BSV Blockchain enhanced with Teranode technology, offers compelling advantages for Tokensquare’s KRWQ, a regulated KRW-backed stablecoin designed for business settlements and consumer payments. Its features — no gas fees (fixed low-cost model), zero or near-zero transaction fees (0 KRW for consumers, ~0.01 KRW/tx for businesses), and high scalability (1M TPS) — make it an excellent fit for KRWQ’s goal of enabling micro-payments, instant settlements, and IoT integrations across South Korea’s digital economy. However, despite these strengths, KRWQ is currently the only regulated stablecoin in G20 jurisdictions (as of October 4, 2025) using BSV/Teranode, based on the previously identified compliant stablecoins (e.g., USDC, GYEN, EURC). This raises the question: Is the high adoption cost the primary reason others avoid BSV, or are there additional factors at play? Below, I’ll evaluate why BSV is uniquely utilized by KRWQ, focusing on adoption costs and other considerations, while ensuring compliance with FSC regulations and excluding speculative use cases.

BSV Blockchain’s Advantages for KRWQ

• No Gas Fees: Unlike Ethereum’s variable gas fees (e.g., $0.50–$5/tx in 2025), BSV uses a fixed-fee model, enabling predictable costs (~0.01 KRW/tx) for high-frequency transactions. This eliminates gas preparation/holding costs, aligning with KRWQ’s zero consumer fee structure for shopping and P2P transfers.
• Zero/Near-Zero Fees: KRWQ leverages BSV’s low-cost architecture to offer 0 KRW fees for consumers and minimal fees for businesses, outcompeting traditional banking (500–1,000 KRW/transfer). This supports micro-payments as low as 1 KRW, per Tokensquare’s May 2025 launch specs.
• High Scalability: Teranode’s 1M TPS capacity enables KRWQ to handle nationwide volumes (e.g., millions of daily transactions in Korea’s 190T KRW retail market), surpassing competitors like Ethereum (1K TPS) or Polygon (20K TPS).
• Regulatory Fit: BSV’s transparent ledger supports FSC-mandated reserve audits and AML/KYC compliance, with Hashed Trust ensuring 1:1 KRW backing for KRWQ’s 10B KRW market cap.

Why Only KRWQ Uses BSV?

While BSV’s technical merits are clear, its exclusive use by KRWQ among G20-compliant stablecoins (e.g., USDC, GYEN, EURC, PYUSD, EURQ, EURCV, EURI, GBPT) stems from a combination of adoption costs and other strategic, technical, and regulatory factors. Below, I analyze these reasons, comparing BSV to blockchains like Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, Stellar, and others used by peers.

1. High Adoption Costs:

• KRWQ’s Cost Barrier: As previously noted, KRWQ’s adoption costs are $150K–$450K per business (development: $100K–$300K; integration: $50K–$150K), driven by custom smart contracts, audits, and APIs for BSV’s high-throughput infrastructure. For small businesses (revenues 100M–1B KRW, or $73K–$730K), this is 20–60% of annual income, limiting accessibility.
• Comparison to Peers:
• USDC/PYUSD (Ethereum, Solana): Integration costs ~$100K–$200K, leveraging mature ecosystems with reusable SDKs and widespread developer support. Solana’s 70K TPS and Ethereum’s tools reduce custom dev needs.
• GYEN/JPYC (Ethereum, Stellar, Polygon): ~$50K–$150K, benefiting from Japan’s established blockchain frameworks and lower-cost Polygon (~20K TPS).
• EURC/EURS/EURQ/EURCV/EURI (Polygon, Avalanche, Tezos, Hyperledger): ~$50K–$150K, with MiCA-compliant issuers using interoperable chains for cost efficiency.
• GBPT (Ethereum, Algorand): ~$50K–$100K, integrating with UK’s Faster Payments via Algorand’s low-cost model (~15K TPS).
• Impact: BSV’s less mature ecosystem (fewer pre-built tools, smaller developer community) requires custom integrations, inflating costs 1.5–3x compared to Ethereum/Polygon. Small businesses favor cheaper, bank-integrated options like KRW1 ($70K–$250K) or KBKRW ($40K–$150K), which use Avalanche or private chains with legacy compatibility.

