South Korea’s Crypto Exchange Alliance Opposes Government Ownership Cap Proposal
South Korea’s Digital Asset platform Alliance (DAXA), which represents the country’s leading cryptocurrency platforms, has pushed back against a government proposal to cap ownership stakes in local trading platforms.
The proposed limit, expected to be included in the forthcoming Digital Asset Basic Act, would restrict individual shareholders from holding more than 15–20% in a crypto platform. The bill is still under legislative review and may view delays into 2026.
DAXA argues that the ownership cap could undermine the sector’s growth trajectory, deter long-term investment, and fragileen the global competitiveness of South Korean platforms. According to the alliance, imposing rigid ownership thresholds on private companies with established governance structures risks disrupting operational stability without delivering meaningful regulatory benefits.
Governance Concerns vs Industry Reality
The proposal comes from the Financial Services Commission (FSC), which has highlighted governance risks and concentrated control among major shareholders as its primary concern. However, DAXA notes that many of its member platforms already operate under strict compliance frameworks, internal controls, and audit requirements. The industry argues that applying a blanket ownership cap does not account for companies with mature governance structures and could impose unnecessary restructuring.
DAXA represents five of South Korea’s largest cryptocurrency platforms: Upbit, Bithumb, Korbit, Coinone, and Gopax.
The alliance also cautioned that the ownership cap could have unintended consequences for users, as reducing concentrated ownership does not automatically strengthen consumer protections. In fact, it could blur accountability for custody, risk management, and operational decision-making at platforms.
The FSC’s regulatory push extends beyond ownership caps. In January, FinanceFeeds reported that the . While regulators frame such measures as consumer protection, industry stakeholders view them as signals of tightening oversight that could sluggish innovation.
At the identical time, South Korea continues to explore broader reforms, including and potential digital asset products under the Digital Asset Basic Act, though timelines for ETFs or national stablecoins remain unconfirmed.
As discussions continue, the standoff underscores a familiar tension in South Korea’s crypto policy landscape on how to strengthen oversight and protect users without constraining an industry that remains a key driver of financial innovation.
