Exclusive Interview with Former People's Power Representative Han Dong-hoon "The Democratic Party doesn't understand the essence of digital assets" "Taxing coins is practically difficult... Transaction tax is an alternative" "Domestic conglomerates should be allowed to participate in the ecosystem" "Stop 'regulation-oriented policies'... ICOs should be allowed" "Looking at former remarks by Representative Lee Jae-myung, it is clear that the Democratic Party still does not understand the essence of digital assets. The Democratic Party fails to grasp the flow of economic and technological development and takes an 80s approach of interpreting everything ideologically." On the 10th, Han Dong-hoon, former representative of People's Power (pictured), who declared his candidacy for the presidential election, raised his voice in criticism of the Democratic Party's direction in promoting virtual asset (cryptocurrency) policies in an exclusive interview with Bloomingbit. Former Representative Han said, "The Democratic Party is making statements that neglect the substantial industrial development, such as 'virtual asset democracy,'" and pointed out, "If the two-year deferment of virtual asset taxation, which was dramatically concluded at the end of last year, had been rejected as initially claimed by the Democratic Party, a serious outflow of foreign capital would have occurred." With the early presidential election on June 3 confirmed and each party starting their primary elections, the interest of '16 million' virtual asset investors is focused on the virtual asset policies of each party's candidates. In response, Bloomingbit gathered questions from virtual asset investors and posed them to former Representative Han. ▷The Democratic Party has recently held a series of seminars and forums related to virtual assets and even created a special committee on digital assets. On the other hand, People's Power is relatively quiet. It seems the party has no room to care about digital asset issues. ▷Former Democratic Party Representative Lee Jae-myung is interested in the virtual asset field, and it is known that reports on virtual assets have been made in the policy committee as it affects young voters. Looking at former remarks by Lee Jae-myung, such as 'registering all transactions,' it is clear that even with the formation of a special committee and holding seminars and forums, they do not understand the essence of digital assets at all. In financial-related blockchain technology, the most important 'transaction record' is centered on private chains rather than public chains where anyone can participate. There is an opinion that the issuance of tokenized U.S. Treasury bonds will also use these private chains. Public chains have issues related to regulatory compliance, transaction speed, and data privacy. In other words, the digital asset system is expected to proceed organically by dividing and merging centralized private chains and decentralized public chains based on economic efficiency rather than the ideological approach of 'decentralization.' The ideology of 'virtual asset democracy' mentioned by the Democratic Party is a statement that neglects industrial development. They do not know what economic development is, what technological development is, and interpret everything ideologically with an 80s approach. ▷What is the biggest obstacle to domestic virtual asset regulatory innovation? In 2017, when the price of Bitcoin first surged significantly, it became a major topic worldwide. It was the first year of the Moon Jae-in administration, and key government officials were out of sync, announcing confused measures. Although the control or regulation of exchanges was inevitable for investor protection, it was so suppressive that there were even opinions to close exchanges. It was a situation of regulatory vacuum where the so-called system for the issuance and trading of virtual assets was delayed, and this regulatory vacuum seems to have approached as a barrier that delayed investment in virtual assets or blockchain technology and failed to respond quickly to changes in the market environment. ▷There is also criticism that the competitiveness of the domestic virtual asset industry has rapidly declined since the ban on Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). In the early stages of the digital asset market, the risk of fraud was indeed high, and exchanges were also in their infancy, making it difficult to filter out the risk of ICO fraud and subsequent price manipulation. Moreover, given the characteristics of the Korean market, where the proportion of individual transactions is excessively high, the risk of financial fraud or price manipulation was also high. However, now exchanges have grown in size and have the capacity to establish investor protection systems. The phenomenon of asset tokenization is also difficult to prevent. Accordingly, I think we should analyze the nature of ICO tokens by referring to overseas market approaches and open the (domestic) market. ▷Last year, you voiced that virtual asset taxation should be postponed along with the abolition of the financial investment tax. In fact, there were many issues with the tax itself related to virtual assets, such as equity issues with other assets. In such a situation, taxation on profits was scheduled to be introduced from this year, so I took the lead in blocking it last year. ▷You also mentioned on a recent YouTube channel that "it is realistically difficult to establish an infrastructure for virtual asset taxation." Domestic virtual asset exchanges have been following the Travel Rule since 2022, so they know who is moving digital assets. Therefore, if digital assets are only traded domestically, they can be taxed. But the next problem arises. If our citizens