1. Limited Ecosystem and Developer Adoption:

• BSV’s Niche Status: Despite its scalability, BSV has a smaller developer base than Ethereum (3M+ developers) or Solana (500K+), per 2025 blockchain reports. This limits available tools, increasing development time and costs for BSV-based stablecoins. Tokensquare’s partnership with the Bitcoin SV Association mitigated this for KRWQ, but others lack similar incentives.
• Peer Preference: USDC and EURC use Ethereum/Polygon for their vast libraries and interoperability with global wallets (e.g., MetaMask). GYEN’s Stellar choice leverages low-cost cross-border frameworks, aligning with Japan’s remittance focus. Private chains (e.g., Hyperledger for EURI) offer bank-grade security, appealing to EU issuers under MiCA.

1. Regulatory and Institutional Preferences:

• BSV’s Perception: While BSV complies with FSC’s transparency requirements for KRWQ, some G20 regulators (e.g., US OCC, EU EBA) prefer established chains like Ethereum or permissioned ledgers (Hyperledger, Quorum) due to proven compliance track records. BSV’s association with niche blockchain communities may deter risk-averse issuers, despite its technical fit.
• Bank-Driven Choices: KRW1 (Avalanche) and KBKRW (likely Hyperledger) reflect banks’ preference for controlled environments with lower TPS (4.5K–50K) but easier FSC audits. USDC/PYUSD issuers (e.g., Circle, PayPal) choose Solana for its regulatory acceptance in the US under the GENIUS Act.

1. Strategic Focus and Market Fit:

• KRWQ’s Unique Goal: Tokensquare designed KRWQ for nationwide, high-frequency utilities (e.g., IoT, micro-payments), necessitating BSV’s 1M TPS. Other stablecoins target narrower use cases: USDC for global settlements, GYEN for remittances, EURC for SEPA-like transfers. These require less scalability (1K–70K TPS), making Ethereum/Solana sufficient and cheaper.
• Path Dependency: Issuers like Circle (USDC) or Société Générale (EURCV) built on Ethereum pre-2025, locking into ecosystems with lower switching costs. BSV’s newer Teranode tech (deployed ~2024) lacks this legacy advantage, deterring adoption despite superior TPS.

1. Infrastructure Maturity:

• BSV’s Early Stage: Teranode’s 1M TPS is recent, requiring custom node setups and higher maintenance than Polygon’s plug-and-play subnets (~20K TPS). KRWQ’s partnership with BSV Association absorbed these costs, but others (e.g., JPYC, EURQ) opt for mature chains to avoid infrastructure risks.
• Global Trends: G20 stablecoins prioritize interoperability with existing financial rails (e.g., SEPA, Faster Payments), favoring chains like Stellar (GYEN, EURS) or Algorand (GBPT) over BSV’s specialized architecture.

Is Adoption Cost the Sole Reason?

No, adoption costs are a significant but not exclusive factor. While KRWQ’s $150K–$450K is 1.5–3x higher than peers, other reasons include:

• Ecosystem Lock-In: Issuers prefer chains with broad tools (Ethereum) or bank compatibility (Hyperledger), reducing integration complexity.
• Regulatory Familiarity: Regulators in the US, EU, and Japan favor established chains, viewing BSV as less proven despite compliance.
• Use Case Alignment: Most stablecoins don’t need 1M TPS, making cheaper, lower-TPS chains (e.g., Polygon at 20K) sufficient for their markets.

Genuine Merits of Non-BSV Blockchains

Despite BSV’s advantages, other blockchains offer merits for regulated stablecoins:

• Interoperability: Ethereum/Polygon integrate with global wallets and DeFi-free payment rails, easing cross-border use (e.g., USDC’s $50B cap).
• Lower Costs: Stellar (~$50K integration) and Algorand (~$50K) reduce SME barriers compared to BSV’s $50K–$150K.
• Regulatory Trust: Hyperledger/Quorum (used by EURQ, EURI) align with bank-led compliance, minimizing FSC/EBA scrutiny.
• Mature Tools: Ethereum’s SDKs and Polygon’s libraries cut development time vs. BSV’s custom requirements.

Conclusion

KRWQ’s use of BSV is driven by its unmatched scalability and fee structure, ideal for South Korea’s nationwide utilities. However, its exclusive adoption reflects high costs ($150K–$450K vs. $40K–$250K for peers) and BSV’s niche ecosystem, limited regulatory familiarity, and misalignment with narrower use cases. Other G20 stablecoins opt for cost-efficient, interoperable chains like Ethereum or Stellar, sufficient for their goals. As BSV matures and costs drop (e.g., via SDKs, ~40% reduction by 2026), more issuers may consider it, but for now, KRWQ’s pioneering choice is unique.