[Reporter’s Notebook] Why Was Cryptocurrency Trading Compared to Paintings?

[Asia Economy Reporter Gong Byung-sun] "If you go down the wrong path, adults need to tell you."

On the 22nd, Eun Sung-soo, Chairman of the Financial Services Commission, advised participants in the 2030 cryptocurrency market to be cautious and to act "like adults" during the plenary session of the National Assembly's Political Affairs Committee. The essence of Chairman Eun's remarks is that speculation is strong but there is no intrinsic value, and although the risk of loss is high, a frenzy is sweeping through, causing concern.

What is noteworthy is that he compared cryptocurrency to paintings. This clearly shows the perception that Chairman Eun and the current government have toward cryptocurrency. Paintings are not financial products nor objects of gambling. In a way, they are investment targets, but depending on the purpose of purchase, they can also become tools for speculation or tax evasion. Cryptocurrency is viewed in the same way. The current government’s intention is to neither activate it like a financial product nor regulate it like gambling, but to leave it alone.

The mention of paintings can also be interpreted as an attempt to justify taxation on cryptocurrency. Starting next year, if capital gains occur from transferring cryptocurrency, it will be classified as other income and taxed at 20%. There is strong opposition to this, but if cryptocurrency is an asset like paintings, the story changes. Paintings, when bought and sold with capital gains, are also considered other income and taxed at 20%. Optimists of cryptocurrency compare it to stocks, pessimists compare it to gambling, but the sudden mention of paintings is because taxation was also considered.

In fact, the cryptocurrency market itself provided the trigger for Chairman Eun’s strong remarks. He had been looking for an opportunity to compare it to paintings, and Dogecoin, which has no value and can be issued infinitely, rose more than 300% in a week.

Of course, the 2030 generation to whom the chairman gave advice is aware of the extreme volatility of cryptocurrency and participates in the market. They know the strong speculative nature and that some cryptocurrencies have no value, but they feel that if not now, they will not have the confidence to become "adults" who can own a home and live happily. If Chairman Eun is truly an "adult," shouldn’t he not only click his tongue but also propose alternatives?