Banks compete quietly for corporate real-name accounts

'One exchange, one bank' shadow regulation may ease

Diversifying custodian banks seen as essential for corporate market

Hana Bank–Dunamu alliance viewed as institutional play

Regulator expected to assess real-name account operations, corporate capacity

[Generated using ChatGPT]
[Generated using ChatGPT]

While securities firms are fighting to acquire stakes in digital asset exchanges, banks are busy knocking on exchange doors to get ahead in the race for corporate investment accounts. Even before corporate trading is officially permitted, behind-the-scenes contact over real-name verification account partnerships has already begun in earnest.

Analysts say the guidelines being drafted ahead of the corporate market opening could serve as a watershed moment for relaxing the "one exchange, one bank" arrangement that has long functioned as an unwritten rule. There is also interest in whether Wednesday's meeting between exchange CEOs and the Financial Supervisory Service chief will surface industry views on allowing corporate investment and reforming the real-name account system.

According to industry sources, banks have been making repeated contact with exchanges ahead of the planned opening of the digital asset market to corporations in the second half of this year. Woori Bank recently held a series of meetings with officials from Binance and Gopax to discuss the possibility of real-name account partnerships. NH NongHyup Bank is also said to have reached out to exchange officials and proposed areas of cooperation. "These were not meetings premised on an MOU or a formal partnership," one banking industry official said, "but we are at a stage of broadening contact with various future possibilities in mind."

What stands out is that banks are exploring real-name verification account partnerships with exchanges regardless of existing arrangements. Currently, exchanges typically maintain a real-name account partnership with just one bank. Upbit is partnered with K bank, Bithumb with KB Kookmin Bank, Coinone with Kakao Bank, Korbit with Shinhan Bank, and Gopax with Jeonbuk Bank. The "one exchange, one bank" structure carries no legal obligation, but has hardened into standard practice on the grounds that it improves efficiency in anti-money laundering, know-your-customer checks, and suspicious transaction monitoring.

The recent uptick in behind-the-scenes contact is driven by expectations that the opening of the corporate market could pave the way for a "one exchange, two banks" model. The market is watching for the possibility that financial regulators, in drafting guidelines for listed companies' digital asset investment, may allow multiple bank partnerships by separating real-name accounts for individual and corporate customers. The current structure carries significant risk in the event of a system failure, limits consumer choice, and constrains the ability to attract corporate clients.

Some analysts argue that once the corporate market opens, corporate finance capabilities — rather than a retail customer base — will become the key competitive factor in exchange partnerships. Many in the industry read Hana Bank's 1 trillion won ($643 million) investment in Dunamu as reflecting exactly that calculation. While K bank leveraged its exclusive real-name account partnership with Upbit as an internet-only bank to attract large numbers of retail investors and grow its customer and deposit base, Hana Bank is seen as positioning itself to serve as a "B2B hub" connecting exchanges and corporate clients by leading with its corporate finance strengths after the institutional market opens.

Moves to deepen existing alliances are also multiplying. K bank is reportedly pursuing plans to open a new offline customer support center on the second floor of Mirim Tower in Yeoksam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul — the same floor where Upbit's offline customer lounge is located. If K bank moves in, the two would effectively form a one-stop counter offering virtual asset trading consultation and bank account services under one roof. The model resembles the "Bithumb Lounge" operated by rival Bithumb.

Financial regulators are also expected to begin gathering opinions from partnered banks to assess how real-name accounts are being operated and how much capacity banks have to accommodate corporate clients. "Once corporate investment begins, diversifying custodian institutions is in effect essential," said Cha Sang-jin, an attorney at law firm Bicom. "Because anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, and source-of-funds verification work differently for corporate clients than for individuals, the need for diversified custodians and multiple bank partnerships will only grow."

A digital asset officer at one bank added that requiring corporate clients to open a separate bank account just for investment, on top of their existing banking relationship, is a significant practical burden. Over the long term, partnerships between exchanges and banks are likely to move toward a more open structure, similar to open banking, the officer said. A senior executive at a financial holding company said multiple bank partnerships represent an opportunity to expand the customer base, but for banks with weaker digital capabilities they could also drive customer attrition, forecasting that competition in digital finance will intensify considerably.

Meanwhile, analysts expect that if legislation of a basic digital assets act moves into full swing in the second half of this year, discussions on introducing a "one exchange, multiple banks" model will gain momentum. In April, People Power Party lawmaker Kim Sung-won introduced a bill to abolish the one-exchange, one-bank principle. The bill would transfer provisions related to virtual asset business operator registration under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information to the new basic law, and would allow operators to obtain real-name verification accounts from one or more financial institutions.


forest@heraldcorp.com
kyoung@heraldcorp.com