#稳定币发行与生态 Seeing the draft bill from Korea, I am reminded of the wave of stablecoin enthusiasm in 2017. Back then, everyone was discussing how to replace fiat currency with on-chain assets, but few seriously considered the issue of risk isolation. It wasn't until several projects collapsed that the market realized how important the phrase "100% reserve" truly is.

This time, Korea's approach actually reflects an interesting phenomenon—the regulators are finally beginning to acknowledge the systemic risks of stablecoins. Requiring issuers to deposit over 100% of their reserve assets in banks or trusts seems simple but touches on a deeper issue of power division: who should regulate stablecoin issuers? The Financial Committee or the Central Bank? This is not just an institutional dispute but concerns the trust foundation of the entire ecosystem.

Our past cycles tell me that every improvement in regulatory frameworks is a lesson learned through blood and tears. The performance of USDC during the 2023 SVB incident demonstrates the value of sufficient asset reserves and transparent disclosure. Conversely, those algorithmic stablecoins once considered "innovative" have all become cautionary tales.

Korea's delay in submitting the bill is less a setback and more a sign of a serious attitude. Spending time narrowing differences between the Financial Committee and the Central Bank, rather than rushing legislation and then being forced to revise it, is more beneficial for the long-term health of the ecosystem. The future of stablecoins depends not on ease of issuance but on rigorous institutional design. Time will prove everything.