CryptoNews

Key takeaways

• Korea’s crypto bill is stalled over stablecoin issuer rules.

• The central bank wants banks to remain in control, often framed as a “51%” threshold.

• Regulators and lawmakers fear a bank-only model would limit competition.

• Firms are lining up, with Toss planning a won-backed stablecoin once rules are finalized.

South Korea’s next major crypto law is being held up by a seemingly simple question: Who gets to issue a won-backed stablecoin?

The proposed Digital Asset Basic Act has slowed as regulators clash over whether stablecoins should be treated as bank-like money or as a licensed digital-asset product.

At the center is the Bank of Korea’s push for a “banks-first” model, ideally through bank-led consortia with at least 51% bank ownership, arguing that stablecoins could, in their view, spill over into monetary policy, capital flows and financial stability if they scale too quickly.

The Financial Services Commission and lawmakers, meanwhile, are wary that a bank-dominated regime could materially limit competition and slow innovation.

The standoff is now expected to push the bill into 2026.

Why Korea cares about won-stablecoins

Stablecoins in South Korea are already important to local traders who move value into crypto markets, often via dollar-pegged tokens to access offshore liquidity. If stablecoin use scales, it could amplify cross-border flows and complicate foreign-exchange management, especially in a market where crypto participation and retail exposure are unusually high.

That is why the Bank of Korea continues to frame issuer rules as a “financial stability” decision. Officials argue that a cautious, staged rollout, starting with tightly regulated banks, reduces the risk of sudden outflows or a loss of control over how “private money” circulates.

At the same time, policymakers who want more companies to be allowed to issue won-backed stablecoins view the issue as one of competitiveness. If Korea does not build a trusted local option, users will continue to rely on foreign stablecoins, leaving the country with less regulatory visibility and fewer opportunities to grow a domestic stablecoin industry.

Did you know? In the 12 months through June 2025, stablecoin purchases denominated in Korean won totaled about $64 billion in South Korea, according to Chainalysis.

The regulatory backdrop

South Korea’s first major crypto regulatory act was the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users. It is built around market safety, including the segregation and custody of customer funds, with banks designated as custodians for user deposits. The framework also mandates cold-wallet storage, criminal penalties for unfair trading and insurance or reserve requirements to cover hacks and system failures.

However, that “phase 1” framework is mainly focused on how exchanges and service providers protect users. The unresolved dispute lies in the next step, the proposed Digital Asset Basic Act, where lawmakers and regulators aim to define stablecoin issuance, supervision and issuer eligibility.

This is precisely where the bill is bogging down. When Korea tries to answer the question of who can issue stablecoins, the Bank of Korea and the financial regulator diverge.

Did you know? South Korea’s crypto rules require licensed service providers to keep at least 80% of customer assets in offline cold wallets to protect against hacks and theft.

Three institutions, three incentives

South Korea’s stablecoin standoff is ultimately a dispute over which institution should have primary responsibility when private money becomes systemically important.

The Bank of Korea is approaching won-backed stablecoins as a potential extension of the payments system and, therefore, as a monetary policy and financial stability issue. Its senior leadership has argued for a gradual rollout that begins with tightly regulated commercial banks and only later expands to the broader financial sector to reduce the risk of disruptive capital flows and knock-on effects during periods of market stress.

The Financial Services Commission views the same product as a regulated financial innovation that can be supervised through licensing, disclosure, reserve standards and ongoing enforcement, without hard-wiring the market to banks as the default winners.

That is why the FSC has pushed back against the idea that issuer eligibility should be determined mainly by ownership structure and why leaked and proposed approaches have reportedly examined multiple models rather than treating bank control as the only safe option.

Then there are lawmakers and party task forces, who are weighing political promises, industry pressure and the optics of competitiveness.

Some proposals have contemplated relatively low capital thresholds for issuers, which the central bank has described as increasing instability risks. Others argue that a bank-first regime could simply delay product market fit and push activity toward offshore dollar stablecoins.

Even the “51% rule” debate has a local twist. The Bank of Korea has warned that allowing non-bank corporates to take the lead could collide with Korea’s long-standing separation between industrial and financial capital.

Did you know? Major Korean exchanges such as Bithumb and Coinone added USDT/KRW trading pairs starting in December 2023, making stablecoins easier to access directly with the won.

The “51% rule”: What it is, why it exists and why it’s controversial

In its strictest form, the Korean media-dubbed “51% rule” suggests that a won-backed stablecoin issuer should be a consortium led by commercial banks, with banks holding at least a 51% ownership stake. This structure would effectively ensure that banks control governance, risk management and, crucially, redemption operations.

The logic is that if stablecoins begin functioning like money at scale, they can influence monetary policy transmission, capital flows and financial stability. A bank-led structure is intended to import prudential discipline from day one, including capital standards, supervisory culture, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) controls and crisis management, rather than attempting to bolt those safeguards on after a non-bank issuer has already reached systemic size.

