South Korean regulators want to push the major shareholders' holdings in exchanges down to 15-20%, but scholars have pointed out that this could be unconstitutional and may infringe on property rights. This issue indeed hits the industry's pain points.

Why is the ownership structure of exchanges so important? Looking at leading exchanges and compliant platforms makes it clear—founders holding high stakes allows for faster and more stable decision-making, which is crucial in this rapidly evolving industry to maintain direction. Korea's regulators immediately want to enforce strict shareholding limits, ostensibly to diversify risk, but in reality, it's a typical "one-size-fits-all" approach. This not only violates global exchange operation norms but also risks stifling innovation.

From a legal perspective, Korea's protection of private property rights is not weak, and forcibly diluting major shareholders' stakes indeed risks crossing legal boundaries. What's more painful is that this policy runs counter to global regulatory trends. Countries worldwide are focusing on precise measures—strengthening KYC, regulating fund custody, cracking down on illegal financing—without directly intervening in corporate ownership structures.

In the short term, Korean domestic exchanges will face considerable uncertainty, and capital will inevitably remain cautious. But in the long run, this kind of policy is likely to be suppressed by voices from academia and the industry, as pushing through unconstitutional policies incurs too high a cost. For investors, this serves as a reminder—regulatory logic varies greatly across countries, and Korea's "strict regulation + heavy intervention" approach may continue to evolve with new tricks.

Ultimately, crypto regulation does not have absolute black and white. Behind this controversy lies a fundamental question: how to find a balance between risk management and industry innovation, rather than rigidly applying traditional financial methods.