Where will Korea's encryption tax go
Author:@c4lvin
Other Organiser
Core elements
On 29 April 2026, the State Tax Administration of Korea (NTS, Korea National Tax Service) announced that it had officially advanced the related infrastructure, subject to the entry into force of a tax on encrypted assets on 1 January 2027。
EXCHANGE DATA COLLECTION, THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRATED ANALYTICAL SYSTEMS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INFORMATION EXCHANGE FRAMEWORK BASED ON THE CARF (ENCRYPTED ASSET REPORTING FRAMEWORK) ARE BEING SYNCHRONIZED。
The initial declaration is expected to be launched in May 2028 during the comprehensive income tax declaration。
However, the current Income Tax Act has almost established tax standards for simple transactions and currency transactions only。
Rules are still missing in the areas of DeFi pledge and lending, airdrops, hard fork and NFT。
NTS ITSELF INDICATED THAT OVERSEAS LEGISLATION CASES AND EXPERT OPINIONS WERE BEING COLLECTED。
Since the publication of Notice 2014-21 in 2014, the United States has classified encrypted currency as property。
On the basis of self-declaration by taxpayers, the United States has gradually established tax principles covering simple transactions, currency exchange, DeFi, pledge and airdrops。
The 1099-DA form, which came into effect in 2025, applies only to the Centralized Exchange, and the DeFi area remains primarily the responsibility of taxpayers themselves。
Given that the infrastructure was not yet complete and that the preparation window was limited, it was likely that Korea would follow the basic framework of the United States model。
Its four pillars include:
- Classification of assets
- Self-declaration principle for taxpayers
- Phased introduction of exchange reporting obligations
- Stage White DeFi Gray Zone
Such convergence can also have side effects, including fair disputes, regulatory arbitrage between domestic exchanges and overseas platforms or DeFi, and the transfer of the burden of retention and proof to taxpayers。
The introduction of taxation is only the starting point for supplementary legislation designed to guarantee substantive fairness, and it is likely that it will be difficult during the year to actually land。
1. Taxing of encrypted assets in Korea into countdown Time
On 29 April 2026, at a briefing on the comprehensive income tax returns in May, the head of the personal tax department of NTS (Korea National Revenue Authority), Park Jung-yeol, was asked about the preparation of an encrypted currency income tax declaration。
He replied:
"We are preparing to receive a comprehensive income tax declaration from May 2028, since the law already provides for the taxation of income from encrypted currency starting next year."
Despite persistent calls for its abolition in South Korean politics, the tax authorities have begun to advance substantive implementation preparations "on schedule"。
Source: Bloomingbit
Based on this response, preparations are proceeding along three main lines。
First, systems to aggregate data on domestic exchanges。
Secondly, the Korea Public Procurement Service published the Virtual Asset Integrated Analysis System last month。
THIRD, THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INFORMATION EXCHANGE FUNCTION BASED ON CARF (ENCRYPTED ASSET REPORTING FRAMEWORK)。
Under the current Income Tax Act, as of 1 January 2027, income generated by the transfer or loan of encrypted currency is classified as other income。
The portion exceeding 2.5 million won per year will be subject to the 22 per cent tax alone。
The tax covers all domestic encrypted currency investors in Korea。
Even so, it remains uncertain whether this tax policy will be on track。
In a November 2025 report, the Korean Capital Market Institute stated:
"There are still too many unresolved gaps in the framework for taxation of other income from virtual assets under the current Income Tax Act to be implemented as of 1 January 2027."