The opposition is just as direct. The Financial Services Commission and pro-industry lawmakers argue that hard-wiring bank control into the rules could reduce competition, slow experimentation and effectively shut out capable fintech or payments firms that might deliver better distribution and user experience.

Critics also point out that mandatory ownership thresholds are an indirect way to regulate risk and not the only one, given the availability of reserve requirements, audits, redemption rules and supervisory powers.

It’s not just about who issues stablecoins

Even if South Korea ultimately allows non-banks to issue won-backed stablecoins, regulators still have plenty of levers to prevent the product from exhibiting shadow-bank-like risk characteristics.

The government’s draft approach has focused on reserve quality and segregation, steering issuers toward highly liquid, low-risk backing such as bank deposits and government debt. Reserves would be held through third-party custody and structurally separated from the issuer to reduce bankruptcy spillover.

Then there is the “money-like” principle of quick redemption at par. Publicly discussed proposals include clear redemption rules and tight timelines, which are designed to prevent a stablecoin from turning into a gated fund during periods of market stress.

Korea’s broader regulatory posture already points in this direction. The Financial Services Commission has been building a user-protection regime around custody standards and strict operational requirements, such as offline storage thresholds for customer assets, showing that regulators are comfortable setting concrete technical guardrails rather than relying solely on licensing decisions.

Industry pressure and what to watch in 2026

There is urgency. The regulatory standoff is unfolding while the market is already preparing for won-backed stablecoins.

Major commercial banks are gearing up for a bank-led model, while large consumer platforms and crypto-native players are exploring how they could issue or distribute a won-pegged token if the rules allow it. Multiple banks and major companies are reportedly positioning for this market even as the policy debate drags on.

Fintech firms, however, do not want to operate inside a bank-controlled consortium. Toss is a clear example. The company has said it is preparing to issue a won-based stablecoin once a regulatory framework is in place, treating legislation as the gate that determines whether the product can launch.

This push and pull is why delays matter. The longer Korea debates issuer eligibility, the more everyday stablecoin activity defaults to offshore, dollar-based infrastructure, and the harder it becomes to argue that the slow pace reflects a deliberate choice rather than lost time.

So, what happens in 2026? Scenarios under consideration include:

• Staged licensing, with banks first and broader participation later, is an approach the Bank of Korea has publicly supported.

• Open licensing with a “systemic” tier, where larger issuers face heavier requirements.

• Bank-led consortia that are allowed but not mandatory, easing the fight over the “51% rule.”

Key takeaways

• In 2026, scarcity is being repriced through narratives, market access and financial structures rather than simple supply limits.

• Bitcoin’s scarcity is increasingly mediated by ETFs and derivatives, reshaping how it is accessed and priced in financial markets.

• Gold’s scarcity is tied less to mining output and more to trust, neutrality and reserve management.

• Silver’s scarcity reflects its dual role as both an investment metal and an industrial input.

In 2026, scarcity has taken on a different meaning. It is no longer defined solely by limited supply or production constraints. Instead, it increasingly depends on how narratives are constructed and combined, shaping how investors perceive value.

Bitcoin (BTC), gold and silver each assert scarcity in distinct ways. However, investors now tend to evaluate them not only by how rare they are but by how they function within modern financial markets. Considerations increasingly include narrative pricing, market structure and ease of access.

This article explores how the manner in which investors discuss Bitcoin, gold and silver is undergoing change. It discusses the role of different factors in determining the repricing of scarcity.

Repricing of scarcity: A framework

Repricing scarcity does not involve forecasting which asset will outperform others. Instead, it refers to how market participants reassess the meaning of scarcity and determine how much they are willing to pay for its different forms.

In past decades, scarcity was commonly understood as a physical constraint, and gold and silver naturally aligned with this definition. Bitcoin, however, introduced a new concept: scarcity enforced by programmable code rather than geological limits.

In 2026, scarcity is evaluated through three interconnected perspectives:

• Credibility: Is the mechanism that enforces scarcity considered trustworthy?

• Liquidity: How readily can a position in the scarce asset be entered or exited?

• Portability: How easily can the value be transferred across systems and borders?

Each of these perspectives influences Bitcoin, gold and silver in distinct ways.

Bitcoin: From self-sovereign asset to financial instrument

Bitcoin’s scarcity narrative relies on fixed, preset rules. Its supply schedule is transparent and resistant to arbitrary change. This makes Bitcoin’s scarcity framework clear, allowing investors to see precisely how coin issuance will unfold years in advance.

In 2026, Bitcoin’s scarcity and demand are increasingly influenced by financial products, particularly spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and regulated derivatives. These instruments do not alter Bitcoin’s core rules, but they do reshape how scarcity is perceived in markets.

Many investors now access Bitcoin not on its blockchain but through associated products such as ETFs. This shift has contributed to a reframing of Bitcoin’s narrative, from a primarily self-sovereign digital asset toward a more financialized scarce instrument. While the underlying scarcity remains fixed, pricing increasingly reflects additional factors, including liquidity management and hedging activity.

