Local media reports indicate that South Korea’s financial regulators are set to investigate the transaction fees imposed by domestic cryptocurrency exchanges, with the goal of reducing these costs for users.
The Financial Services Commission (FSC) will begin probing the fees charged by local trading platforms and will consider possible intervention measures, as reported by the Herald Economy on Thursday.
This initiative aligns with the pro-cryptocurrency agenda of South Korea’s newly elected President Lee Jaemuun. During his presidential campaign, Lee promised to cut crypto trading transaction costs and support younger traders.
As part of this inquiry, the FSC plans to examine the current pricing structures, payment methods, and revenue collected by these exchanges.
Are local exchanges more expensive than those abroad?
The FSC announced its investigation into crypto exchange fees during a policy briefing before the State Issues Planning Committee, which functions as the Presidential Transition Team for the new administration.
“We need to assess whether current domestic exchange fees impose an undue burden on consumers and if they are reasonable in comparison to overseas rates,” FSC officials noted.
The FSC also mentioned plans to create policy standards by comparing data from domestic and foreign exchanges as well as user preferences, although target committee rates have yet to be established.
Previous oversight fee of 0.6%
This investigation into the costs of crypto trading follows a previous action where, in March 2025, regulators requested exchanges to pay a supervisory fee of 0.6% of their operating revenue.
A local news report from Naver estimated that the annual oversight costs for South Korea’s crypto industry could total about 5.8 million USD.
Operating revenue figures for 2023 show that Upbit’s parent company, Dunamu, generated approximately 714 million USD, while smaller exchanges like Bithumb and Coinone had revenues of around 98 million USD and 16 million USD, respectively.
Cointelegraph reached out to the FSC and the Digital Asset Exchange Alliance (DAXA) for comments on this matter but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