The report also raised the possibility of a fourth extension。
Detailed guidance on what taxes are to be levied, how they are to be collected and when tax obligations are to be recognized is still lacking。
Gaps in the Korean encryption system
2.1 Elements already identified: Transfer and loan revenue
SOURCE: NTS
ACCORDING TO THE VIRTUAL CAPITAL INCOME TAX SUMMARY PUBLISHED BY NTS, TAXABLE INCOME IS CALCULATED BY:
Transfer or loan of encrypted currency less necessary costs。
The general rule for the necessary costs is the actual acquisition of costs plus incidental costs。
If it is difficult to verify the actual cost of an encrypted currency acquired after the implementation of the system, a portion of the transfer price, i.e. up to 50 per cent, can be considered a necessary cost。
In obtaining cost estimates, exchange transactions use the mobile average method, while others use the first-in-first-out method。
Assets held prior to the entry into force of the law are considered to be the higher of the market price as at 31 December 2026 and the actual cost。
The value of income generated by currency transactions is calculated by multiplying the conversion ratio by the value of the underlying virtual asset。
BTC-DENOMINATED MARKETS ARE VALUED IN BITCOIN, ETH-DENOMINATED MARKETS ARE USED IN TAIFENG, AND IN USDT-DENOMINATED MARKETS ARE VALUED IN THAI CURRENCY AS THE UNDERLYING ASSET。
What is really clear now is basically this。
In nominal terms, the areas of real tax feasibility are mainly exchange spot and currency transactions。
2.2 Almost complete gaps in the chain of activities
The real problem lies in all the other chains。
In a written reply to the Song Eon-seok office, NTS indicated that there are currently no tax criteria for the type of income generated by encrypted money, such as pledge, loan, air drop, hard fork and NFT。
NTS RESPONDED THAT:
It is "collecting precedents and expert opinions on overseas legislation"。
OF PARTICULAR NOTE, NTS RESPONDED THAT:
"From the perspective of the income tax of encrypted currency, there is no separate distinction between centralized and decentralized finance. "
The absence of a separate distinction meant that the same principle applied。
But it also means that there is currently no independent set of guidelines that can reflect the characteristics of DeFi transactions。
There are no clear criteria at present for users to exchange currency from their trust wallets on Uniswap, to deposit interest on the assets on Aave, or pledge ETH on Lido and receive STETH。
It is not realistic for Korea to fill these gaps independently in the short term。
The encrypted money industry itself is changing very rapidly around the world, and DeFi is constantly forging new trading structures。
Given the real difficulty of expanding the tax infrastructure in a short period of time, South Korea’s tax model is naturally close to the most mature set of precedents, the US model。
The next section will discuss the current encrypted monetary tax structure in the United States。
United States encryption tax system: structure based on taxpayer self-declaration
3.1 Classification of assets and taxation principles
Source: IRS (United States Internal Revenue Service, Internal Review Service)
Through Notice 2014-21, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classifies encrypted currency as property rather than currency。
All subsequent guidance has largely been based on this premise。
The classification as property implies that the principle of capital gains applicable to shares or real estate applies equally to encrypted currency。
The mere possession is not a taxable event。
However, where disposal occurs, capital gains or losses need to be recognized。
The treatment of capital gains falls into two categories depending on the duration of the holding。
Holdings for disposal within one year or less generate short-term capital gains and are taxed at the general income rate of 10 to 37 per cent。
Holding for more than one year is eligible for long-term capital gains with preferential rates of 0, 15 or 20 per cent。
The key here is that the definition of "disposal" goes far beyond simple sales。
IRS CONSIDERS THE FOLLOWING ACTS AS DISPOSAL:
- Sale of encrypted currency for statutory currency
- Convert one encrypted currency into another
- Payment for goods or services in encrypted currency
- Convert encrypted currency into other assets
The second is particularly important, where currency transactions also trigger capital gains taxes。
UNDER THE UNITED STATES TAX LAW, ETH IS CONVERTED TO USDC, OR BTC IS CONVERTED TO ETH IN THE SAME MANNER AS IT IS TREATED TO PURCHASE USDC WITH THE FUNDS RECEIVED AFTER SELLING ETH。
3.2 Areas considered to be ordinary income
In addition to capital gains, the United States credits ordinary income, i.e., the general income tax rate, with the encrypted currency obtained at the fair market value at the time of receipt。
