The Institutional Series: The Infrastructure Moment
A Note Before We Begin
I came to digital assets from traditional finance. I spent a decade at JP Morgan, heading a risk desk in the investment bank and having watched several market cycles, I have developed a fairly clear sense of how institutional capital actually moves into new asset classes and it’s almost always later than the analytical case may have justified.
That pattern is what this series is about.
Over eight pieces I want to work through the institutional digital asset market seriously without focusing on the price story, which has been covered extensively elsewhere, but the infrastructure story, the staking rewards story, the regulatory story, and the competitive dynamics story. The questions that matter to institutional allocators who are trying to form a considered view rather than take a speculative position.
We will start with infrastructure because without understanding that the operational prerequisites for institutional participation now exist, none of the rest of the conversation makes sense. From there we move through how institutions actually enter new asset classes, what the ETF moment really unlocked, where the reward comes from and how to risk-adjust it, what serious due diligence on staking infrastructure looks like, and how the regulatory environment has changed. The series closes with a forward-looking view on where the market goes from here.
I run Twinstake, an institutional non-custodial staking provider. I have a vested interest in this market developing well. I have tried, in spite of that, to write with the analytical honesty the subject deserves.
The Infrastructure Moment
As I have said many times before, the story of the past 18 months in digital assets isn't a price story. It's an infrastructure story. If you've spent your career in traditional finance, you've seen it before.
There is a version of the past 18 months in digital assets that you will have read in the financial press. It involves bitcoin's price, ETF approval headlines, and the occasional observation that institutional interest is growing. However, there is a more important story going on that will determine how capital allocators should think about this space over the next decade and that is the infrastructure story. For anyone who has spent a career in traditional finance, it should feel deeply familiar.
We Have Seen This Before
For those of a particular vintage, you may remember the early days of foreign exchange clearing. For most of its history, FX settlement was a bilateral, relationship-dependent process. Material counterparty risk existed, reconciliation was manual, and the frictions of the system meant that only the largest and most sophisticated players could operate at scale. Then Continuous Linked Settlement (CLS) went live in 2002 which finally made it safe enough for institutions to use it seriously. Equity markets had a similar inflection. The creation of DTCC in the United States didn't create the equity market but simply the conditions under which the equity market could become what it is today. In both cases, the infrastructure came before the capital and this is exactly what has happened in digital assets over the past 18 months.
What Got Built
The infrastructure buildout in crypto has been quiet by design and doesn't generate the kind of headlines that price movements do. But for anyone paying attention to the plumbing rather than the price, the progress has been significant.
Custody is the most visible example. Only a handful of years ago, a financial institution asking their compliance team about digital asset custody faced a genuine dead end. The options were either centralised exchanges, with all the counterparty risk that FTX made permanently legible, or self-custody arrangements that no institutional risk framework could accommodate. That problem is now, of course, substantively solved and even within the traditional finance space, BNY Mellon, the world's largest custodian, is providing digital asset custody services (names like State Street followed). Even on the crypto native side, players like BitGo have seen a successful IPO based primarily on their custody product. Specialist custodians with institutional-grade controls, insurance, and regulatory authorisation now exist across multiple jurisdictions. The custody problem, which was for years the first and most serious objection in any investment committee conversation about crypto, has credible answers.
Segregation and non-custodial models have advanced in parallel. The distinction matters enormously to institutional risk teams. In a non-custodial architecture, an institution's assets remain under their control at all times i.e. the service provider never takes possession of the underlying asset. This is structurally analogous to how serious institutions have always preferred to operate in other asset classes. The emergence of non-custodial staking infrastructure represented a genuine maturation of the market.
Regulatory frameworks have evolved significantly across major jurisdictions, although they continue to develop and differ in scope and maturity. MiCA has provided the European Union with its first comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptoasset service providers, giving compliance teams a clearer basis for evaluating many institutional activities.. The reversal of SAB 121 in the United States has removed a significant accounting-level obstacle for banks wanting to custody crypto assets on behalf of clients. As with any new market, regulatory clarity is the prerequisite for institutional capital, and its emergence marks a genuine stage change.
