With the government's proposal of the Digital Asset Basic Act, the second stage of digital asset legislation, on the horizon, governance regulations on virtual asset exchanges have emerged as a hot-button issue. Attention is focusing on a plan that would cap a single major shareholder's stake at around 20%.

■ Regulatory Aim: Governance Transparency

The regulatory authorities' design intent is clear. Since exchanges, which intermediate the assets and order flows of countless investors, perform a public role comparable to capital market infrastructure, the plan is aimed at fundamentally blocking structural conflicts of interest arising from monopolistic control by a single individual, such as private enrichment, backdoor deals on coin listings, and involvement in unfair trading. To this end, a uniform shareholding cap has been proposed.

However, opinions are likely to emerge that the plan fails to consider the particularities of the digital asset ecosystem. Unlike traditional financial firms whose shareholdings were naturally dispersed over long periods of capital accumulation, domestic exchanges have a strong platform character, having grown rapidly on the strength of founders' risk-taking and investment in innovative technology. This is where criticism arises that mechanically imposing the strict banking-commerce separation standards of traditional finance on a market that has followed the growth trajectory of tech ventures is unreasonable. There may also be criticism that the industry's history has not been carefully examined. Uniform regulation that fails to account for individual characteristics or business attributes inevitably produces scapegoats.

■ Questions over Effectiveness of '20%' and Retroactive Application

Question marks also hang over the effectiveness of the 20% figure. Lowering shareholding ratios does not guarantee management transparency, and critics repeatedly point out that shareholding dispersion regulations could instead encourage friendly share coalitions or covert exercise of control through contracts.

In particular, the issue of retroactive application to already-established businesses carries the potential to cause market distortion and legal disputes. If shareholders are forced to dump their holdings onto the market, corporate value could be damaged, which could escalate into a controversy over infringement of property rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

There is also concern that the pivot of responsible management could be weakened in the virtual asset market, where swift decision-making is vital. Long-term vision and rapid decisions are essential for responding to hacking threats and system failures, investing in large-scale security infrastructure, and expanding global footprint. If the artificial fragmentation of shareholder composition produces complex governance structures and dampens innovation, it is highly likely to act as reverse discrimination that only erodes the competitiveness of domestic businesses in a borderless market.

■ Alternative: Conduct Regulation and Accountability

Some consistently argue that substantive conduct regulation and accountability should take priority over formal share splitting. More direct alternatives cited include making eligibility screening of major shareholders a standing process, blocking improper related-party transactions, and imposing punitive liability for violations of the duty to segregate and safeguard customer assets. Institutional improvements to advance the board's oversight function and internal control standards also need to accompany these measures.

The policy direction of protecting users and enhancing market soundness deserves respect. However, mechanical regulation that overlooks the market's origins and the fierce global environment could undermine its original purpose and shake the industry's foundations. What is needed now is not a formulaic shareholding cap but a sophisticated regulatory system that imposes strict accountability commensurate with power.