There's a convenient illusion: if the state finally writes clear rules for the crypto market, the market will immediately become mature.
Well, not really.
The law can say: "now it's allowed." But the law itself doesn't hold assets, sign transactions, restore access, investigate incidents, or answer for stolen keys.
If the discussed idea of comprehensive regulation of crypto assets in the Russian context becomes law, and the transition period turns out to be short — say, about a year — the main question won't be "whether crypto will be allowed." The main question will be much more mundane and important:
who will be able to securely hold keys, sign transactions, and not lose other people's money?
That's where the real adult story begins.
The law is the "start" button. Custody infrastructure is the brakes, seat belts, and fire system. Without them, the market isn't mature — just fast.
The First Year Won't Be About Exchanges
When people hear "crypto regulation," they usually picture exchanges, beautiful apps, charts, tokens, new products for users.
But if we're talking about the institutional market, the first thing that'll need to be built isn't storefronts. It'll be trusted infrastructure for storing and managing assets.
Because "allowing crypto" and "making it safe for businesses, banks, and major clients" are completely different levels of maturity.
First and foremost, the market will need custody solutions. Not wallets in the style of "here's your seed phrase, don't lose it," but proper corporate systems: roles, access rights, action logging, redundancy, recovery procedures, audit, and clear accountability.
A separate layer is key management.
In crypto assets, a private key isn't a password to a personal account. A private key gives actual control over the asset. If a company doesn't know how to securely generate, store, use, and recover keys, there's no regulated market. There's an expensive casino with nice presentations.
The next layer is transaction signing infrastructure.
Signing shouldn't happen "on an admin's laptop." MPC, HSM, multisig, or hybrid models are needed, where operations go through access policies, confirmations, limits, logging, and audit.
Then comes everything else: AML, incident investigation, node security, server and network security, fiat gateways, bank integrations, reconciliation, API, compliance.
In short: the first year of regulation isn't "crypto is allowed." It's a frantic infrastructure construction.
Custodian — Bridge Between Cryptography and Corporate Reality
Imagine a company holding ₽500 million in tokenized assets.
It doesn't care much about Web3 philosophy. It cares about simple questions:
- who's responsible for loss;
- who has the right to sign operations;
- can access be revoked from an employee;
- how to investigate an incident;
- what to do in case of compromise;
- whether there's backup recovery;
- who bears legal responsibility.
That's where the custodian appears.
A custodian is a bridge between cryptography and corporate reality. Between the world of "not your keys, not your coins" and the world of board of directors, accounting, security service, internal audit, and the regulator.
Without this, the market quickly slides into the format of "just send USDT here."
This might work in a gray zone, in small deals, and in personal arrangements. But it's not an institutional market. It's chaos.
Crypto in business without proper custody infrastructure isn't a safe. It's an envelope with cash that a system administrator happens to be carrying around.
The Main Risk — Keys
If I had to choose the main technical risk of the future regulated crypto market, I wouldn't put certification or bank integrations first.
The main risk is keys.
You can have perfect compliance. You can have beautiful licenses. You can have bank integrations. But if one privileged operator withdraws the assets — game over.
In crypto, it's not just cryptography that gets broken. More often, people, processes, and infrastructure get broken:
- employee access;
- CI/CD;
- malicious updates;
- secret leaks;
- phishing;
- poor network segmentation;
- temporary admin solutions that "we'll definitely fix later."
That "we'll fix it later" in financial infrastructure typically lives for years.
Bank integration is critical too. Even a good crypto service without clear interaction with traditional fintech won't scale. But if keys are stored poorly, integration won't save it.
Certification matters, but it's more of a bureaucratic brake. Keys are the point where an error immediately turns into a loss of money.
Banks Know Money. But Keys Are a Different Sport
Russia is strong in fintech. That's true.
We have a strong school of core banking, processing, antifraud, enterprise backend, bank integrations. In many things, Russian fintech really knows how to build complex industrial systems.