Artificial production: Encrypted money obtained through computing is recognized as ordinary income at current market prices on arrival. If the operation is in the form of an operation, the related costs may be deducted。
Pledge: According to Revue Ruling 2023-14, pledge incentives are recognized as ordinary income at the current market price when the taxpayer acquires the ability to sell, convert or transfer these coins. If the incentive is still locked or unclaimable, it is deferred until the taxpayer acquires control and control。
Airdrops: According to Revue Ruling 2019-24, airdrops are credited to ordinary income at fair market value on the day the taxpayer takes control. At the time of subsequent sale, the value would become a taxing cost for calculating capital gains or losses。
Hard fork: Application of the same guidelines as airdrops. The fork itself is not taxed, but if a new currency is received for the fork, it triggers ordinary income processing upon receipt。
Interest on loans: Interest is recognized as ordinary income at the time of receipt, whether in DeFi or in centralized lending. Further sales are followed by a separate calculation of capital gains or losses。
FOR EXAMPLE, IF A USER RECEIVES 1 ETH AS A PLEDGE OR LOAN INCENTIVE, IT IS FIRST REQUIRED TO PAY A GENERAL INCOME TAX BASED ON THE MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT。
LATER, WHEN THE 1 ETH IS SOLD, IF THE PRICE CHANGES, A PARTIAL CAPITAL GAINS TAX IS ALSO REQUIRED FOR PRICE CHANGES。
This creates a double tax structure。
3.3 DeFi Grey Zone: the burden of conservative treatment
Even in the United States, DeFi taxation remains an area that lacks written guidance。
The IRS position is that the principles derived from the General Digital Asset Guide apply equally to DeFi。
In practice, conservative treatment has become de facto standard。
LIQUID POOL: ACCORDING TO CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT, DEPOSIT AND RECEIPT OF LP TOKENS WILL BE CONSIDERED A TAXABLE TRANSACTION, I.E. EXCHANGE OF TWO LP TOKENS FOR ONE LP TOKEN. ANOTHER TAXABLE EVENT OCCURS WHEN THE POOL IS WITHDRAWN. A MORE PROGRESSIVE INTERPRETATION WOULD CONSIDER IT A NON-TAXABLE LOAN, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR RULES, CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT IS USUALLY RECOMMENDED IN PRACTICE。
(b) The ETH conversion is reasonably interpreted as a taxable exchange. The increase resulting from the stETH conversion is usually considered to be ordinary income. IRS has no separate guidance on this。
Loans: Encrypted currency mortgages do not themselves pay taxes. However, if liquidation occurs, the collateral is deemed to be sold at the value at the time of liquidation。
Cross-chain bridge: Simple transfer of the same asset is not taxable. However, if it involves sealing or unsealing, part of the transaction may be regarded as being converted into another asset and thus considered taxable。
COMMON TO THESE AREAS IS THE FACT THAT, DESPITE THE LACK OF CLEAR IRS GUIDELINES, TAXPAYERS STILL HAVE TO ASSUME THEIR OWN REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES。
3.4 Sale and early distribution of tokens
Participating in the purchase of tokens through the public issuance of tokens or the issuance of exchange tokens is not a taxable event at the moment, but the tokens used as a means of payment will be considered disposed of, on the basis of which capital gains or losses will be recognized。
The taxing cost of receiving the token is the value of the token used at the time of purchase or the fair market value of the token obtained。
For the issuer, the proceeds from the sale of tokens are considered ordinary or operating income。
Additional regulatory rules may apply if the token corresponds to the security attributes。
3.5 United States tax infrastructure: dual structure of exchange reporting and self-declaration by taxpayers
One of the most interesting aspects of the US encryption tax system is that almost every field operates under the dual structure of "self-declaration by taxpayers plus exchange reporting"。
THE FINAL REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT AND IRS IN JULY 2024 INTRODUCED THE 1099-DA FORM, THE DIGITAL ASSET PROCEEDS REPORTING FORM FOR BROKERING TRANSACTIONS。
CURRENTLY, 1099-DA IS BEING IMPLEMENTED IN STAGES:
- 2025 transactions: total proceeds only reported
- Transactions 2026: comprehensive reporting, including taxing costs
The entities covered include the Centralized Exchange, the custodian wallet provider, the payment processor and the digital asset self-help terminal, i.e. the enterprise that hosts the customer ' s assets。
The main exchanges, including Coinbase, Kraken and Gemini, began to issue 1099-DA forms in early 2026。
THE POINT IS, 1099-DA DOESN'T COVER ANYTHING。
IRS Note 2024-57 temporarily excludes from the brokering obligation:
- Seal and unsealed
- Liquidity provider transactions
- Pledge transactions, including pledge of a mobile nature and re-commitment
