The launch of Open USD has quickly drawn scrutiny after several major South Korean companies disputed claims that they had officially joined the consortium behind the stablecoin.
The controversy emerged shortly after Open Standard announced plans to launch OUSD later this year as a U.S. dollar-backed stablecoin, stating that more than 140 businesses had joined the initiative.
Korean Companies Challenge Membership Claims
Open Standard’s published participant list included several globally recognized names such as Visa, Mastercard, BlackRock, Google, Ripple, and Standard Chartered.
Among the listed South Korean participants were major firms including Samsung Electronics, Dunamu, Shinhan Financial Group, KakaoBank, K Bank, and several large card issuers.
However, multiple companies have since denied any formal commitment to the project.
According to reports, a representative from Samsung Electronics stated that no official discussions had taken place with OpenUSD’s issuer and that the company had no clear understanding of its supposed role within the consortium.
Representatives from Shinhan Financial Group, Dunamu, and K Bank reportedly gave similar responses. They said Open Standard had only asked whether they were interested in the project, to which they replied they would review the proposal.
Despite that limited engagement, their names were later included in the consortium’s participant list.
Concerns Over Transparency
The controversy deepened after some companies claimed they only discovered they had been listed as consortium members through media coverage.
One representative reportedly said the company had merely expressed conditional interest and was surprised to see itself publicly identified as a participant without formal agreement.
This has raised broader concerns about transparency and whether Open Standard overstated the level of institutional support behind OUSD.
No Formal Agreements Signed
The issue gained further attention after Gabor Gurbacs, founder of Pointsville, said he had spoken directly with several companies named in the consortium.
According to Gurbacs, multiple firms told him they had neither signed agreements nor formally committed to joining OpenUSD.
He suggested that either media coverage significantly exaggerated the situation or the consortium’s published participant list was misleading.
The controversy has also sparked debate across social media, where critics argue that publicly naming companies before agreements are finalized can appear misleading and may damage credibility.
For OpenUSD, the incident presents an early reputational challenge as it attempts to position itself as a major player in the increasingly competitive stablecoin market.#crypto#cryptonews https://coinsignals.net https://t.me/coinsignalpublic
