Stablecoins as Payment Infrastructure: Korea Seminar on Regulatory Harmonization

Experts at a seminar held on the 17th at South Korea’s National Assembly Building called for stablecoins to be approached as payment infrastructure rather than financial products, with emphasis on global regulatory harmonization, flexible collateral structures, and technology-based real-time transparency. The seminar, titled “U.S. Stablecoin Regulatory Framework and Korea’s Digital Asset Legislation Tasks,” featured panel discussion on convergence of Korea-U.S. stablecoin regulation and strategic choices for Korean policy.

Stablecoins as Digital Payment Rails

Lee Jong-seop, Seoul National University professor, framed stablecoins as “digital payment rails”—infrastructure rather than investment products. “If a payment system is not in place, any asset uploaded will inevitably create a bottleneck,” Lee stated. He emphasized that understanding U.S. regulatory direction requires viewing stablecoins as infrastructure, not financial products.

Lee noted that on-chain data analysis reveals differentiated usage patterns: high-value, low-frequency transactions occur on stability-focused chains like Ethereum, while low-cost chains such as Tron and Solana handle high-frequency, small-value transactions. “Regulatory design must account for infrastructure differentiation by payment type,” he said.

Collateral Asset Flexibility

Lee argued against restricting stablecoins to deposit-based backing. “Limiting stablecoins to deposits alone could stall market development,” he stated. Instead, he proposed that regulators establish liquidity criteria while allowing market participants to determine asset composition. “Stablecoins could become a catalyst for bond market advancement and capital market modernization,” Lee noted.

He also raised concerns about global regulatory fragmentation: if foreign entities issue Korean won stablecoins under overseas regulatory standards, domestic stablecoins could face competitive disadvantage by operating under multiple regulatory regimes.

Real-Time Transparency and Technology

Nicky Ariyasinghe, Chainlink Labs Asia-Pacific & Middle East VP, identified three core elements for regulatory compliance: transparency, periodic and real-time information updates, and security. “Rather than simple disclosure, real-time verifiable transparency is required,” Ariyasinghe stated. He emphasized that reserve asset information must be verified near-real-time rather than disclosed retrospectively, and that smart contracts should automatically control issuance limits.

Regulatory authorities, he noted, now view transparency, information accessibility, and security as central benchmarks for stablecoin oversight.

Infrastructure Competition and Blockchain Design

Park Hyuk-jae, Base East Asia Head, predicted the market will shift from issuance competition to infrastructure competition. “Permissionless public blockchain adoption is critical to ensure stablecoin scalability,” Park stated. “Flexible environments enable diverse use cases.”

Park projected that as AI-based agent economies expand, stablecoins’ role as automated payment mechanisms will grow, making blockchain-based payment infrastructure competitiveness increasingly important. Base, an Ethereum Layer 2 blockchain incubated by Coinbase, currently holds approximately 50% market share in Ethereum mainnet-related metrics, according to Park.

Legislative Approach and Public Debate

An Su-hyun, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Law School professor and panel moderator, noted that the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) posed 211 questions and gathered extensive stakeholder input before establishing regulatory direction. “This opinion-gathering process itself offers significant lessons,” An said.

Democratic Party member Min Byung-deok criticized the current level of National Assembly discussion, stating that debate on issuer identity, collateral assets, custody structures, and redemption mechanisms remains insufficient. “The notion that bank-centric structures alone ensure stability is incorrect,” Min stated.

Min highlighted the primary risk as dollarization—weakening of the Korean won’s function—and called for a strategy that leverages global trends while securing Korea-specific competitive advantages. “Public debate must continue to advance actual legislative progress,” Min emphasized. “Stakeholders who recognize this business’s necessity must continue explaining it to decision-makers.”

Regulatory Framework Considerations

An professor added that future U.S. policy appears directed toward infrastructure competition rather than merely easing stablecoin issuance requirements. Key elements include chain services responding to institutional demand, technology meeting supervisory needs, counterfeit token prevention, and supervisory automation. She noted that privacy protections and right-to-be-forgotten provisions must be examined alongside technological infrastructure development.

Panelists emphasized that regulatory design should not fix current market conditions in place, as this would constrain growth opportunities. Instead, frameworks should remain flexible to accommodate evolving use cases and technological capabilities.