Did you know? Bitcoin’s issuance schedule is capped at 21 million units, with new supply decreasing over time through programmed halvings.

Gold’s evolution from metal to global collateral

Gold has a long-standing reputation for scarcity. Mining it requires significant investment, and known reserves are well documented. In 2026, however, gold’s value depends less on mining output and more on the trust it inspires.

Central banks, governments and long-term investment managers continue to regard gold as a neutral asset, unlinked to any single country’s debt or monetary policy. The metal is traded in various forms, including physical bars, futures contracts and ETFs.

Each form responds differently to scarcity. Physical gold emphasizes secure storage and reliable settlement, while paper gold prioritizes ease of trading and broader portfolio strategies.

During periods of geopolitical tension or policy uncertainty, markets often revalue gold based on its perceived role as reliable collateral. Investors are not always seeking higher prices. Instead, they value gold’s ability to remain functional when other financial systems face strain.

Did you know? Central banks have been net buyers of gold in recent years, reinforcing gold’s role as a reserve asset rather than a purely speculative instrument.

Why silver defies traditional scarcity models

Silver occupies a distinct position in discussions of scarcity. Unlike gold, it is deeply integrated into industrial supply chains. Unlike Bitcoin, its scarcity is not governed by a fixed issuance schedule.

In 2026, silver’s scarcity narrative is shaped by its dual-use nature. It functions as both a monetary metal and an industrial input for electronics, solar panels and advanced manufacturing. This dual role complicates scarcity pricing. Industrial demand can constrain supply even when investor sentiment is weak, while financial flows can amplify volatility despite relatively modest physical shortages.

Silver’s market structure also plays an important role. Compared with gold, silver markets are smaller and more sensitive to futures positioning and inventory shifts. As a result, silver’s scarcity often manifests through sharp repricing events.

Did you know? Silver demand is split between investment and industrial use, with industrial applications accounting for more than half of annual consumption.

The role of ETPs in reframing scarcity

One of the most significant developments influencing scarcity narratives across all three assets is the growth of exchange-traded products (ETPs).

ETPs do not change an asset’s underlying scarcity. Instead, they expand access and allow market sentiment to drive investment flows more rapidly, influencing how prices adjust.

• For Bitcoin, ETPs bring a digitally native asset into traditional financial systems.

• For gold and silver, ETPs transform physical scarcity into instruments that behave like stocks and respond quickly to broader economic signals.

This indicates that scarcity is influenced not only by long-term holders but also by short-term traders, arbitrage strategies and portfolio adjustments. As a result, scarcity increasingly functions as a market attribute that can be traded or hedged, rather than simply held.

Did you know? Bitcoin ETFs allow investors to gain BTC exposure without holding private keys, meaning many now “own Bitcoin” through brokerage accounts that resemble stock portfolios rather than crypto wallets.

Navigating the derivatives-driven scarcity gap

Another factor complicating the repricing of scarcity is the role of derivatives markets. Futures and options contracts allow investors to gain exposure to an asset without owning it directly. This can create an impression of abundance even when the underlying physical or protocol-level scarcity remains unchanged.

In Bitcoin markets, derivatives often play a significant role in short-term price movements. In precious metals markets, futures trading volumes regularly exceed the flow of physical supply.

These dynamics do not eliminate scarcity, but they do influence how it is reflected in prices. In 2026, investors increasingly recognize that true scarcity can coexist with high leverage and extensive derivatives activity. The key question is no longer simply “Is this asset scarce?” but rather “How does its scarcity manifest within a given market structure?”

A comparison: Bitcoin vs. gold vs. silver in 2026

This table compares how Bitcoin, gold and silver are viewed as scarce assets in 2026, focusing on narratives and market structure rather than price performance.

Scarcity vs. certainty: The investment trade-off of 2026

An emerging theme in investment circles is the distinction between scarcity and certainty. Bitcoin offers strong certainty about its future supply but less certainty around regulatory treatment across jurisdictions. Gold provides less certainty regarding future mining costs but greater certainty in terms of legal status and institutional acceptance. Silver sits between these two extremes.

This trade-off shapes how different investors interpret scarcity. Some place greater value on mathematical predictability, others on institutional reliability and still others on practical real-world use.

In 2026, scarcity is no longer viewed as a single, uniform concept. Instead, it is understood as a blend of factors, each dependent on context.

Bitcoin, gold and silver: Why every scarce asset has a role

The primary insight from this repricing process is that markets are not merely selecting one scarce asset over another. Instead, they are assigning distinct roles to each: Bitcoin, gold and silver.

Bitcoin’s scarcity is increasingly linked to portability and rule-based certainty. Gold’s scarcity is tied to neutrality and trust in settlement. Silver’s scarcity is connected to industrial demand and sensitivity to supply changes.

None of these narratives guarantees superior performance. However, they shape how capital flows into each asset, which in turn affects liquidity, volatility and overall market behavior.

In this regard, 2026 is less about determining which scarce asset emerges as the winner and more about the ongoing redefinition of scarcity itself.