Digital Asset Basic Act September: Push for a Unified Bill, Why Nothing Is Final Yet, and Key Issues Dividing the Ruling and Opposition Parties
The government and ruling party are seeking to introduce a unified Digital Asset Basic Act bill in September 2026, but neither the bill's provisions nor its introduction schedule has been finalized. The Financial Services Commission has officially included drafting digital asset legislation within the year in its work plan, while the National Assembly is discussing a proposal to consolidate the government's proposals and bills submitted by ruling-party lawmakers into a unified bill coordinated under the chair of the National Policy Committee. The People Power Party also plans to discuss policy alternatives through a separate special committee meeting.
As of 6:36 p.m. on 2026-08-20, the most important point is that the situation should not be interpreted as meaning that the law will take effect in September or that every provision of the September unified bill has already been decided. What can currently be confirmed is the government's goal of passing legislation within the year, the effort to introduce a unified bill in September, and ongoing coordination within and between the ruling and opposition parties and between the government and ruling party over detailed issues.
What Is the Unified Bill Expected in September?
Rather than processing the various digital asset bills already submitted to the National Assembly individually, the approach currently under discussion is to reconcile overlapping provisions in the government's proposals and ruling-party lawmakers' bills and combine them into a single unified bill. According to discussions confirmed on August 20, a proposal is being pursued under which Yoo Dong-soo, a Democratic Party lawmaker who chairs the National Assembly's National Policy Committee, would introduce the unified bill as its lead sponsor. However, Yoo's office has also stated that the arrangement has not yet been finalized.
It has been confirmed that 10 bills related to digital assets and stablecoins are currently pending before the National Assembly's National Policy Committee. Beginning with a bill introduced by lawmaker Min Byung-deok in June last year, lawmakers from both the Democratic Party and the People Power Party have submitted related legislation, resulting in multiple bills covering the same policy area.
Therefore, the term 'unified bill' in this context does not simply mean submitting an already finalized government bill to the National Assembly. Rather, the process is closer to developing a single lawmaker-sponsored bill by coordinating the government's proposals with existing lawmakers' bills.
As recently as July, the Democratic Party had outlined plans to reorganize its digital asset task force following the appointment of new party leadership and a policy committee chair, consult with the government, and pursue introduction in September. About a month later, on August 20, discussions had become more specific, extending to the possibility of introducing the bill under the National Policy Committee chair's name.
September Is the Target for Introducing the Bill, Not the Date It Takes Effect
Based on the schedule confirmed so far, September is the target period for submitting the unified bill to the National Assembly. It does not mean that the bill's passage or effective date has been set for September.
In its second-half work report on July 15, the Financial Services Commission officially announced its plan to prepare digital asset legislation within 2026. It identified defining and regulating the digital asset industry, establishing fair and efficient markets, and strengthening user protection as major legislative priorities. Bringing the issuance and circulation of stablecoins within a formal regulatory framework was also included among the objectives.
The ruling party outlined a schedule aimed at introducing the bill in September and subsequently securing its passage during the second half of the year. On August 20, a National Assembly official also described plans to introduce the bill before the parliamentary audit and pursue passage during the regular National Assembly session in September. However, the same account acknowledged that internal party disagreements and competing policy priorities could make it difficult to proceed according to schedule.
The current situation is therefore more accurately divided into the following categories.
Government objective: Prepare digital asset legislation within 2026
Current National Assembly stage: Coordinating multiple bills and proposals examined by the government
Proposed schedule: Pursue introduction of a unified bill in September
Not yet finalized: Final provisions of the unified bill, actual introduction date, date of parliamentary passage, and effective date
In particular, even after legislation is introduced, it must still undergo parliamentary procedures, including standing committee review and legislative coordination. Therefore, 'pursuing legislation in September' and 'implementing legislation in September' have entirely different meanings.
The Biggest Issues Are Major Shareholder Ownership Limits and Won-Denominated Stablecoins
As of August 20, the issues attracting the most attention in National Assembly discussions are ownership limits for major shareholders of virtual asset service providers and the issuance structure for won-denominated stablecoins. However, neither issue has reached the stage where the final legal provisions can be considered settled.
In particular, specific figures such as 'bank-led issuance' and 'bank ownership of 50%+1 shares' have repeatedly been mentioned in discussions about who should be allowed to issue stablecoins. These figures should not be treated as finalized regulatory requirements.
On January 2026, the Financial Services Commission officially explained that key provisions of the 2-stage legislation, including the entities permitted to issue stablecoins, had not been finalized. At the Virtual Asset Committee meeting on March, a bank-led 50%+1 structure and the need for ownership diversification standards for exchanges were also considered subjects for discussion. At the time, the commission stated that it would conduct further consultations between the government and ruling party based on the discussions.
