CONTRIBUTION How stablecoin infrastructure and won-based systems can advance together

This photo illustration shows gold plated souvenir cryptocurrency of Tether, Bitcoin and Ethereum in London, May 2022. AFP-Yonhap

By Giles Dixon

• Published Sep 1, 2026 10:26 AM KST

Over the past half-century, Korea's economic rise has rested on something less obvious than exports alone: a consistent ability to spot the shape of the next global system before it becomes obvious to everyone else.

Shipbuilding, automobiles, semiconductors, broadband networks, consumer electronics and, more recently, cultural exports each reflect the same pattern of adapting early to new systems of production, trade and connectivity, and turning that shift into national strength.

A similar transition may now be taking shape, this time not in manufacturing or telecommunications, but in the infrastructure of money and cross-border settlement.

That shift is easy to miss, because most people still associate stablecoins mainly with crypto trading. That's an understandable read, but an increasingly incomplete one.

The more consequential role for stablecoins may turn out to be as a new settlement layer for global commerce, corporate treasury management, digital services and cross-border finance. The real question isn't whether stablecoins will replace banks, payment companies or national currencies — they won't. It's whether a growing share of everyday economic activity starts running on digital settlement rails alongside the systems already in place.

Stablecoins are, at their simplest, digital tokens that are backed one-to-one by a national currency, most commonly the U.S. dollar. Each token is designed to always be worth the currency it represents, but that value moves on blockchain-based networks, making it possible for value to move across borders continuously, with near-instant settlement and without being limited by traditional banking hours.

That matters because a global business rarely just needs to make a payment. It needs to collect revenue, pay suppliers, manage working capital, reduce cash sitting idle in the wrong place and settle with partners across multiple jurisdictions. Traditional banking infrastructure remains essential and trusted, but it was built around banking hours, correspondent relationships and reconciliation processes that can take time.

Stablecoins offer something different: settlement that is available around the clock and can move liquidity globally with fewer operational frictions.

That doesn't make banks less important. If anything, the opposite may be true. The most durable stablecoin systems are likely to depend on regulated institutions, strong custody, compliant on- and off-ramps, and credible oversight.

Korea is now working through exactly these questions in its emerging Digital Asset Basic Law. How that framework takes shape will say a great deal about how this new form of settlement comes to sit alongside one of the world's most advanced financial markets.

Market already well positioned

Few countries are better placed to have this conversation than Korea. It has consistently ranked among the most active digital asset trading environments in the world, and it is a significant hub for both institutional and retail activity in this space. On digital asset ownership, more Koreans now own digital assets than shares in listed companies.

Stablecoins tend to become more useful as more people and businesses use them, in the same way any payment network becomes more valuable as more people join it. Today, dollar-based stablecoins account for over 99 percent of the $320 billion stablecoin market, with Tether holding roughly 60 percent of that share. A market of that scale is one that Korean institutions and companies may find useful to connect with, alongside their own efforts to build won-based digital infrastructure.

Korea has a clear interest in strengthening the won and growing won-denominated digital finance, and that goal should stay central. But the growth of dollar-based stablecoin infrastructure doesn't have to work against it.

The more useful question may be whether Korea can build an approach where dollar stablecoins and won-based infrastructure reinforce each other rather than compete. Dollar stablecoins can offer global reach, international accessibility and settlement scale; won-based infrastructure can offer domestic anchoring, local banking connections, regulated conversion and closer integration with Korea's real economy.

For large companies operating across many countries and time zones — including Samsung, Hyundai and LG — this kind of settlement can be a meaningful efficiency gain.

Under the banking system as it exists today, money can sit idle for hours simply because a bank in another country is closed for the day. A settlement system that never closes removes much of that friction, along with potential savings on fees and currency conversion. For an export-driven economy like Korea's, that kind of infrastructure is worth exploring carefully.

There is real substance behind the concerns people raise about stablecoins, and they shouldn't be dismissed lightly. They touch on monetary sovereignty (a country's control over its own currency), the flow of capital across borders, consumer protection, the quality of the reserves backing these tokens and rules against financial crime. Countries that treat stablecoins as no more than a technology product risk underestimating how significant they could become. But countries that treat them only as a threat risk missing an important shift in financial infrastructure.

From Tether's experience operating across many different markets, one lesson stands out: stablecoins work best when they aren't treated as a parallel financial system, but as a settlement layer connected to regulated institutions, real commerce and national economic priorities.

That lesson is likely to apply just as much in Korea. The real strategic choice isn't simply whether to allow or restrict stablecoins — it's where Korea wants to position itself within this emerging digital settlement architecture.

The countries that benefit most from this shift are unlikely to be the ones that move fastest. They will more likely be the ones who understand the difference between speculation and infrastructure, between replacing a currency and connecting liquidity, and between caution and stepping back altogether.

Korea has navigated comparable moments before, and has tended to do so on its own terms rather than by simply adopting infrastructure designed elsewhere. Given the scale of its digital asset market and the global reach of its companies, it is well placed to help shape how this next stage of financial infrastructure develops, rather than simply respond to it.

Giles Dixon is vice president of regulatory affairs at Tether.