@anna_petrenkoo (CBDO,
@everstake_pool) says institutional crypto did not unbundle because anyone planned it, but because bundling failed publicly, and more than once.
With FTX, custody, trading and market making sat inside one legal entity with one set of keys, so when that entity had a bad week everything behind it went with it.
She argues that when the custodian, staking provider, prime broker and ETF issuer are separately regulated and audited entities, a failure at one does not cascade into the others, and that complexity clients can audit beats simplicity they cannot verify.
@Oliver_Yates (CEO & Co-Founder,
@Aplo_crypto) says separating every service, from the custodian to the venue or provider for execution, technically makes a setup safer, but with what the market offers today it comes with a trade-off in liquidity, available assets and products.
A big part of market liquidity sits on Binance, anyone who wants options on an order book more or less has to use Deribit, and no single custodian right now offers off-venue settlement for all of them.
Crypto has no single clearing house, so things are missing that make it a trade-off, and most institutions end up choosing and keep some counterparty risk depending on the products they want access to.
@Tony_Sundas (Senior Sales Manager,
@CryptoFinanceAG) says the stack fragmented because clients have different needs, and someone who wants speed picks a different provider than someone who wants to stake and keep ownership.
Antonio helped BBVA in Switzerland set up its first crypto custody solution, and he says regulation that lagged behind in his first years at BBVA in Switzerland also drove the split.
The Swiss regulator FINMA was ready in 2017, but Europe took five more years to give clear direction, which made bringing the project to Spain very cumbersome.