In addition, the DeFi broker regulation, published in December 2024, was subsequently repealed by a joint resolution of the National Assembly。
This is the first bill relating to encrypted currency signed by the Trump Government and reflects a policy direction: DeFi is not classified as a broker。
As a result, all transactions that occurred on DEX such as Uniswap, PancakeSwap and 1nch, as well as transactions completed through the hosting wallet, remain outside the direct reporting of IRS。
EVENTUALLY, THE CONTENT SENT THROUGH 1099-DA COVERS ONLY THE UNDERLYING TRANSACTIONS THAT IRS CAN AUTOMATICALLY MATCH。
DeFi, the transfer between the custodian wallet and the exchange remain the responsibility of the taxpayer itself。
IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN TAX RETURNS AND 1099-DA DATA, A COMPENSATORY NOTICE IS AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGERED AND A TAX AUDIT MAY BE TRIGGERED。
4. Why does Korea have no choice but to adopt a self-declaration-based model
4.1 Inevitability of self-declaration
Korea faces the same infrastructure constraints as the United States。
Even though NTS collects data from five major domestic exchanges, including Dunamu and Bitumb, the scope is essentially the same as what the US 1099-DA can capture。
In other words, it can only cover transactions that are carried out by a centralized exchange intermediary。
ONCE CARF IS FULLY OPERATIONAL IN 2027, OVERSEAS EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS WILL BE PARTIALLY CAPTURED。
However, not all transactions are automatically covered by the report。
DeFi transactions are not automatically covered by any information delivery system。
IT IS DIFFICULT FOR NTS TO AUTOMATICALLY IDENTIFY THESE TRANSACTIONS WITHOUT SELF-DECLARATION BY THE USER。
This structural constraint is a problem that the United States has been trying to solve for almost a decade, and it is not something that Korea can solve within a year。
Therefore, the Republic of Korea is bound to start with the dual structure of "Exchange Report + Taxpayers Self-Statement"。
Moreover, the role of self-declaration in the Korean tax system could be greater than in the United States。
CURRENTLY, THE KOREAN VERSION OF THE VIRTUAL ASSET INTEGRATED ANALYSIS SYSTEM IS BEING BUILT UNDER NTS。
However, its feasibility will be discussed separately in section 6。
4.2 PRESSURE ON THE INTRODUCTION OF CARF AND GLOBAL INFORMATION STANDARDS
THE CARF, WHICH ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 JANUARY 2026, IS AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD DEVELOPED JOINTLY BY OECD AND G20, WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF 48 COUNTRIES。
Korea signed the MCAA in November 2024 (Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement, Multilateration Cooperation Agreement, duly acceded to the signature document of the CARF Information Exchange Network) and will first exchange the 2026 transaction data in 2027。
CARF NOT ONLY EXCHANGES TRANSACTION DATA, BUT ALSO HARMONIZES REPORTING ITEMS AND CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA。
It covers transactions involving the exchange of encrypted and traditional currencies, currency transactions and the transfer of encrypted currencies, including retail payment transactions exceeding $50,000。
The reporting items include the name of the asset, the number of transactions per year, the number of units and the amount of transactions。
THIS CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK IS ACTUALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE IRS SECURE CURRENCY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM。
EACH CARF PARTICIPATING COUNTRY WILL EVENTUALLY RECEIVE SIMILAR TRANSACTION DATA, WHICH, IN ORDER TO BE USED IN ITS TAX SYSTEM, WILL REQUIRE A CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK COMPATIBLE WITH IT。
THE KOREA NTS INTEGRATED ANALYSIS SYSTEM IS BEING DEVELOPED IN TANDEM WITH THE CARF CLEARING-HOUSE FUNCTION。
THEREFORE, ITS SYSTEM DESIGN IS LIKELY TO CONVERGE WITH THE OECD AND IRS STANDARDS。
4.3 Time pressure
With only eight months away from implementation, NTS does not have the time to precisely design independent tax guidelines for DeFi, pledge, drop, hard fork and NFT。
This is also the central basis for the Korean Capital Market Institute ' s reference to a possible fourth extension。
Under such time pressure, the most reasonable option would be to build on the broader framework of a proven overseas model, particularly the United States model。
It is noteworthy that the Korea Encrypted Currency Exchange has begun to respond to this trend。
Upbit formally implemented the identification submission procedure in compliance with the CARF compliance rules from January 2026。
Coinone and Korbit partially revised the use clause, assuming that CARF was implemented。
Bithumb is also adjusting its structure to meet the obligations of the CARF, even if it does not amend the provisions separately。
5. The possible shape of the Korean encryption tax system
