[ETNews] – What Are the Success Conditions for a KRW-Based Stablecoin? Experts Say "A Web 3.0 Payment Infrastructure Is Essential" – 2025-07-17 – Evaluation under the Five Laws

Technical Summary

As the Korean National Assembly enters formal deliberation over President Lee Jae-myung's campaign pledge to launch a KRW-based stablecoin, multiple stakeholders—including financial institutions and fintech consortia—have accelerated engagement around potential issuance frameworks. However, a growing number of experts warn that issuing a stablecoin through legacy centralized fintech infrastructure may be inadequate for achieving international competitiveness.

Consensus among interviewed experts highlights the critical need for Web 3.0-native payment systems as foundational to both domestic usability and global interoperability. Kim Hyung-joo (Blockchain Industry Promotion Association) advocates for an evaluation system prioritizing technological capability over capital reserves, urging regulatory sandbox adoption to allow participation from smaller, innovation-driven firms. Choi Myung-ryul (Hanyang University) criticizes the current debate for its reliance on centralized fintech models, warning of a structural disadvantage versus established global players like Tether.

Attorney Kwon Oh-hoon (Cha & Kwon Law Firm) emphasizes that reserve-based issuance models lack fairness and functional viability, recommending competitive tenders and technical scoring by expert panels. Meanwhile, Jeong Ji-yeol (Head of AML Prevention Center) underscores the importance of risk mitigation systems such as FDS, AML compliance, and anti-phishing measures.

MultiLabSquare CEO Choi Ki-jae asserts that real-time web-based payment systems are already feasible and must be integrated to link digital assets with real-world economies. BlockchainToday’s Editor-in-Chief Jeong Joo-pil adds that centralized platforms will inevitably fail to scale globally unless decentralized, online–offline usable payment rails are established.

Experts collectively conclude that Korea's stablecoin initiative will require:

1. A decentralized Web 3.0-based payment infrastructure,

2. A technical merit-based issuance framework, and

3. Immediate regulatory adaptation to foster participation from qualified private tech actors.

Integrity Evaluation under the Five Laws

• ✅ Law 1 – Truthfulness of Information
  All assertions are traceable to named individuals with verifiable professional affiliations. The article is anchored in real-time policy discourse (i.e., parliamentary discussion of KRW-stablecoin issuance) and reflects factual institutional movements (regulatory sandbox proposals, consortium formation). No false or misleading claims are identified.

• ⚠️ Law 2 – Source Referencing
  While expert names and roles are provided, the article does not cite or link to original documentation—such as the regulatory sandbox proposal, technical frameworks, or market assessments. This lack of source anchoring weakens reproducibility and limits auditability of the claims.

• ⚠️ Law 3 – Reliability & Accuracy
  Technical terms like “Web 3.0,” “STO,” “RWA,” and “FDS” are used without definition or elaboration. Claims regarding implementation feasibility of real-time Web payment systems are stated without technical backing (e.g., performance benchmarks, pilot programs, architecture details). This results in a low technical resolution.

• ⚠️ Law 4 – Contextual Judgment
  The article promotes decentralization and Web 3.0 adoption but omits key geopolitical and historical factors—such as the failure of Korea-originated Terra-LUNA or the conservative monetary stance of Korean financial regulators. It lacks counterbalance or exploration of institutional constraints, making its judgment contextually partial.

• ⚠️ Law 5 – Inference Traceability
  The article’s conclusion that a Web 3.0 platform is essential is aligned with expert opinion but is not logically constructed through verifiable causality. It assumes that decentralization equates to success without comparing empirical outcomes or citing stablecoin case studies (e.g., USDC vs. algorithmic models). The inferences are thematic, not deductively rigorous.

Final Note:
This article is a valuable media reference reflecting Korea’s internal policy debate and expert sentiment surrounding digital currency infrastructure. However, from a biopharma-grade or regulatory intelligence perspective (as per BBIU protocol), it does not meet the evidentiary standards for policy modeling or technical roadmap design without external validation.