trade on domestic exchanges and then send virtual assets to overseas accounts, we cannot know what they do next, whether they convert to Tether or buy something else, so there is no way to know how much profit they made with digital assets. ▷Are you saying that unless overseas exchanges also apply the Travel Rule, it is realistically difficult to tax virtual assets? Our country cannot tell overseas exchanges to follow the Travel Rule (by our standards) just because we want to collect taxes. If taxation starts in this infrastructure situation, only investors using Korean exchanges will pay taxes. Ultimately, digital assets would have rapidly flowed overseas. Therefore, taxing profits is not desirable in the current situation, and if necessary, a transaction tax can be considered. ▷The U.S. views virtual assets as a national strategic asset. Shouldn't we also need this approach? A strategic approach is, of course, necessary. However, whether to approach it like the U.S. requires understanding why the U.S. is taking such actions. Behind Trump's promotion of Bitcoin, etc., is the competition for dollar hegemony and payment network hegemony. China is showing the most active global stance on CBDCs, ultimately aiming to penetrate the dollar hegemony and the U.S.-centered payment network (SWIFT). Also, last summer, Saudi Arabia did not renew the petro-dollar agreement with the U.S., shaking a major pillar that played the most important role in securing the dollar's status. In this context, it is understandable that the U.S. supports dollar-linked stablecoins to maintain or increase demand for the dollar. However, following the U.S. is not always the best. I think our country should clearly define the definition and requirements for stablecoins so that citizens can enjoy a wider and more stable asset choice. At the same time, I don't think we should close the door on CBDCs. ▷Do you think domestic virtual asset ETFs should be allowed? For the virtual asset market to develop, attracting institutional investors is necessary, and virtual asset ETFs are needed as a means to activate this. In fact, Korean individual investors can already trade Bitcoin or Ethereum without exchanging stablecoins as long as they have a bank account, so the necessity of ETFs is not great. However, institutional investors are different. There are positive aspects of making virtual asset investment much easier through Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, and it is expected that the entry of institutional investors will have a positive impact on securing market liquidity and transparency. However, there are still issues regarding the virtual assets themselves for corporations and the fair taxation of ETFs, so these need to be discussed simultaneously. ▷Overseas, institutions for promoting virtual assets and Web3 are being established. Don't we also need them? In places like Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, institutions are being created to promote virtual assets and Web3. However, unlike Korea, these countries have a weak manufacturing base, so such a stance is important. I think it is first to deregulate and promote self-sustaining industrial development relying on our citizens' digital literacy. ▷Do you think fostering the virtual asset industry helps young investment opportunities and national growth strategies? In principle, it certainly helps. Blockchain technology is also advanced technology that can assist in managing transaction records and automating contracts. From this perspective, the development of virtual asset technology should be encouraged. If we look at priorities, industries that should be fostered from an economic security perspective, such as artificial intelligence (AI), bio, quantum computing, advanced semiconductors, and humanoid robots, are already determined, and especially Korea, as a strong country in advanced manufacturing, has strengths in these areas. Therefore, for young investment opportunities and national growth strategies, it would be effective from a policy perspective to prioritize investment in fields such as AI, bio, and advanced semiconductors (including blockchain). ▷There is criticism that domestic virtual asset policy is more focused on regulation, taxation, and protection than industrial development. What points need to change for industry activation? First of all, conglomerates need to enter and develop the ecosystem. Overseas, large companies like IBM, VISA, and Bank of America (BOA) are entering and rapidly growing the virtual asset industry. Since blockchain, the core technology of virtual assets, is fundamentally a general-purpose technology like AI, innovation by small and medium-sized enterprises is also necessary, but large-scale investment must be combined for the industry to develop. According to the 2024 blockchain status survey in Korea, more than 45% of related companies have sales of less than 1 billion won. The proportion of development-stage companies like venture companies or innovative companies is excessively high, so growth momentum is not gaining. It seems necessary to create a regulatory environment where conglomerates can enter future blockchain technology development. Also, the development direction of blockchain technology centered on the financial market seems most reasonable. Overseas, financial companies like Citi and JP Morgan are leading the way in blockchain industry development by streamlining financial transactions through smart contracts. Especially since the trend of tokenizing all assets cannot be stopped and is coming quickly, it is necessary to build a financial system where these tokenized assets can be traded, and related technology development must also be accompanied. Young-min Lee, Bloomingbit Reporter 20min@bloomingbit.io
April 10PiCK