2026-01-06 03:38:31

The Korean Financial Services Commission is currently planning a new initiative—the introduction of a "payment freeze" system in the virtual asset market. The purpose of this system is straightforward: to preemptively lock accounts of traders suspected of market manipulation, preventing them from transferring out unrealized gains or hiding funds.

In simple terms, it’s about blocking risky accounts before the problem fully surfaces. This is indeed a positive development for the transparency and fairness of the entire market—after all, manipulation harms retail investors the most. However, the specific standards for implementing this freeze system and how to determine "suspected manipulation" still depend on how it will be rolled out in the future.

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.

12 Likes

Reward
12
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SatoshiHeir

· 01-08 16:02

It should be pointed out that this freezing mechanism is essentially an intervention by centralized authority in the market — which is completely contrary to our original belief in decentralization.

View OriginalReply0

NeverVoteOnDAO

· 01-08 11:26

Hmm... Another "pre-freezing" tactic, sounds good but the details are the real killer. I'm really worried they can't control the scale, any large transfer could get you frozen. Retail investors definitely need protection, but the words "suspected" give too much room for interpretation. If executed properly, it could be a good thing; I'm just afraid it becomes a handy tool for certain people. Instead of freezing, it's better to make the manipulation standards transparent, then I would believe. Small coins get wiped out directly, big institutions still have to eat; current retail protection is one-sided. Forget it, I'll just respond however I see fit; regulation, after all, is not something retail investors get a say in.

View OriginalReply0

GameFiCritic

· 01-07 07:33

To be honest, the core issue with this freezing system is still the word "suspected"—the standards are vague, making it easy to turn into a tool for cutting leeks. Wait, isn't this just fund regulation before market clearing? It's actually similar to my analysis of the deflationary model of game tokens; both require plugging the loopholes first. It seems that Korea might really be serious this time, but I hope it's not excessive regulation that causes compliant traders to also suffer. The real manipulators have probably already laid out their fund chains, so I need to see the data to know how many they can actually stop with the freezing system.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationWatcher

· 01-06 04:07

The card account trick is pretty good, finally someone is thinking about protecting retail investors. But the key is how to determine who is manipulating; if the standards are vague, it could be easily abused. --- Korea always leads the way, and this time they finally did something reliable. --- Freezing payments sounds great, but I'm worried that the execution will just be a series of operations, and in the end, the big players will still run faster. --- Wow, finally someone dares to take action against the market makers. Looking forward to seeing how it will be implemented. --- That said, the phrase "suspected" is really a catch-all; who knows how it will be judged in the end. --- If this trick can really be implemented, retail investors might be less exploited, which is worth looking forward to. --- I'm just afraid this will become another tool for cutting leeks; regulation has always been a double-edged sword.

View OriginalReply0

DeepRabbitHole

· 01-06 04:07

Another round of this? Freezing accounts sounds cool, but I'm afraid the last ones to be wrongfully accused will still be us retail investors. --- It's called anti-manipulation in a nice way, but in reality... the standards are so vague, who gets to decide? --- Korea is messing around here again, these rules will definitely have many loopholes. --- There's nothing wrong with anti-manipulation measures, but who should hold this power? I'm worried. --- The issue of freezing accounts... how exactly is "suspected" defined? Doesn't this leave too much subjective room? --- Retail investors hate these sudden freezes the most, there's no way to react in advance. --- It seems like a good thing, but the actual implementation depends on people's integrity. --- Another policy that sounds good but is full of problems in practice. --- Can these rules really protect retail investors? I remain skeptical. --- The key is who will judge manipulation... this is too critical.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-bd883c58

· 01-06 04:05

This move by Korea is quite clever, freezing accounts in advance to prevent withdrawals, seemingly blocking retail investors' loopholes. But the key is how to define "suspected," so as not to accidentally harm law-abiding traders.

View OriginalReply0

0xTherapist

· 01-06 03:57

South Korea's approach is okay, but who will define "suspected"? That's the real trap. The system is good in theory, but I'm worried that vague enforcement standards will cause retail investors to get caught in the crossfire. Finally, someone is thinking about protecting us, but be careful not to abuse the account freezing power. Honestly, instead of freezing accounts, direct investigation would be better. Doing it this way feels like confiscating chips before gambling. South Korea is at it again, let's see if they can truly protect retail investors or if it will just become a tool for cutting leeks. Freezing payments sounds nice, but I'm afraid it will ultimately become an excuse for power rent-seeking.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketSurvivor

· 01-06 03:49

Trying to freeze our accounts again, huh? Who set these review standards? This operation in Korea is a bit harsh, but I just want to know how they determine suspected manipulation—just freeze and be done? The payment freeze system sounds good, but I'm worried it might become a new tool for cutting leeks. Honestly, retail investors fear this kind of black-box operation the most. Who would trust opaque standards? If they really enforce it, they need to set a clear red line, or else being constantly held down is a bit unsettling. Instead of freezing, it's better to first disclose the rules. Behind-the-scenes operations are pointless. It's easy to say, but in practice, it all depends on people's integrity.

View OriginalReply0