#美国核心物价涨幅不及市场预估 The regulatory turmoil involving Korea's financial authorities and academic circles actually reflects the deep-seated contradictions in the regulation of crypto trading platforms. The focus of the issue is here: regulatory agencies want to force the major shareholders of exchanges to hold 15-20% of the shares, but scholars publicly pointed out that this might violate the constitution and harm property rights—truly hitting the core.

From the perspective of exchange operations, shareholding concentration directly affects decision-making efficiency and strategic stability. The leading global platforms owe much of their competitive advantage to high founder shareholding models. This structure allows for quick responses to market changes and maintains strategic consistency during technological iterations. Korea’s regulators insist on breaking up large shareholders’ stakes, aiming to disperse risk, but this "one-size-fits-all" approach neither keeps pace with global industry practices nor encourages innovation within exchanges.

The constitutional risks raised by scholars cannot be ignored either. Korea has very strict protections for private property rights, and forcibly diluting shareholders’ equity could indeed cross legal boundaries. Even more painfully, this policy runs counter to the current international regulatory trend. The mainstream approach now is moving toward "precise compliance"—strengthening KYC verification, improving fund custody mechanisms, and enhancing transparency—rather than forcibly restructuring corporate shareholding.

In terms of market impact, Korea’s domestic exchanges will face considerable uncertainty in the short term, and capital may adopt a wait-and-see attitude. But in the long run, this kind of policy is highly likely to be adjusted under collective opposition from academia and industry, as no one can afford the costs of pushing through an unconstitutional policy. For us participants, this incident serves as a reminder—regulatory logic varies greatly across countries, and Korea’s "strict regulation + high intervention" style may trigger more controversial measures in the future.

Honestly, crypto regulation is not about absolute right or wrong. The voices from Korean scholars essentially serve as a wake-up call to regulators: don’t blindly adopt traditional financial methods; instead, learn to find a balance between risk prevention and industry innovation.