2026-01-16 04:26:23

Starting from January 28, 2025, the Korean Google Play Store will implement updated app review rules. For overseas virtual asset exchanges, Google has introduced new compliance requirements: they must complete VASP (Virtual Asset Service Provider) registration with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of Korea and obtain an official acceptance certificate.

Here is a key point—simply submitting the registration materials is not enough. Google explicitly requires exchanges to upload the official FIU acceptance document as proof; otherwise, the app will not be allowed to be listed or updated in Korea. In other words, exchanges in the registration process are temporarily halted in the Korean market.

For exchanges, completing the FIU acceptance process involves multiple steps: first, establishing a legal entity in Korea; second, obtaining Information Security Management System (ISMS) certification; and finally, receiving the official acceptance certificate. The entire process is time-consuming and requires significant investment of funds and manpower. This means that exchanges that are not fully prepared may face a short-term inability to serve Korean users.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RugResistant

· 01-19 03:12

ngl this is exactly the kind of regulatory gatekeeping i've been warning about... google basically just created a compliance moat that'll weed out the unprepared exchanges. the FIU docs requirement? classic high-barrier-to-entry move. DYOR but korea's tightening the screws hard here

Reply0

rugpull_ptsd

· 01-18 18:49

It's another case of tightening regulation. Korea's move is really harsh, leaving no room for exchanges to breathe.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketMonk

· 01-17 20:14

Another round of pointless screening... Korea's compliance process is essentially a "survival test" to see who can stay afloat. Exchanges that are unprepared should exit.

View OriginalReply0

Blockwatcher9000

· 01-17 04:40

Google is forcing small exchanges to the brink... Korean users will have to wait half a year.

View OriginalReply0

DAOdreamer

· 01-16 04:56

South Korea's move is really harsh; exchanges need to quickly catch up on their work.

View OriginalReply0

blocksnark

· 01-16 04:56

Another round of compliance testing is here. Korea is really strict this time... Removing without proof documents, causing trading income to be urgently affected.

View OriginalReply0

MerkleDreamer

· 01-16 04:53

It's the same old regulatory stuff again. Korea is really getting stricter. Hurry up and prepare the documents for the trading income.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidatedAgain

· 01-16 04:52

Once again, I was liquidated. I see this new rule as another form of forced liquidation... Using trading profits to cover positions, Korean users suffer heavy losses.

View OriginalReply0

just_vibin_onchain

· 01-16 04:45

Another wave of regulation is coming. Korea's approach is really tough. --- Wait, does this mean a bunch of small exchanges will be left behind? --- Not gonna lie, this is actually good news for well-prepared large firms, clearing the field. --- Getting ISMS certification is already a hassle, and now they need a legal entity... a painful lesson. --- The Korean financial industry is really suffocating. When will they loosen up? --- So the question is, how many exchanges are actually unprepared? --- It's both Google and FIU, middlemen are just earning the spread. --- What should users do with short-term freezes? It feels like chaos might ensue.

View OriginalReply0

TommyTeacher

· 01-16 04:35

This move by Korea is really ruthless, directly cutting off the supply... Don't even think about listing without proof documents. For many exchanges still in the process of registration, this is simply a nightmare.

View OriginalReply0