On July 21, 2026, the South Korean government and the ruling party held an unprecedented thematic meeting in Seoul: the first forum led by the government focusing on the legislation of anchor tokens, personally attended and chaired by South Korea's Economic Deputy Prime Minister Chu Runtze. The meeting table was filled not just with technical details, but a comprehensive set of systemic issues surrounding the "Basic Law on Digital Assets"—how to establish a clear issuance and circulation system for backed tokens, how to promote segmented regulation of the digital asset industry within the existing framework, and how to improve anti-money laundering rules to ensure funds no longer operate in gray areas. Chu Runtze characterized this forum as a crucial step in the legislative process of the "Basic Law on Digital Assets." The government and the ruling party also publicly included the "completion of legislation within 2026" in their political agenda, attempting to set up a foundational legal framework for such tokens and broader digital assets within the year. Leaked pre-meeting research briefs pointed out external pressures more directly: if the "GENIUS Act," regarded as significant U.S. legislation, is expected to be enacted in January 2027 (a timeframe currently only reported by a single Chinese media outlet and not yet officially confirmed), it will promote the global compliance expansion of dollar-pegged tokens, exerting competitive pressure on non-dollar systems, including potential won-denominated tokens. Under such expectations, this forum was viewed not merely as a technical meeting on domestic regulation but as a strategic move by South Korea to establish a local defensive line under the "regulate first, develop later" approach, responding to the accelerated spillover of the U.S. regulatory tide using the "Basic Law on Digital Assets."
From User Protection to Basic Law: Accelerating Shifting of South Korean Regulation
If we draw a timeline of South Korea's digital asset legislation over recent years, the "Virtual Asset User Protection Act" passed in 2024 appears more like a "band-aid," prioritizing addressing first-order risks such as wrongdoings by exchanges, lack of transparency, and arbitrary misappropriation of user assets. In the following two years, the government continued to warm up around the higher-level "Basic Law on Digital Assets," repeatedly emphasizing one premise in hearings and discussions: first clarify the bottom-line rules, then talk about industry stories and financial innovations; this "regulate first, develop later" main line has never changed.
On July 21, 2026, the first legal thematic forum on anchor tokens, chaired by Deputy Economic Minister Chu Runtze, was clearly marked as a watershed moment from "broad user protection" towards systematic regulation. The forum topics no longer focused solely on platform responsibilities but directly dissected the issuance and circulation system of anchor tokens, industry segmentation regulation, and anti-money laundering rules. Chu Runtze also defined it as a crucial step in the legislative process of the "Basic Law on Digital Assets." Government department representatives and ruling party members openly reiterated their plan to complete this foundational law within 2026, aiming to simultaneously establish a local rules framework while reserving a clear institutional runway for core tracks like anchor tokens. The brief interpreted this path as a positive response to the anticipated effects of the U.S. "GENIUS Act": South Korea chose to raise the "regulate first" flag before the global regulatory map tightens, striving to play a role as a shaper rather than a passive follower in future digital asset rule negotiations.
Dollar-Pegged Coins on the Way: The Shadow of the GENIUS Act
From the perspective of Seoul decision-makers, the U.S. "GENIUS Act" is no longer just external news, but a shadow pressing on the timeline. The research brief views it as a significant legislative framework related to pegged tokens. If the current reports hold true, and it is formally implemented in January 2027—though this date is currently only relayed by a single Chinese media outlet without official confirmation—it would mean that dollar-pegged coins would receive a "global passport" under domestic law. The brief judges that if the U.S. provides a systematic compliance path for these dollar-denominated anchor tokens, they will enter global markets with lower compliance costs and clearer regulatory expectations, constituting substantial competitive pressure on any non-dollar-pegged tokens, including potential future won-pegged tokens.
Under this expectation, Korea's current planning of the "Basic Law on Digital Assets" and the anchor token system was interpreted by the brief as a deliberate "head start." Since the passage of the "Virtual Asset User Protection Act" in 2024, South Korean regulation has consistently adhered to the "regulate first, develop later" principle, attempting now to establish an independent legal framework for local anchor tokens before U.S. rules truly take effect, thereby constructing a defensive regulatory barrier. In other words, while dollar-pegged coins expand globally due to the "GENIUS Act," South Korea hopes to already stand on a self-consistent domestic regime, negotiating as a rule-maker with U.S.-led compliance standards, rather than passively accepting established facts under the attack of dollar-pegged coins.
The Outline of Korean Rules: Issuance, Circulation, and Anti-Money Laundering
The three core issues raised at the forum on July 21—issuance and circulation system, industry segmentation regulation, and anti-money laundering rules—nearly outline the framework of the Korean version of stablecoins. The regulatory authorities emphasize "regulate first, develop later" while trying to lock local anchor tokens into a self-consistent system before the formation of U.S. rules: who qualifies to issue, how tokens circulate between trading platforms and wallets, which participants are regarded as "key institutions," and what identity recognition and traceability requirements should be met as funds navigate on-chain and off-chain. From a procedural perspective, it has been clarified that the goal of this forum is to establish a clear legal framework for stablecoins, but the specific provisions of the "Basic Law on Digital Assets" have yet to be publicly released, with any discussion about details remaining at the directional level rather than in verifiable legislative text.