Accordingly, rather than concluding that 'banks have definitively been required to hold 50%+1 shares,' it is more consistent with currently available official information to regard this as one of several proposals examined and coordinated by the government and National Assembly.
Restrictions on major shareholder ownership are an issue on which differences between the ruling and opposition parties have become more pronounced.
Lawmaker Kim Sang-hoon, who chairs the People Power Party's Special Committee on Stock and Digital Asset Value-Up, stated on August 20 that he opposed restrictions on major shareholder ownership. His position is that it would be difficult to support measures forcing existing major shareholders to dispose of their holdings, and he argued that such restrictions should be excluded from the unified bill.
For this reason, when the final bill is released, it will be necessary to examine not merely whether the Digital Asset Basic Act is introduced but also whether major shareholder ownership restrictions are included, excluded, or incorporated in a modified form to understand the legislation's actual implications.
The People Power Party's Special Committee Meeting Does Not Mean a Separate Final Bill Will Be Announced
The People Power Party also plans to convene a meeting of its Special Committee on Stock and Digital Asset Value-Up to discuss policy alternatives in response to the government's and ruling party's unified bill discussions. As of August 20, no separate finalized bill had been announced.
Committee chair Kim Sang-hoon indicated that because the government and ruling party had announced plans to introduce a unified bill, the People Power Party also needed to develop policy alternatives.
An important distinction should be made here. The People Power Party does not oppose the establishment of a regulatory framework for digital assets itself. Kim indicated that both the ruling and opposition parties agree on the need to establish rules for the digital asset market and pass a basic law, while maintaining his opposition to major shareholder ownership restrictions.
It would therefore be inaccurate to characterize the current situation simply as 'the ruling party supports the law, while the opposition party opposes it.'
Although both sides recognize the need for basic legislation, their differences concern which regulations should be included and how restrictive those regulations should be.
How Would It Differ From the Existing Virtual Asset User Protection Act?
The proposed legislation is described as '2-stage virtual asset legislation' because it represents follow-up legislation intended to broaden the scope of regulation beyond the virtual asset user protection framework already in effect.
The Financial Services Commission's officially stated legislative priorities include defining and regulating the digital asset industry, maintaining market order, and protecting users. At the Virtual Asset Committee meeting on March, discussions also covered terminology, regulation of digital asset businesses, internal controls at exchanges, IT systems and security standards, and liability for damages.
How to bring stablecoin issuance and circulation into the regulatory framework is another major area of the proposed follow-up legislation.
At this stage, however, it is important to distinguish issues that have been discussed from provisions that will appear in the final legislation. An issue being discussed by the Virtual Asset Committee does not necessarily mean it will be included unchanged in the unified bill.
Indeed, since the beginning of this year, the Financial Services Commission has repeatedly explained that major details remain under consultation with relevant agencies and have not been finalized. Therefore, if the unified bill is actually introduced in September, priority should be given to examining the definitions, authorization requirements, ownership restrictions, and stablecoin issuance conditions written in the bill itself, rather than relying on previous discussions.
What Should Be Checked First When the September Unified Bill Is Released?
If the unified bill is formally introduced, the first things to examine will be its specific legal provisions and implementation conditions, rather than simply its title. Based on discussions so far, comparing at least five areas should make it easier to assess the scale of the proposed changes.
First is who will be permitted to issue won-denominated stablecoins. It will be necessary to determine whether issuance is restricted to banks, whether nonbank financial institutions or other businesses are eligible, and how ownership structures are defined if consortium requirements are introduced.
Second is the restriction on major shareholder ownership in virtual asset service providers. Whether such restrictions are included at all, and whether the same standards would apply to new and existing businesses if they are included, can only be confirmed once the actual legislative text is published.
Third is the authorization and supervisory framework applicable to exchanges and other digital asset businesses. How this framework relates to existing regulations governing virtual asset service providers will also be important.
Fourth is user protection and liability for incidents. It will be necessary to examine how the final bill addresses internal controls, IT systems and security, customer asset protection, and compensation for damages.
Finally, the effective date and transitional provisions must be examined. Even if new regulations are established, their actual impact on the market could differ significantly depending on whether they apply immediately to existing businesses or provide a preparation period.
Many of these matters remain under consultation. Therefore, the key issue to examine in September is not simply whether 'the Digital Asset Basic Act is coming,' but which disputed provisions ultimately remain in the unified bill prepared by the government and ruling party.
As of 2026-08-20, the government's goal of completing legislation within the year has been officially confirmed, but the final provisions and actual introduction date of the September unified bill remain undecided. With the People Power Party also planning to discuss alternatives through its special committee, the next major turning point is likely to be the actual introduction of the unified bill under the National Policy Committee chair's name and the publication of its full text.
※ This article is provided for informational purposes to help readers understand market developments and does not constitute an investment recommendation concerning any particular security or asset. Readers are responsible for their own final decisions and investment outcomes.