Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
In recent years, major financial institutions have taken a markedly different approach to blockchain markets. Some of these institutions have focused on tokenization, where traditional instruments are converted into a programmable form. In turn, banks have explored tokenized deposit models and internal settlement channels, as well as issuing their own digital assets such as stablecoins.
As the wave of institutional capital flows into digital assets increases, the most fruitful question becomes not who participates, but how participation is structured in the institution. Regulatory requirements, operational standards and internal conviction often determine whether a strategy moves forward or stalls.
Speaking exclusively to BeInCrypto during the Liquidity Summit 2026 in Hong Kong, Samer Sen, Head of International Markets at Talos, explained how these internal dynamics unfold when institutions evaluate digital asset opportunities.
Adoption requires more than rules
According to Sen, organizational clarity remains the most decisive factor in institutional participation. He noted that progress in many jurisdictions has helped reduce uncertainty, but clear rules remain essential for widespread adoption.
Sen acknowledged that we have seen many developments in regulation around the world.
In the past, infrastructure was the dominant concern, but it has developed significantly now. Institutional custody systems, execution platforms and portfolio management systems are operating in major markets today, closing many of the operational gaps that previously delayed adoption.
Although the regulatory frameworks have advanced and the infrastructure is in place, the obstacle in many institutions remains internal.
There may be management still evaluating the underlying technology or needing some additional time to understand the technology’s potential to revolutionize the financial sector, Sen said.
He added that this hesitation often reflects insufficient familiarity rather than outright resistance. When institutions are based on decades of precedent, conviction takes time to develop. This is why digital asset initiatives can stall even when external circumstances seem to be in their favor.
Beyond Enterprise Trust Compliance Checklist
When asked what signals actually create confidence for institutions when evaluating their crypto counterparts, Sen rejected the idea that vision alone carries enough weight. Although we recognize that industry clusters and brand presence can help raise awareness, institutional trust is achieved in a different way.
Typically, what creates trust first are entities that are licensed or subject to regulatory oversight in their jurisdictions, Sen said.
He also added that organizations are looking for clear and proven internal controls, such as SOC 2 Type II certifications, audit trails and operational assurances. Previous work experience is also important, especially if the executives have a background in traditional finance and a reputation for working under strict regulatory oversight.
Peer adoption also plays a role. Organizations often look outside, to assess who is using the same infrastructure, and how widespread its use is throughout the sector as a whole.
If you’re a big bank and you’re going to talk to a technology provider, and that provider is offering the same technology to some of your peers and competitors, that’s an additional way to establish some trust,” explained Sen.
Not all organizations move at the same speed
Although regulatory clarity and operational protection are key, institutions do not access digital assets uniformly. Sen described three distinct categories emerging in the market.
Some organizations stand out as first movers. These companies recognize the ongoing structural change in the capital markets and are willing to commit resources before full certainty is achieved. These companies tend to invest in building internal digital asset teams and proactively interact with new infrastructure providers.
Others take a more balanced approach. These fast followers prefer to wait until regulatory direction is clearer or until feasibility is demonstrated before expanding exposure. Their appetite for risk is lower, and they often rely on external proof before committing capital.
Some institutions are behind schedule. In some cases, leaders have not yet developed conviction in the underlying technology. In other cases, digital asset initiatives exist but lack internal coordination, leading to fragmented or incompatible strategies.
Sen pointed out that institutions should not be expected to move in sync. He added that different levels of risk tolerance and internal mandates determine the pace of adoption.
This is acceptable because there are many entry points to participate in the digital asset class and learn about new providers and participants in the ecosystem, Sen said. He emphasized that we are here to help you navigate this area.
