The Kimchi Premium: Bitcoin Could Cross the Border Faster Than the Money Could Return
Korea’s 2017–2018 bitcoin premium exposed a gap between moving coins and recycling money. Exchange data, Korean banking announcements and XRP Ledger documentation explain why a visible price difference was not a guaranteed round-trip profit.
Key Points
- Makarov and Schoar’s March 2019 paper reports a Korean bitcoin premium averaging more than 15% from December 2017 to early February 2018, reaching 40% on several days.
- Buying abroad and selling in Korea left the proceeds in Korean fiat money. Reusing that capital required a separate financial journey.
- Korea’s 2018 banking measures and XRPL’s settlement mechanics describe different layers: access to accounts, movement of money and validation of a ledger transaction. None guarantees an arbitrage profit.
Chronological Timeline
The later study reports a Korean bitcoin premium averaging more than 15%, reaching 40% on several days.
The FSC announces real-name accounts for new trading deposits, scheduled for January 30.
The FSC records January introduction of AML guidelines and April bank inspections, announcing July 10 revisions.
Makarov and Schoar’s paper connects persistent international price gaps with constraints on recycling arbitrage capital.
One bitcoin, separate order books
At the turn of 2018, a bitcoin could command a different price depending on where it was sold. The striking question was not why someone wanted to buy it cheaply abroad. It was why competition had not quickly erased the premium offered in Korea. A borderless asset was trading inside markets that were still separate.[1]
Igor Makarov and Antoinette Schoar examined trades from 34 exchanges in 19 countries. Their March 20, 2019 paper reports a Korean premium over US bitcoin prices averaging more than 15% from December 2017 to early February 2018, with 40% reached on several days. These are findings for a defined sample and period, not a universal price for every Korean coin.[1]
The geographic pattern mattered as much as the headline spread. The researchers found larger gaps across countries than within them. Trades were occurring on separate order books, each matching its own buyers and sellers. A worldwide ledger did not merge those books or make their banking arrangements identical.[1]
That comparison changes the question from a spectacular quotation to a market mechanism. A trader needed an executable purchase and sale, but also enough usable capital on the correct side of the border to repeat them. The premium was evidence of a gap to investigate, not a receipt for money already earned.[1]
The trade was a loop, not a one-way transfer
Consider the direction of the balances. Buying bitcoin in a lower-price market uses money there; selling in Korea creates a fiat-money balance in Korea. Even if the coin transfer succeeds, the starting account has less spending power for the next purchase. A repeatable business needs a way to bring that capital back.[1]
Makarov and Schoar identify this recycling problem as a constraint on arbitrage. Their account distinguishes cross-border fiat transfers from exchanges between cryptocurrencies. The latter showed much smaller price gaps on the same venues. That contrast supports a role for financial-market segmentation rather than a story in which the token itself has a different identity in each country.[1]
Pre-positioning balances can shorten the wait between buying and selling: a trader can hold coins and money on both venues before an opportunity appears. But this ties up resources. After repeated trades, the inventories become unbalanced and must be replenished. It moves the transfer problem to another point in the cycle rather than making it disappear.[1]
A large quoted spread and a safe realized return therefore answer different questions. Fees, available trading depth, movements in prices and the ability to regain control of proceeds affect execution. The paper discusses such constraints without establishing that every institution was prohibited from trading or that every retail participant made a profit.[1]
Seconds on a ledger were not seconds to cash
XRP offers a useful way to see the boundary. The current XRP Ledger documentation describes near-real-time settlement of roughly three to six seconds. Its subject is agreement on transactions recorded in a shared ledger. That technical description is not a timetable for an overseas dealer, a Korean exchange and a bank to complete a combined transaction.[3]
A validated ledger payment tells a recipient something important: the network has accepted a particular state change. It does not by itself show that a trading platform has credited a customer account, that an order has sold at the earlier quotation, or that the resulting bank funds can be transferred. These are distinct steps with different operators.[3]
Faster settlement can reduce one waiting period while leaving the rest of the trade exposed. Substituting XRP for bitcoin also means making decisions about another asset and its available markets. The documentation does not establish which historical travelers used it, their trading prices, or a profit earned before any market movement.[3]
The technical achievement remains meaningful without that promise. A network can settle a payment quickly while the wider financial process stays slow. For the premium, the crucial distinction is between a coin arriving and an entire sequence of purchases, sales and money movements finishing.[3]
The bank account became part of the story
On January 23, 2018, Korea’s Financial Services Commission announced a real-name banking policy scheduled for January 30. Users making new deposits for cryptocurrency trading would need a real-name account at the same bank as their exchange. The announcement also introduced measures against cryptocurrency-related money laundering.[2]
Those requirements concerned access through banks. They did not describe a protocol shutdown or prove that every possible cross-border trade had ended. Nor does the announcement supply a universal annual prohibition on remittances. A precise account of a particular transfer would require its date, channel, documentation and applicable rules.[2]
The policy work continued. A June 27 FSC release states that the anti-money-laundering guidelines had been introduced on January 30 and that banks were inspected in April. It announced revisions for July 10, including stronger monitoring of transfers involving overseas cryptocurrency exchanges. The document records supervision of financial channels, not the fate of unnamed airport travelers.[4]
The enduring story is the uneven integration of money and markets. Exchange prices could advertise an opportunity while account requirements and the return journey of capital limited who could act on it. The kimchi premium makes sense when the whole circuit is visible: purchase, ledger transfer, sale, custody and the money needed to start again.[1][2][4]
Key Takeaways for Investors & Builders
A premium is not a completed profit
The money must return to where another purchase can be funded.
Ledger settlement has a boundary
Validation does not guarantee exchange credit, an execution price or a bank transfer.
Financial channels shape market access
Bank requirements and operational controls coexist with a globally shared ledger.
Continue reading
Explore the topic through other cases and contexts.
