For financial institutions, there is only one way to do crypto – by the rules. Whether it is custody of crypto assets, asset management, wealth management – or simple trading, banks and securities firms have to follow the ‘narrow path’ to provide the highest level of certainty and security for their clients.
This is top of mind for regulated companies like tradias – a spin-off of Bankhaus Scheich in Germany – which recently received a BaFin license for its crypto trading operations. In this episode of RULEMATCH Spot On, host Ian Simpson sat down with tradias founder Christopher Beck. They discussed the sometimes difficult path to getting a license, the state of liquidity in crypto spot markets plus implications of upcoming MiCAR rules and the challenges (and opportunities) in crypto market making.
Episode show notes:
(2:42) The best of times for banks moving into crypto?
(4:10) The risk for banks to not be in crypto
(4:49) The mind-shift of banks in the crypto asset class
(5:59) Keeping the best of TradFi in the crypto industry
(8:44) Processes for managing risk in crypto markets
(9:20) The “big picture” for tradias
(11:01) The “sweet spot” for tradias’s business
(11:48) Determining what institutions want in crypto
(14:20) “Why a license for crypto?”
(16:10) Considerations when going for a license
(16:35) Thinking about MiCAR…
(20:25) The outlook for stablecoins in Europe
(22:37) MiCAR as an “iron curtain”?
(23:47) The difference in mindset between European and US banks
(29:58) Technical challenges for banks moving into crypto
(32:00) Looking for robustness in crypto trading infrastructure
(33:48) Dealing with crypto capital requirements for banks
(35:30) Hurdles to true crypto borrowing/lending
(39:33) Thinking like a new hedge fund manager in crypto
(41:10) Is Europe a target for crypto hedge funds?
(43:58) The space for new fund strategies
(44:54) Looking ahead…
Follow on social media:
Disclaimer: The information contained in this podcast about RULEMATCH AG (“RULEMATCH”) and any guest company is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered exhaustive. They do not imply any elements of a contractual relationship nor any offering.