Prime brokerage and reporting infrastructure has followed. Institutions need to be able to account for their exposures, report them to counterparties and regulators, and integrate them into existing portfolio management systems. The fact that this is now possible and that digital asset positions can be reconciled, reported, and risk-managed within institutional frameworks is something that simply was not true only a handful of years ago.
Why This Matters More Than the Price
Here is the analytical point that I think gets consistently underweighted in how this market is discussed: price is a lagging indicator of institutional conviction; infrastructure is a leading one. What I mean by this is that when a large and sophisticated institution builds a digital asset trading desk, it is not making a price prediction but rather a long-duration infrastructure investment that only makes economic sense if institutional demand is real and growing. When BNY Mellon extends its custody capabilities to include digital assets, it is not speculating but responding to client demand from the institutions it already serves, and building the operational capability to service that demand at scale.
These are decisions made by organisations with long planning horizons, rigorous governance processes, and significant reputational exposure. They are not made lightly, and they are not made on the basis of quarterly price movements but only when the infrastructure justifies the investment.
The Question Worth Asking
If you accept the infrastructure frame, the relevant question for an allocator becomes structural: given that the rails now exist, what is the cost of not forming a considered view?
In most asset classes, the answer to that question has a well-understood shape. Early in an asset class's institutional development, the cost of not having a view is low as the infrastructure is too immature to act on even if you wanted to. Later, once the infrastructure is established and early allocators have moved, the cost of not having a view becomes a different kind of risk: not market risk, but the risk of being late to a conversation your peers are already having.
The evidence suggests we are at or near that transition in digital assets. Institutional infrastructure has matured significantly, sufficiently developed regulatory frameworks now exist across several major jurisdictions, the major custodians are operational and have a credible track record. The products (to be discussed later in the series) are beginning to proliferate.
The question of whether to have an informed view on digital assets is, for many institutions, no longer really optional. The question is only what that view should be, and how it should be acted on.
What This Series Is
Over the coming weeks, I intend to work through that question seriously, from the perspective of someone who builds and operates the infrastructure that institutional capital uses to access digital assets.
I am not writing to advocate for crypto as an asset class. I am writing because I spend my days talking to sophisticated allocators who are trying to understand a market that developed faster than the educational infrastructure around it. These pieces are an attempt to close that gap.
We will cover rewards: what staking returns are, how they are generated, how they should be risk-adjusted, and how they compare to alternatives in the current rate environment. We will cover regulation: what MiCA and its equivalents actually mean for institutional operations, and how regulatory clarity is changing capital allocation decisions in practice. We will cover market structure: who the players are, where the conflicts of interest sit, and what a specialist infrastructure provider looks like versus an exchange or a bank offering crypto services as an adjunct to their core business.
The institutional moment in digital assets is already underway. The more useful question is whether you have a framework for thinking about it.
Disclaimer: Twinstake does not provide staking services to retail customers. This briefing note is not intended as a promotion, offer, invitation or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any investment, nor is it intended to give rise to any other legal relations whatsoever and must not be relied upon for the purposes of any investment decision. It does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. If you do not have the relevant professional experience in matters relating to crypto asset investments, you should not consider this briefing note to be directed at you.
This briefing note and the information in it are not directed at, or intended to be made available to, retail customers. It is directed only at persons who are professional investors (for the purposes of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (2011/61/EU) (known as 'AIFMD'); professional clients or eligible counterparties for the purposes of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Directive 2004/39/EC) (known as 'MiFID'); if you are in the UK, to "Investment Professionals" or "High Net Worth Companies" as defined in s.19 and s.49 respectively of the Financial Promotions Order, or as otherwise defined under applicable local regulations and at whom this briefing note and the information in it may lawfully be directed in any relevant jurisdiction.
The appearance of any third-party hyperlinks or third-party reference in the briefing note does not constitute an endorsement, guarantee, warranty, or recommendation by Twinstake. Do conduct your own due diligence before deciding to use any third-party services.
Twinstake shall have no liability for any loss or damage that may arise directly or indirectly from the use of or reliance on the information provided herein or for any errors or omissions in the information.
