Opinion: Neil Staunton, CEO and co-founder of Superset

Crypto is one of the most novel corners of finance. Up-to-date protocols are launched every week. Up-to-date market designs are constantly being tested and experimentation is progressing rapidly. However, innovation alone cannot build financial systems that institutions can rely on.

There is a reason why customary finance is intentional dull. It shouldn’t be a roller coaster of emotions and surprises. When money is involved, reliability is much more essential than newness. Predictable settlements, consistent prices and clear risk boundaries enable large-scale capital flows. Without them, even the most elegant technology remains on the sidelines.

This is where the cryptocurrency falls brief of expectations. Today’s onchain market structure is simply elementary not enough support him. This is not about institutions “not seeing it” (because they certainly do), but rather about meeting them where they are.

The infrastructure is there, but the ideology needs support

Institutional hesitancy towards cryptocurrencies is often portrayed as a cultural divide, but this is a mistranslation. Banks, asset managers and payment service providers are constantly implementing novel technologies. Whether it’s real-time payment rails or cloud-based core banking systems, they are open to innovation as long as they operate reliably, repeatably and at scale.

The problem that prevents cryptocurrencies from being adopted by institutions is not just self-policing or deeper decentralization, but is actually a fundamental industry problem: liquidity fragmentation.

Currently, fluidity is distributed across chains, places, and runtimes. Capital cannot be divided, therefore it must be duplicated. This leads to inconsistent prices, higher slippage and risks that are arduous to define (let alone manage). This is a problem that has been talked about a lot over the last few years, but has not been finally resolved.

These issues are structural, not just philosophical differences. Until these are resolved, institutions will continue to experiment cautiously.

The most essential thing is the market structure

Regulation and user experience often dominate conversations about cryptocurrency adoption. The truth is that both are essential and need to be addressed appropriately. From an institutional perspective, the market structure is a bottleneck hindering adoption.

At scale, financial systems must handle dollars and currencies precisely. They must provide deep liquidity, tight spreads and predictable execution even in stressed conditions. They must behave in the same way yesterday, today and tomorrow – and every day thereafter. However, when liquidity is fragmented, none of this is possible.

Even well-capitalized institutions struggle to implement meaningfully when execution depends on bridging risk, duplicate margin, or inconsistent settlement paths. The result is higher costs, unclear exposures and fluctuations in the scale of participation. Simply put, it’s a huge miscoordination.

Institutions need reliability

Established finance prefers older systems because they are proven, known and reliable. If the cryptocurrency industry wants to attract institutions, it will need to make reliability a primary design constraint.

Yes, some people are skeptical about cryptocurrencies, but the only way to prove them wrong is to gain trust by repetition and, frankly, being a bit dull. He must show that he can do the same thing, in the same way, under very different conditions. This is what institutions look for when assessing infrastructure. They must have complete confidence that the risks are noticeable, liquidity is real, and execution will proceed as expected.

A moment of transition

Time matters. Nowadays, people believe that the financial system needs significant changes. Institutions require infrastructure that releases trapped capital and ensures predictable execution in an increasingly fragmented system.

Related: Animoc’s Yat Siu says cryptocurrencies finally have to grow up

Stablecoins are increasingly being used as payment rails rather than primary cryptographic tools. They currently process almost $1 trillion annually and the volume is growing 690% year-on-year in 2025. At the same time, financial institutions began testing, integrating and introducing stablecoins on their books. Even the US Federal Reserve exercise how the development of stablecoins changes bank financing and loan offerings, emphasizing that this change is not hypothetical but already affects the functioning of the underlying market.

This change changes the question. It is no longer a question of whether cryptocurrencies can coexist with customary finance; what matters is whether the infrastructure is ready for it.

What does “growing up” actually mean?

Maturity does not mean that cryptocurrencies have to lean towards centralization or abandon independence or composability. This simply means that where markets require it, coordination must be prioritized: shared liquidity, consistent prices and capital efficiency. At the same time, decentralization must be preserved where it really matters.

When it comes to system design, it’s about functionality over flash. In finance, sharp ideas are much less essential than reliable ones.

This is not giving in to corporate whims

Putting on a suit does not mean losing your cryptocurrency identity. So far, Crypto has focused on proving what is possible, but it needs to realize that the next phase is proving what works.

The future of cryptocurrencies won’t be defined by how radical it sounds; it will be determined by operational consistency when real capital is involved. It’s not about selling out, it’s about growing up.

Opinion: Neil Staunton, CEO and co-founder of Superset.