The past, present and future of crypto – GIS Reports

Once privacy-focused and decentralized, crypto has become heavily regulated and institutionalized – trading autonomy for liquidity, clarity and mass adoption.

This is part one of the GIS series on cryptocurrency. The second installment will be available on February 27.

Over the past decade, the cryptocurrency sector has undergone a transformation so profound that it is barely recognizable today. Compared to the movement that first emerged with Bitcoin in 2009, there are virtually no common denominators left in the present state of the crypto industry.

Bitcoin, and the early cryptocurrencies that soon followed, began as a rebellion against the centralized monetary system. They served as a protest against uninvited, unnecessary third parties who forced themselves into voluntary transactions between individuals. Perhaps most important, they sought to restore privacy in financial activity.

By now, however, crypto has morphed into something that its early adopters and true believers would probably have disavowed. Today, the sector is a heavily intermediated, regulated and increasingly institutional domain. While this radical departure might be seen as a betrayal of the original vision by many, it has also brought considerable benefits.

Leaving the original vision behind

The original idea of Bitcoin was simple: a peer-to-peer digital transaction network resistant to surveillance, censorship, arbitrary monetary expansion and other external interventions. To achieve this, three core conditions had to be met: decentralization, anonymity (or at least pseudonymity difficult to pierce) and the removal of intermediaries or third parties. In the first few years, it worked exactly as advertised. Transactions were borderless and non-custodial, exchanges were lightly (if at all) regulated and blockchain technology attracted those skeptical of state authority, centralized banking and fiat money.

The architecture that made it all possible has been progressively dismantled. Regulatory measures such as compulsory, extensive know-your-customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) requirements, licensing rules for exchanges, disclosure requirements and tax burdens, have forced the majority of crypto activity into identifiable, heavily monitored channels. As a result, the landscape has shifted dramatically from the crypto Wild West of years past. Nowadays, most crypto holders cannot transact meaningfully without submitting government-verified proof of identity documents, consenting to tracking of their wallets and filling out disclosure forms.

The change has been transformative on the infrastructural level, too. Crypto mining, once a core element of cryptocurrency’s decentralized nature, is now concentrated among a handful of industrial operators. It no longer makes financial sense for an individual to compete against the immense computational power of these mining farms and their massive electricity requirements.

Another essential element in guaranteeing decentralization and anonymity was crypto owners holding their own keys in self-custody wallets, embodied in the community principle “not your keys, not your coins.” For various reasons, mainly convenience, fear of loss and lack of technical skills on the part of many investors that joined the crypto space later, crypto holders now increasingly rely on custodial platforms that replicate the very third-party dependence Bitcoin was designed to eliminate. Even stablecoins, the most widely used crypto instruments today, are explicitly reliant on centralized issuers, commercial bank accounts and state-regulated custodians.

Read more from financial markets expert Vahan P. Roth

Institutional co-optation

One of the main drivers of the sector’s transformation was the entry of institutional investors who eventually recognized the commercial potential of crypto. When large exchanges, custodians and investment firms entered the crypto space, they brought the governance models of traditional finance with them and started to push for new crypto projects to conform to those. As a result, venture capital prioritized ease of regulatory integration and focused on building products that would fit that mold. Most of these products were developed for efficient institutional onboarding and for passing regulatory compliance tests, not for individual privacy and autonomy.

A prime example of this mold-fitting push and what is lost in the process is exchange-traded funds (ETFs). There is no denying that Bitcoin ETFs have provided clarity, liquidity and broader accessibility, but they have also shifted Bitcoin ownership into vehicles where the underlying asset cannot be withdrawn or used for transactions in a peer-to-peer capacity as it was meant to be used. They have essentially rendered Bitcoin interchangeable with stocks or commodities, stripping it of its original, unique properties and monetary functions. Even the marketing language used for many crypto products is essentially Wall Street jargon. They are not pitched as a way to resist centralized control or to achieve individual financial sovereignty. Instead, they are marketed as just another financial tool to diversify portfolios.

Regulatory escalation

As mentioned above, the early years of crypto were justifiably described by many skeptics as a new “Wild West.” Fraud, security breaches on exchanges and outright thefts delayed mass adoption, scaring off mainstream investors and the general public. Most news coverage of the nascent sector was negative, with political and institutional figures often skeptical. When governments eventually realized they could not ignore it forever, they decided to regulate it: “If you can’t stop it, tax it.”

Whether the initial “common sense” regulations were even necessary is up for debate, however it is clear that it opened the door to a new wave of crypto investors who were previously not comfortable entering a “lawless” and very new asset class. This reduced trading spreads and gave rise to more efficient markets. Not only that, but these initial rules also fostered innovation, as regulatory clarity allowed both developers and investors of their concepts to find a sure footing vis-a-vis the very fundamental question of the legality of their new ventures.

Furthermore, regulatory clarity has also drastically reduced counterparty risk. Licensing for exchanges and traders, clear and strict capital requirements, and audits have lowered the probability of catastrophic and cascading failures that once plagued the industry. There were some security benefits too, as professional-grade storage has reduced the likelihood of large-scale hacks and made it possible for institutions to gain exposure without handling the technological complexities themselves. Of course, it can also be argued that this degree of centralization has made the entire space more vulnerable by creating single points of failure, replacing the robustness that the original decentralized network offered.

Nevertheless, the problem facing crypto today is that, as is so often the case, regulators did not stop at common sense rules, such as classifying different tokens (payment, asset or utility tokens) and applying existing financial laws. In many instances, they went overboard with AML and KYC requirements, demanding the collection and reporting of personal data, totally eradicating user privacy and centralizing control within regulated entities. Regulatory requirements such as Crypto Travel Rule compliance, which obligates exchanges to collect and share identifying information for cross-platform transfers, or banning privacy-enhancing cryptocurrencies on regulated platforms (a ban the European Union is about to enforce in 2027), are clearly not designed to eliminate crypto, but to neutralize its capacity to operate outside state oversight.

Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.

Sign up for our newsletter

Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.