South Korea’s Financial Services Commission reportedly discussed raising crypto exchanges’ cold-wallet holdings toward 99% at an emergency security meeting on 2026/11/02, but the proposal was not finalized. The reported current baseline requires more than 80% of users’ virtual assets to be held in cold wallets. The key question, therefore, is not whether a new rule has already taken effect, but which exchanges would need to make the largest adjustments if regulators proceed.

South Korea Has Not Yet Confirmed a 99% Rule Change

Not based on the evidence provided. Current reporting points to an FSC emergency security meeting on 2026/11/02, where officials discussed increasing the share of customer assets held in cold wallets. However, no primary document supplied shows that South Korea has officially raised the standard to 99%.

The reported existing baseline comes from a Korea.net government press-release excerpt on the enforcement framework for the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users. It states that virtual-asset service providers must keep more than 80% of users’ virtual assets in cold wallets, while the precise ratio is determined by the FSC through subordinate supervisory rules. It also states that the FSC may impose a specific cold-wallet ratio on an individual provider in exceptional cases.

This distinction matters because the 2026/11/02 event was described in the supplied MoneyToday and SBS excerpts as an emergency security review, rather than a published final amendment. According to those excerpts, the FSC reviewed access controls, wallet-withdrawal approval and signature systems, and administrator-privilege management, while calling for higher cold-wallet holdings. The practical reading is therefore limited: the above-80% floor remains the reported current standard, while a ratio near 99% remains a policy direction under discussion rather than an adopted nationwide requirement.

Which Exchanges Would Face the Largest Adjustment

If regulators eventually pursue a uniform 99% target, the largest adjustments would likely be required from exchanges operating closest to the current floor, rather than platforms already near that level. That conclusion follows from the range of exchange ratios reported in a supplied TokenPost excerpt.

Within the scope of that report, Upbit was said to hold more than 99%, Bithumb about 94%, Coinone about 85%, and GOPAX and Digital X just above 80%. These figures were not provided as exchange disclosures and should therefore be viewed as media-reported estimates rather than officially confirmed company data.

Even so, the comparison helps identify likely pressure points. If those figures are accurate and a broader 99% requirement were applied uniformly, Upbit would already be close to the reported target, while Coinone, GOPAX, and Digital X would appear to have the largest gap to close.

Why a Higher Cold-Wallet Ratio Could Affect Withdrawals

A higher cold-wallet ratio could create additional operational friction, although the evidence provided supports this only as a reported concern rather than a confirmed outcome. The trade-off is straightforward: the more customer assets an exchange holds offline for security, the less it retains in hot wallets for immediate withdrawals.

The supplied news reports say industry participants warned that a higher ratio would reduce readily available hot-wallet balances and could require exchanges to move assets out of offline storage more frequently when withdrawal demand rises. This helps explain why smaller platforms or those with lower existing ratios may be concerned about additional operational burdens, even if the policy objective is stronger asset protection.

MoneyToday and SBS also indicate that the November 2 review extended beyond a single percentage target, covering access controls and wallet-withdrawal approval systems. This suggests that the FSC’s near-term focus is broader security discipline. For users, the key takeaway is that South Korea has not yet been shown to be enforcing a new 99% rule. Still, exchanges could face tighter supervisory expectations around custody and withdrawal handling if the discussion later becomes formal guidance.