Comparative Analysis of South Korea's Digital Asset Basic Act and Major Countries' Digital Asset Laws

South Korea's Digital Asset Basic Act (DABA), chiefly proposed by Representative Min Byung-deok, is the first comprehensive law covering virtual assets (cryptocurrencies), stablecoins, and related service providers. Below is a comparative analysis with the representative digital asset regulatory frameworks of major countries such as the United States, EU, UK, and Singapore.

1. Scope and Application

Country/Region	Key Law/Framework	Summary of Regulatory Scope
South Korea	Digital Asset Basic Act (DABA)	Comprehensive, covering digital asset definition, stablecoin licensing, exchange regulation, investor protection, market integrity, etc.
EU	MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets)	Integrated EU-wide regulation for crypto-asset issuance, distribution, services, stablecoins, market abuse prevention, etc.
USA	CLARITY Act (proposed), GENIUS Act, State Laws	Mix of federal and state regulations, focusing on market structure, stablecoins, investor protection; SEC/CFTC split oversight.
UK	Amendments to Financial Services and Markets Act, FCA Rules	Expanding regulation for crypto-assets, stablecoins, exchanges, market abuse, AML, etc.
Singapore	Payment Services Act (PSA), MAS Guidelines	Focused regulation on exchange/stablecoin licensing, AML/CFT, consumer protection, etc.

2. Comparison of Key Regulatory Features

Key Item	South Korea (DABA)	EU (MiCA)	USA (CLARITY/GENIUS)	UK	Singapore
Asset Definition	Digital assets, stablecoins, utility tokens, etc.	Crypto-assets, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens	Digital commodities, investment contracts, etc.	Crypto-assets, stablecoins	Digital payment tokens, stablecoins
Licensing/Registration	Licensing for exchanges, custodians, stablecoin issuers; FSC approval	CASP (Crypto-Asset Service Provider) licensing	SEC/CFTC/State-level registration	FCA registration, stablecoin licensing planned	MAS licensing, stablecoin licensing
Stablecoins	Domestic entities only, KRW 500M capital, reserve/refund/bankruptcy remoteness	EU-wide, reserve/refund requirements	Federal/state dual regulation, reserve/refund drafts	Planned	MAS approval, strict reserve/refund requirements
Market Integrity	Prohibition of insider trading, market manipulation, unfair practices; strong penalties	Market abuse regulation, transparency, disclosure	Market abuse/fraud prevention drafts	Market abuse regulation, enhanced disclosure	AML/CFT, prohibition of privacy coins
Investor Protection	Customer asset segregation, insurance, compensation, class action lawsuits, whistleblower protection	Investor protection, integrated disclosure	Disclosure, fraud prevention, remedies	Disclosure, complaint handling 강화	Asset segregation, insurance, complaint handling
Self-Regulation	Legally recognized association, self-regulatory powers	Not formalized	No official SRO	No official SRO	No official SRO
Supervisory Authority	Financial Services Commission (FSC), Presidential Committee	ESMA, National Competent Authorities (NCAs)	SEC, CFTC, State regulators	Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)	Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)

3. Key Differences and Features

• Stablecoin Issuance:
  • South Korea: Only domestic entities allowed; strict capital, reserve, and bankruptcy remoteness requirements.
  • EU: Strict reserve and refund requirements.
  • USA: Dual federal/state regulation; UK: Planned; Singapore: MAS approval mandatory.
• Licensing and Entry Barriers:
  • South Korea, EU, Singapore: Licensing mandatory for all operators.
  • USA: Mix of federal/state, clarification ongoing.
• Investor Protection & Market Abuse:
  • All major countries prohibit insider trading and market manipulation, mandating asset segregation and insurance.
  • South Korea includes strong protections like class action lawsuits and whistleblower protection.
• Self-Regulation:
  • Only South Korea mandates a legal Self-Regulatory Organization (SRO). EU, UK, USA, Singapore have no official SROs.
• Regulatory Scope:
  • South Korea: Comprehensive, covering issuance, trading, custody, advisory, advertising, etc.
  • Similar to EU MiCA, but broader than USA, UK, Singapore.

4. South Korea's Position and Global Trends

• South Korea's law benchmarks EU MiCA but is stricter in areas like stablecoin licensing.
• The USA is clarifying regulations (CLARITY, GENIUS Acts) but remains fragmented due to federal/state division.
• The UK and Singapore are expanding regulations focusing on stablecoins, market integrity, and consumer protection.
• All major countries agree on the need for clear definitions, strong licensing, investor protection, and AML/CFT.

Summary Table

Item	South Korea (DABA)	EU (MiCA)	USA (CLARITY/GENIUS)	UK	Singapore
Comprehensiveness	Very High	High	Medium (Fragmented)	Expanding	Focused
Stablecoins	Strict, Domestic Only	Strict, EU-wide	Draft, Not Implemented	Planned	Strict, MAS Approval
Licensing	Mandatory, All Operators	CASP Licensing	SEC/CFTC/State Licensing	FCA Registration	MAS Licensing
Investor Protection	Strong, Class Action	Strong	Medium	Strong	Strong
Market Abuse	Strict Prohibition, Penalties	Strict Prohibition	Draft	Strict Prohibition	Strict Prohibition
Self-Regulation	Legal SRO	None	None	None	None
Supervisory Authority	FSC, Presidential Committee	ESMA, NCAs	SEC, CFTC	FCA	MAS

Conclusion

South Korea's Digital Asset Basic Act is a world-class comprehensive law comparable in scope and strictness to the EU's MiCA. It is particularly differentiated in areas such as stablecoin licensing, legal self-regulation, and strong investor protection, taking a more integrated and prescriptive approach than the USA, UK, and Singapore. A point of concern is that while the regulations are strict, opportunities for diverse business ventures may not be sufficiently provided. Although this is an improvement over the previous situation in Korea where the absence of law led to the proliferation of illegal activities, it seems somewhat regrettable for the blockchain industry.