Korea Exchange Alliance Opposes Government Equity Restriction Proposal: May Severely Hinder Industry Development

HashBard · 2026-01-13T04:00:11+00:00

The Korea Digital Asset Exchange Alliance (DAXA) opposes the government's proposal to restrict the shareholding ratio of exchange shareholders, believing that this will severely impact industry development. The policy aims to prevent risks associated with concentrated ownership governance but may have negative effects on existing companies, leading to conflicts between regulation and innovation.

HashBard

2026-01-13 04:00:11

Abstract generation in progress

【Blockchain Rhythm】The Digital Asset Trading Platform Alliance (DAXA) in South Korea has recently caused a stir. The government plans to set a cap on major shareholders of exchanges—limiting shareholding ratios to between 15% and 20%. DAXA immediately voiced opposition.

This alliance represents the heavyweight players in South Korea’s crypto scene—Upbit, Bithumb, Korbit, Coinone, and Gopax—all standing behind the initiative. Their stance is firm: stop messing around. Such measures will “seriously hinder” the development of the domestic digital asset industry.

The issue is that the government’s logic is to prevent governance risks caused by excessive shareholding concentration. The idea is good, but the reality is harsh—this restriction might be imposed on already established companies. DAXA believes that any artificial change to the private sector’s equity structure could undermine the foundation of the emerging industry. This is no small matter, involving financing, control rights, strategic direction, and a host of other issues.

The game of regulation versus innovation is always ongoing. The South Korean government wants risk control, while the exchange alliance seeks survival space. How this battle unfolds is worth watching.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
3
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MissedAirdropAgain

· 18h ago

Here we go again, the government always wants to regulate, and exchanges oppose it—this trick is the same everywhere. --- 15-20% cap? Nice words, but isn't it just a disguised way to harvest retail investors? --- It's outrageous. Companies that are already established are still being forced to change their equity structures. Who would agree to that? --- Korean exchanges are quite united; if it were domestic, they would have split up long ago. --- This matter isn't over. The government and platforms will definitely keep arguing.

View OriginalReply0

LostBetweenChains

· 19h ago

Here we go again with this set? Government regulation is a masterful move, and exchanges are crying foul. Honestly, they're just afraid of losing control. --- A 15% cap is uncomfortable for anyone, but why should emerging industries get special treatment? --- These five exchanges banding together to oppose—it's really a mutual interest community... there's some meaning behind it. --- Is Korea's move here, perhaps, paving the way for traditional financial institutions? --- Decentralized ownership sounds good, but in practice, it's just a way to cut the leeks. No one wants to be sidelined. --- The government's risk prevention intentions are valid, but slashing existing companies so harshly is indeed a bit much. --- I just want to see how the EU handles this. Why haven't I heard of European exchanges resisting like this? --- Honestly, who wants to be forcibly diluted? If it were me, I'd resist too.

View OriginalReply0

GrayscaleArbitrageur

· 19h ago

Regulation again? What is the government thinking? If this continues, exchanges will have to split up.

View OriginalReply0