Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Major financial institutions have significantly changed the way they approach blockchain markets, and some institutions have focused on converting traditional tools into a programmable form. At the same time, banks have been exploring token deposit models and internal settlement channels, as well as issuing their own digital assets such as stablecoins.
Amidst a growing wave of institutional capital entering digital assets, it has become clear that the most important question is not who participates, but rather how participation is structured in the institution. Regulatory requirements, operational standards and internal conviction often determine whether a strategy advances or fails.
These internal dynamics play a major role when institutions evaluate digital asset opportunities, Samar Sen, head of international markets at Talos, told BeInCrypto exclusively during the Liquidity Summit 2026 in Hong Kong.
Adoption requires more than rules
Sen said regulatory clarity remains the most critical factor in business participation, and noted that advances in laws in all jurisdictions have helped reduce uncertainty, but clear rules are still essential for widespread adoption.
“We’ve seen a lot of developments in regulation around the world,” acknowledged Sen.
The infrastructure has developed significantly after it was previously the biggest concern. Institutional custody platforms, execution platforms and portfolio management systems operate in key markets and address many of the operational gaps that previously prevented adoption.
Even where regulatory frameworks have been developed and the infrastructure is ready, many organizations face a residual internal obstacle. He said:
Sen said management may still be evaluating the underlying technology or still needs time to understand the technology’s potential to fundamentally change finance.
Sen explained that this hesitation often reflects ignorance rather than outright resistance. For organizations built over decades of precedent, conviction takes time to form, and as a result, digital asset initiatives can fail even with the right external conditions.
Beyond Enterprise Trust Compliance Checklist
When asked about the signals that build institutional trust when evaluating their cryptocurrency counterparts, Sen rejected the idea that visibility alone is enough, acknowledging that conferences and institutional images can help with awareness, but institutional trust comes in a different way.
What creates trust, first, are the entities that are licensed or regulated in their jurisdictions, Sen said.
He also added that organizations look for demonstrable internal controls, such as SOC 2 Type II certifications, audit trails, and preventive operational measures, and that the previous history is especially important if leaders have experience in the traditional financial sector and have built a good reputation under regulatory scrutiny.
Peer dependence also plays a role. Organizations often look outside, evaluating who else is using the same infrastructure and how widespread it is in the industry. He explained:
If you are a large bank and you go into a negotiation with a technology provider, and that provider offers its technology to some of your competitors and peers, it is also a way to build a degree of trust, said Sen.
Not all organizations move at the same speed
Although regulatory clarity and operational safeguards form the basis, institutions do not access digital assets uniformly. Sen described three distinct profiles emerging in the market.
Some organizations take on the role of prime movers. These companies recognize the ongoing structural change in the capital markets and are willing to commit resources before full certainty is achieved. These institutions tend to invest in building internal digital asset teams and proactively interact with new infrastructure providers.
Others take a more balanced approach. These fast-moving companies prefer to wait for clearer regulatory guidance or real-world evidence before expanding their exposure. They have a lower risk tolerance and often rely on external verification before allocating capital.
Other institutions are lagging behind. In some cases, leaders have not yet developed conviction about the underlying technology. In other cases, there are digital asset initiatives in place, but they lack internal coordination, leading to fragmented or incompatible strategies.
Sen explained that organizations should not be expected to move at a pace, adding that different levels of risk tolerance and internal orientation shape the pace of adoption.
Sen noted that this is acceptable because with digital assets and the underlying technology, there are many entry points to participate in this asset class, and to discover new service providers and participants in the ecosystem. “We’re here to help everyone navigate this,” he added.