Assuming that the United States model will be an important reference for Korea, the probability of its encryption tax system will evolve according to the following categories。
However, as Korea has to operate within the framework of other income in the current Income Tax Act and uses separate taxation, it is unlikely that it will have the same dual-track structure as the United States。
On-the-ground transactions and currency exchange: this is an area that is currently well documented. The deduction from the transfer price of the proceeds of cost and incidental costs is taxed separately at a rate of 22 per cent. Unlike the United States, the Republic of Korea does not distinguish between short-term and long-term holdings and applies the same rates regardless of the length of the holding period. This is more advantageous for short-term, frequent traders than for the United States framework。
A pledge and a loan incentive: this is one of the most ambiguous areas. As the current Income Tax Act defines other income in encrypted currency only as income generated by "transfer or borrowing", the prevailing interpretation is that the moment of receipt of an incentive is not in itself a taxable event。
IN AN INTERVIEW IN 2024, AN NTS OFFICIAL ALSO SAID:
"The taxation is not based on the moment of receipt of payment for the pledge service, but on the moment of transfer of the encrypted currency received to the Korean Won."
This is the greatest point of disagreement between Korea and the United States. The United States follows a dual structure of general income tax at the time of receipt and capital gains tax at the time of sale, while Korea is closer to a single tax at the time of transfer。
However, even under a single tax structure, how to calculate the cost of obtaining incentives remains an additional problem。
If receiving an incentive is considered to be cost-free, i.e. taxed at zero, the total sales price becomes taxable. Only 50 per cent of the sales price will be recognized as transfer income if the provision that is deemed necessary is applied. The final approach needs to be clarified through implementing decrees or further guidance。
The scope of the interpretation of "lending" in legal terminology is another issue in the context of borrowing。
If the interest received from an exchange or a DeFi loan agreement is included in the “income from borrowing”, the moment the interest is received, unlike the pledge, there may be room to trigger a taxable event. Consistent application of rules is relatively feasible for exchange services, but for the DeFi agreement it will still rely heavily on self-declaration by taxpayers。
Airdrop and hard-drive: There are no clear criteria. However, unlike pledge and borrowing, airdrops and hard-drives carry stronger pro bono attributes and therefore have a reasonable basis for differential treatment。
If the Republic of Korea maintains its current approach of "taxing only at disposal", the most natural structure is that no tax is levied upon receipt of a token currency, the market value at the time of receipt is recognized as a tax-bearing cost and the proceeds are taxed only at the time of transfer. This treatment is more beneficial to taxpayers than to the United States。
However, the single category of "airdrops" combines very different activities in economic substance。
Passive airdrops based on simple holding or locking of tokens are completely different from active Farming, which acquires tokens by actively investing capital and consuming costs. HMCC (United Kingdom Revenue and Customs Administration, His Major's Review and Customs) captures to some extent the difference: airdrops of a service nature are considered to be ordinary income, while airdrops obtained purely free of charge are closer to non-taxable treatment。
If Korea treats these two types of activities equally, the central question will be whether to recognize the incidental costs incurred by active Farming users。
Without recognition, the entire sale price of a user ' s currency obtained through capital expenditure would become transfer income, which would conflict with material equity. Even if associated costs are recognized, how to prove them remains a real challenge. It is also a common difficulty to estimate the fair market value of cold coins received from the wallet。
DeFi: This is the area most likely to remain in the grey zone. Given that the NTS response stated that it did not distinguish between centralized finance and DeFi alone, its actual position was to apply general principles in abstracto without providing DeFi exclusive guidance。
American-style conservative approaches may also become a de facto standard in Korea。
In the absence of clear guidance, however, the taxpayer ' s interpretation inevitably differs. This also raises questions of fairness。
