Before May 22, the market circulated a saying that "China wants to restrict technology companies from accepting foreign investment," and many dollar funds and foreign institutions began to write this into their memorandums as "the worst scenario" during due diligence: large internet platforms were viewed as possibly "losing foreign investment channels" at any moment, and AI and companies engaged in blockchain-related businesses were labeled with "policy uncertainty discounts," quietly raising the risk premium in valuation models, compressing fundraising windows, and forcing projects that were supposed to be "long-term stories" to shift towards short-term cash flows and local funding.

A turning point also occurred on May 22. Li Chao, deputy director of the Policy Research Office of the National Development and Reform Commission of China, publicly addressed this market concern at a press conference, stating clearly that "opening up to the outside world is a basic national policy, and China has never required Chinese technology companies to refuse foreign investment," and reaffirmed that the Foreign Investment Law and its implementation regulations are important legal foundations for foreign investment. For the capital market, this equates to the official return of the discussion on "whether to allow foreign capital into the technology and blockchain-related fields" from rumors to the framework of written law: as long as it is not expressly excluded by law, there is still a system basis for foreign capital participation. However, in the same forum, Chinese officials also stressed that foreign investment must comply with Chinese laws and regulations, and must not undermine national security and interests, which redraws the compliance boundaries in specific practices related to cross-border data flows, cryptocurrency technology applications, and Web3 business layouts—in the future, what truly determines whether a project can attract foreign capital and how much it can attract will no longer be the fear of "sudden blanket restrictions," but rather how much adjustment space the business model has in front of the national security red line.

Contrasting Tax Burden and Access: Asian Capital Weighs Between Two Regulatory Signals

Also on May 22, 2026, Korea and China respectively threw two entirely different regulatory postures into the market: in Korea, an online petition demanding the abolition of the 22% tax on cryptocurrency investment gains surpassed approximately 52,000 signatures, crossing the institutional threshold and forcing the congressional Finance and Economy Planning Committee to initiate mandatory review procedures; this signifies that the originally scheduled tax system design, set to be implemented from January 2027 with a tax rate locked at 22%, has been pulled back to the negotiation table in both political and technical dimensions. The conflict here centers on "whether to impose, when to impose, and at what rate" the tax on cryptocurrency investment gains, and is occurring over a market described as continuously shrinking. In contrast, on the same day, China published a statement clarifying the issue of foreign investment in technology companies by the National Development and Reform Commission, where Li Chao emphasized that China has never prohibited technology companies from accepting foreign investment while reiterating that the Foreign Investment Law and its implementation regulations constitute a basic framework, and once again pointed out the national security red line—releasing a comforting signal of "opening up to the outside world is a basic national policy" while emphasizing that foreign investment must be strictly embedded within existing laws and national security clauses.

Between these two signals, regional and global capital began to readjust the logic of allocation in Asia: on one end is the Korean model of "high tax burden but relatively clear regulatory path," where the risk is that the tax rate and execution pace may still undergo a one-time reassessment depending on the congressional review results; on the other end is the Chinese model of "open access criteria publicly available, foreign capital confirmed to be able to enter, but retaining a significant compliance negotiation space within the framework of national security and laws." For the cryptocurrency and Web3 industry chain applying for licenses at multiple points in Asia and setting up trading and R&D centers, this is no longer an abstract macro comparison but a weighing of concrete business decisions: exchanges and market-making institutions will assess whether placing high-frequency trading and local liquidity businesses in Korea can still yield sufficient after-tax returns, or whether they should maintain a light-asset, wait-and-see layout until the ultimate tax system conclusions land; custody and blockchain infrastructure teams may see China as a market capable of undertaking some R&D, cooperative projects, and infrastructure construction while designing equity structures, data paths, and technology export models around foreign investment and national security clauses. As Korea enters the congressional review phase and China stabilizes foreign investment expectations through official channels, Asian cryptocurrency capital is now monitoring the final version of Korea's tax case while testing the actual elasticity of China's national security red line; the boundary sensations of these two sets of rules will directly determine the next round of trading, custody, and infrastructure teams' order of establishment and levels of resource investment in the region.

From Individual Cases to the Map: The Next Uncertainty in Asian Cryptocurrency and Technology Regulation

The petition to abolish the tax that surpassed approximately 52,000 signatures on May 22, 2026, has pushed the originally scheduled 22% tax on cryptocurrency investment gains back onto the review table of the congressional Finance and Economy Planning Committee, in a market described as continuously shrinking, where the high tax burden is no longer merely a financial technical issue, but has been transformed into positive political pressure on Congress from voters through a procedural petition, forcing a reevaluation before the tax system is implemented regarding who will pay and how it will be paid. Almost simultaneously, the National Development and Reform Commission of China, through Li Chao's public clarification, reiterated that opening up to the outside world is a basic national policy and that it has never prohibited technology companies from accepting foreign investment while once again emphasizing that foreign capital must be embedded in the Foreign Investment Law and national security and other legal frameworks, providing predictable coordinates for capital in the technology and related cryptocurrency ecology under unchanged boundaries. The next steps for the Korean Congress on how to specifically handle this cryptocurrency tax—whether to maintain, amend, or postpone it—and how China will translate "openness + security" in terms of details and enforcement around foreign investment, data, and cryptocurrency-related businesses will become new directions for judging the regulatory landscape in Asia. For platforms and investors, true compliance hedging lies not in betting on a particular Congress or department, but in proactively calculating the overlapping effects of tax burdens, licensing, and foreign capital rules across different legal jurisdictions, rejecting path dependence based on a single regulatory assumption, allowing capital layouts to maintain necessary maneuverability and redundancy in Asia where rules are continuously redrawn.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。