Recently, discussions have been taking place regarding the financial authorities' move to limit the stake of major shareholders in virtual asset exchanges to a specific range (20-34%). This is interpreted as a signal of the authorities' intention to bring the virtual asset market under the regulatory framework of the mainstream financial system. The authorities' rationale is clear: to preemptively block the risks that arise when a platform handling trillions of won in customer assets is operated like the private property of a specific individual or corporation, and to enhance the transparency and public accountability of the governance structure.

However, it is a bitter reality that this 'share limit'-centric regulation could undermine the essential dynamism of the new industry. The virtual asset industry has innately grown by utilizing agile technological responses as its driving force. For early-stage tech companies, the strong control of a major shareholder is not merely a concentration of power, but the foundation of 'management' that enables prompt investment decisions and accountability in an uncertain market. Measures that artificially dilute this control risk rigidifying the decision-making structure and obscuring the locus of responsibility.

The Speed Gap with the Global Stage The speed gap with the global market cannot be ignored either. At a time when leading foreign exchanges are risking everything to preempt the Web 3.0 ecosystem based on their founders' leadership, there is a high risk of domestic exchanges falling into the swamp of 'Galapagos-style regulation' if they remain bogged down by the internal task of restructuring their governance. The global market is currently focusing on establishing a sophisticated institutional framework that enhances regulatory transparency without hindering corporate scalability.

'Software-Based Monitoring System' Over 'Stake Percentage Numbers' Ultimately, the key point is that one must not become obsessed with the 'stake percentage numbers' themselves. Rather than forced share sell-offs, rational alternatives that can secure public interest while maintaining the industry's competitiveness include perpetually reviewing the eligibility of major shareholders, upgrading internal control systems, and strengthening disclosure requirements to tightly weave a 'software-based monitoring system'.

Regulation should not be a fence that confines the market, but a track that allows it to run safely. If virtual asset exchanges are to be reborn as trusted financial platforms, now is the time for a flexible and intelligent regulatory design that induces soundness without closing off the industry's growth potential.