Users engaged in the same economic activity on domestic exchanges are subject to an accurate 22 per cent tax. Users engaged in the same activity through DeFi either omit to declare themselves, bear excessive taxes under conservative interpretations or face the risk of future tax recovery under progressive interpretations。
The most rational structure, as in the United States, is to first recognize the transfer income generated by the use of encrypted currencies for the purchase of tokens at the time of disposal and to set the taxing cost of the token at the market value at the time of purchase。
At present, however, there is no explicit guidance on this approach。
NFT: NTS HAS PREVIOUSLY INDICATED THAT NFT'S TAX STANDARDS ARE STILL MISSING. FIRST, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER NFT FALLS INTO THE DEFINITION OF ENCRYPTED CURRENCY。
EVEN IN THE UNITED STATES, CERTAIN NFTS ARE CLASSIFIED AS "RECEIVABLES", AND 28 PER CENT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX IS APPLIED AND TREATED SEPARATELY。
How the Republic of Korea will reflect this remains an issue to be addressed after implementation。
6. Feasibility of the Korean Virtual Asset Integrated Analysis System
If the rule gap for a specific classification is policyGaps at the levelWhether the tools to implement these policies are in placeAnother reality testI don't know。
The detailed scope of the "Virtual Asset Integrated Analysis System" project, which is currently under way, shows what information the Korean Government would like to obtain when taxing individuals, and to what extent it would like to be traced。
SOURCE: PPS (REPRODUCED PICTURES)
According to the initial specifications disclosed in PPS Nara Marketplace last March, the project budget is approximately 3 billion won, including VAT。
The schedule is for design to begin in April, pilot to be operational in November and formally operational before the end of the year。
The scope of the project is far from simply summarizing exchange data。
The transaction details and summary forms submitted by the virtual asset service provider will be integrated with chain transaction data and integrated management。
The wallet address of each taxpayer will be matched so that it can be visualized to track the flow of transactions。
THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES FEATURES SUCH AS DETECTION OF ANOMALIES USING AI, MACHINE LEARNING AND STATISTICAL METHODS, AND ANALYSIS OF WALLET ADDRESSES AND CHAIN TRANSACTIONS THAT WILL BE IDENTIFIED AS OFFSHORE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS。
IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, NTS THUS DESCRIBES THE NECESSITY OF THE PROJECT:
"As a result of their anonymity and decentrization, virtual assets are being misused for money-laundering, irregular gifts and offshore tax evasion. "
NTS WILL THEREFORE ESTABLISH THE BASIS FOR PROACTIVELY IDENTIFYING TAX EVASION AS THE MAIN REASON FOR THE PROJECT。
The intention is not simply to receive data from the exchange after the event, but to combine and proactively track activities from the chain of custody wallets。
The challenge lies in technical and budgetary feasibility。
Industry observers question whether the budget of 3 billion won is sufficient to complete these functions。
A comprehensive analysis of overseas exchanges and individual wallets, combining chain and bottom data, will require significant infrastructure inputs and authorized costs of external solutions。
From April to November, the pilot operation was also intense, with a schedule of approximately seven months。
In particular, tracking DeFi transactions, not only identifying wallet addresses, requires semantic analysis of chain transactions。
For example, active investment in computing resources to obtain tokens must be distinguished from passive deposits。
This requires that the system be able to understand the actual meaning behind the cluster。
These restrictions are also indirectly reflected in political developments during the same period。
In February this year, the Budget Office of the Korean National Assembly published a tender for a research project entitled "The topic of virtual asset taxation and improvements"。
Its request for proposals explicitly included a review of the taxation criteria for non-standard acquisitions and transactions such as loans and pledges。
The fact that an external research project around core taxation standards was launched only eight months before its implementation revealed that the current framework was not stable。
More likely, the Integrated Analysis System will only have some of the expected functionality by January 2027。
Standardized integration of exchange data and base anomalies detection may be feasible。
But more time and budget is needed to cover semantic analysis of DeFi transactions and real-time matching of overseas exchange transactions。
In other words, the Republic of Korea is about to begin forced recruitment in a double gap between “tax rules” and “bottom infrastructure”。
This, in turn, is doomed to a long and deep process of systemic re-engineering, far from simple patchwork。