But blockchain infrastructure is a separate discipline.
It needs people who simultaneously understand distributed systems, applied cryptography, key management, consensus architecture, node operations, threat modeling, wallet infrastructure, and secure signing.
In my estimation, there aren't many such specialists in the Russian context: it's a narrow competence at the intersection of cryptography, distributed systems, and financial security.
And an important nuance: a noticeable portion of strong teams have long been oriented toward the international market. There was demand, budgets, products, infrastructure tasks, and normal practice there.
So the market won't face a shortage of "IT guys." IT guys exist.
The market will face a shortage of crypto infra engineers.
And that's a whole different story.
On This Wave, Boring but Expensive Infrastructure Will Emerge
If regulation really launches the market, the set of new services is fairly predictable.
Likely, Fireblocks‑like solutions will appear — services for corporate storage, signing, and control of digital asset operations.
Corporate wallets with RBAC, approvals, and policy engine will appear. Transaction monitoring, AML, tracing, risk scoring services will appear.
Tools for managing corporate crypto reserves will appear. Key recovery and business continuity solutions will appear, because key loss will become a separate market fear.
Managed node infrastructure, crypto compliance middleware, auditors, and incident response teams that investigate hacks, leaks, and failed architectural decisions will appear.
Looking pragmatically, the winners won't necessarily be those building "a new blockchain."
Rather, those who build boring but mission‑critical infrastructure will win.
Boring infrastructure, without which no major player would risk holding serious money.
The main profession of the new cycle isn't a crypto evangelist, but a boring engineer who knows how not to lose private keys.
The First Solutions Will Almost Certainly Be Hacks
A year is very little.
Financial infrastructure isn't built properly "on a knee." But if the transition period is short, the risk of a rush and temporary solutions will be high.
The scenario is clear: regulation comes out, a transition period appears, everyone understands they need to comply urgently. A rush begins.
And in this race, we might see:
- quickly wrapped open‑source solutions;
- dangerous custom integrations;
- poorly vetted custody systems;
- centralized points of failure;
- temporary architectures that then live for five years;
- "manual" procedures disguised as enterprise process.
The classic mistake — trying to solve an institutional task with a startup approach of "MVP first."
But custody isn't a market where an MVP mistake is cheap.
Here, a mistake means loss of assets, criminal risks, and reputational collapse.
So the first year of regulation, if it really follows a fast‑transition model, won't be a year of mature market. It'll be a year of infrastructure turbulence and a battle for competence.
But for Strong Teams, This Is a Window of Opportunity
Importantly: this doesn't mean everything's bad and we can go home.
Quite the opposite.
If the market starts rapidly transitioning into a regulated context, a rare window of opportunity opens for proper engineering teams. Not to "make another token." Not to "launch another exchange with a nice landing page." But to build the infrastructure without which a mature market simply won't take off.
Custody, signing, monitoring, recovery, audit, compliance middleware, secure node hosting — all this sounds boring. But it's on boring infrastructure that big money usually stands.
We just need to honestly understand: legally, cryptocurrencies, crypto assets, digital financial assets, and foreign digital rights are different regimes. Specific requirements will depend on the final version of regulation.
But the infrastructure problem is similar for them: if an asset is digital, if access to it depends on keys, and if operations need to be conducted securely, then the question of storage, signing, control, and responsibility doesn't disappear.
The Question Isn't Whether They'll Allow It
Arguments around crypto have too long focused on "whether they'll allow or ban it." But for business, that's no longer the main question.
The main question is different: who will securely hold assets, sign operations, pass audit, restore access, investigate incidents, and answer to the client if something goes wrong.
A law is written in months.
Trusted infrastructure is built in years.
And if the market gets a short transition period, the next big story won't be about tokens. It'll be about keys, custodians, engineers, and how many hacks the market manages to hide under the beautiful word "infrastructure."
Top comments (0)