When examining these three issues from the perspective of investors and industry participants, a principle logic resonates highly with international mature experiences. In terms of the issuance and circulation system, global practices often involve introducing licensing or permit management at the issuance stage, turning "who can issue" and "how much to issue" into regulatory approval matters while requiring issuers to disclose and isolate reserves, accepting periodic audits to enhance the transparency and liquidation capability of backed assets; during circulation, anti-money laundering and compliance checks integrate trading platforms, custodians, and even some wallet services into the regulatory view, imposing obligations such as KYC, suspicious transaction reporting, and on-chain tracking. Industry segmentation regulation implies that South Korea may legally distinguish roles such as "issuer," "custodian," and "trading venues," setting differentiated requirements based on risk levels: for institutions, this means licensing, capital, and procedural constraints; for investors, it means information disclosure and the boundaries of product suitability. However, it must be emphasized that all these deductions are built on international experiences, not on officially announced rule designs from South Korea. Until specific terms of the "Basic Law on Digital Assets" and its related stablecoin system are truly disclosed, any expectations regarding license thresholds, reserve ratios, or technical compliance details can only be regarded as hypothetical scenarios rather than established facts.
Opportunities for Won-Pegged Coins: Regulatory Moat or Shackles
From the perspective of the research brief, the implementation of the U.S. "GENIUS Act" will provide a global compliance "fast track" for dollar-denominated anchor tokens, while non-dollar-denominated anchor assets will face overt pressures regarding licenses, cross-border settlements, and institutional adoption. South Korea's urgent push for the "Basic Law on Digital Assets" and a specialized anchor token system is clearly interpreted as a defensive arrangement by the brief: first building a clear, predictable legal foundation domestically, allowing future won-pegged tokens and local digital asset businesses to have a "self-owned territory" outside the dollar rules rather than passively accepting foreign standards.
If this basic law can indeed be enacted as planned within the year, local exchanges, banks, and brokerages, as well as potential won-pegged token projects, will simultaneously face both advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, explicit rules mean compliance certainty: who can issue, how to safeguard assets, and how to access anti-money laundering systems are no longer in a regulatory gray area, providing local institutions with a relatively safe path to participation, thus forming a regulatory moat against offshore dollar-denominated anchor assets. On the other hand, the positioning of "regulate first, develop later" inevitably raises the thresholds—whether in capital requirements, risk management processes, or coordination with existing financial regulations will keep many potential participants at bay, making the ecological expansion pace and shape of won-pegged tokens more subject to regulatory rhythm. From a strategic perspective, South Korea must carefully balance external cooperation and acknowledgment of the reality of the dollar system with internal support for domestic currency-denominated assets: if the rules excessively favor dollar-pegged tokens, the local market will accelerate "dollarization"; if overly closed, it may weaken South Korea's established goal of "taking an active position" in global digital asset regulation, with the true test being whether South Korea can protect won-pegged assets while allowing the local ecosystem to maintain permeability to global capital and technology in this complex balance.
Legislative Sprint within the Year: What Signals Should Investors Focus On
From the stablecoin thematic forum personally chaired by Chu Runtze, it is evident that South Korea has pushed the "Basic Law on Digital Assets" onto the legislative sprint track for this year. This is not only a "key step" in the legislative process but also a public signal to seize regulatory initiative on the eve of the global expansion of dollar-pegged coins: whoever first outlines clear boundaries for stablecoins will hold a chance to grasp discourse power in the next round of rule competition. For investors and industry participants, what truly deserves attention now are three categories of specific movements: first, the pace of the bill's advancement in the National Assembly—whether it adheres to the timeline publicly set by the government and ruling party to complete the legislation of the "Basic Law on Digital Assets" within 2026 will determine South Korea's ability to fulfill its promise of "regulate first, develop later"; second, the public discussion details of stablecoin-specific provisions—how to define issuance and circulation systems, handling of won-denominated assets versus dollar-pegged tokens will directly reshape project design and asset allocation pathways; third, the degree of integration of these provisions with anti-money laundering rules—whether regulation is merely "superficial compliance" or fundamentally rewrites the risk control structures of exchanges, payment scenarios, and cross-border businesses through penetrating requirements. The research brief's timeframe anchor regarding the U.S. "GENIUS Act" (considered likely to be implemented in January 2027 and still remaining at the level of a single Chinese media report) provides a reference for this speed race: if this expectation ultimately becomes reality, and Korea takes the lead in completing the basic digital asset legislation by 2026, then the compliance pathways for Asian projects and the competitive landscape between dollar stablecoins and local currency-denominated assets will have to be rearranged around the "Korean rules." Whether this time difference is firmly held by Korea will become a core signal for observing changes in the global digital asset power map over the next few years.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
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。
