Discussions on enacting the Digital Asset Framework Act have entered final coordination. Still, differences among politicians, financial authorities and the industry continue over the main issue of limiting major shareholders' stakes in digital asset exchanges.

According to the industry and the political world on March 11, the Digital Asset Framework Act is a bill with the character of second-stage legislation to be pursued after the current Digital Asset User Protection Act.

The biggest issue is the limit on major shareholders' stakes in digital asset exchanges. Financial authorities initially showed the position that, following regulations for alternative trading systems in capital markets, major shareholders' stakes at exchanges should be limited to around 15 to 20 percent.

In subsequent consultations between the Democratic Party's digital asset task force and financial authorities, it was reported that a compromise plan is being seriously reviewed. Under that plan, the ceiling would be set at 20 percent, but in exceptional cases such as when the major shareholder is a corporation it would be allowed up to 34 percent. A plan to include a three-year grace period after the law takes effect is also said to be under review.

That raises the baseline to 20 percent from the previously discussed 15 to 20 percent range, but it keeps the same structure of pushing major shareholders to lower holdings below a certain level. For that reason, major digital asset exchanges are expected to face inevitable governance restructuring.

Dunamu, which operates Upbit, the country's largest digital asset exchange, is cited as a representative case.

Once Dunamu completes a comprehensive share swap with Naver Financial, it would become a structure in which it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Naver Financial. After that, key stakes in Naver Financial are said to be adjusted to 19.5 percent held by Dunamu Chairman Song Chi-hyung (송치형), 10 percent by Dunamu Vice Chairman Kim Hyung-nyeon (김형년), and around 17 percent by Naver.

In that case, the scale of additional sales could vary depending on whether the major shareholder stake limit is applied directly to Naver Financial as a corporation, applied to the individual who effectively controls it, or applied by combining stakes of related parties.

The burden is also heavy for exchanges whose largest shareholder is a corporation. Korbit is in a situation where Mirae Asset Consulting holds 92.06 percent, so if the 34 percent ceiling is finalised it would require a large-scale stake cleanup.

Bithumb also maintains a governance structure through a holding company, so if the ceiling rule is applied substantial adjustments may be unavoidable. Observers also say Gopax could see the issue of handling Binance's stake resurface.

Still, the actual impact depends on the final legislative wording. It is not yet clear whether the scope of major shareholders will be assessed on an individual basis or a corporate basis, how far related parties will be aggregated, and how extensive transitional provisions for existing operators will be.

There is also constitutional controversy over such stake limits.

The National Assembly Research Service recently pointed out that limiting major shareholders' stake ratios at digital asset exchanges could conflict with property rights, the freedom to choose an occupation and freedom of corporate activity, and the principle against retroactive legislation.

It said that if a system is introduced that forces existing major shareholders to dispose of lawfully acquired stakes after the fact or restricts voting rights, there is a high possibility of infringing property rights. It analysed that it would also be difficult to rule out the possibility of an unconstitutional decision unless there is a significant public interest reason.

It also raised the issue of consistency with overseas legislative examples. It said that regulatory systems for digital asset exchanges in major jurisdictions such as the European Union, Hong Kong and Singapore do not clearly have rules that uniformly limit major shareholder stake ratios. Instead, it said a common approach is to manage governance through regulatory approval or fit-and-proper reviews when acquiring stakes above a certain level.

Another analysis says that because stake limit provisions for alternative trading systems under the Capital Markets Act apply from the establishment stage, applying the same standards after the fact to already operating exchanges reflects a different regulatory context.

Opposition from the political opposition is also clear. Jang Dong-hyeok (장동혁), leader of the People Power Party, publicly expressed concern at a National Assembly seminar on March 9, saying the regulation limiting major shareholders' stakes in digital asset exchanges is excessive. He argued that artificially limiting ownership structures undermines responsible management and could lead to the outflow of talent and capital overseas.

Even so, the Democratic Party and financial authorities are maintaining the need for stake limits.

Their logic is that because exchanges effectively have the character of market infrastructure, they should prevent a concentration of control by a specific shareholder and reduce conflicts of interest. They also see it as difficult to delay the second-stage legislation any further, including stablecoin regulation, revisions to listing standards and stronger issuer responsibility.

The remaining variable is the legislative schedule. The Democratic Party's digital asset task force is continuing coordination with a goal of proposing the bill in March.

Still, because the Financial Services Commission's release of a government proposal, consultations between the party and the government, and adjustments of differences between the ruling and opposition parties remain, observers say the final proposal could be revised further up to just before it is introduced. If a bipartisan agreement fails, there is also talk that the Democratic Party could speed up legislation centred on its own bill.

Lee Jun-ho (이준호), an analyst at Hana Securities, said delays in establishing the制度 are also delaying business preparations by domestic fintech companies. He said that if exchange governance regulations are finalised while digital asset-related business reorganisations are under way, including Naver Financial's cooperation with Dunamu and Mirae Asset Consulting's acquisition of a stake in Korbit, it could affect overall business strategies.