Lee Eok-won, nominated to lead South Koreaโs Financial Services Commission, sparked controversy by stating that cryptocurrencies lack intrinsic value, in contrast to traditional financial products like deposits and equities. His remarks were made in a pre-confirmation hearing response, reported by News1. Lee claimed that the high price volatility of cryptocurrencies prevents them from serving essential currency functions, such as being a store of value or medium of exchange. He also voiced skepticism about permitting pension and retirement funds to invest in crypto, citing concerns surrounding market volatility and speculative risks. Regarding local cryptocurrency exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which the FSC is considering, Lee acknowledged existing concerns while promising to collaborate with lawmakers on advancing the initiative. His views attracted backlash from industry insiders, who deemed his statements regressive, particularly as many governments and corporations are incorporating cryptocurrencies in their strategies. Blockchain experts contended that cryptocurrencies possess practical value through their functionalities like security and transferability on blockchain networks. In a more favorable light, Lee expressed his intention to balance innovation opportunities with safety measures concerning stablecoins. Backed by President Lee Jae Myung, South Korea is moving towards regulating a local currency-pegged stablecoin market, aligning with a global interest in enhancing monetary sovereignty in the Web3 era. As the new FSC chair nominee, Lee appears poised to cautiously engage with the stablecoin movement while remaining critical of other cryptocurrency developments.
โ Why did Lee Eok-won criticize cryptocurrencies?
He believes they lack intrinsic value and cannot fulfill essential currency functions due to their volatility.
โ What is Lee's stance on stablecoins?
He supports balancing innovation with safety in the stablecoin market.
โ How have industry experts reacted to Lee's comments?
Many criticized his views as regressive, arguing that cryptocurrencies possess practical utility.