2018 November 05 - Volume.2 Issue.44

Goto Full Issue

2018 November 05 - Volume.2 Issue.44

Goto Full Issue

Op-Ed: Why “the Institutionalization of Cryptocurrency” is a Paradox

Jackson Palmer

If you stay up-to-date with the cryptocurrency news cycle, a recent trend you may have observed is the widespread excitement at the prospect of large, traditional financial institutions entering the space.

We’ve seen a wave of institutional news lately, from NYSE-affiliated Bakkt launching custodial and trading infrastructure, through to up-for-approval Bitcoin ETFs and large 401k retirement plan service providers such as Fidelity opening crypto trading desks. In parallel, startups born of the cryptocurrency generation such as Coinbase are increasingly pivoting their businesses towards institutional investors in hope of being able to compete with these Wall Street behemoths.

While many cryptocurrency enthusiasts express blind enthusiasm at the notion of positive price impact associated with this money flowing in, it’s important to take a step back and analyze what this phase of the cryptocurrency lifecycle actually represents, and how far it lands the movement from its original goals.


To analyze the shifting landscape of cryptocurrency, we can tie the current state back to three broad benefits that decentralized, digital currencies originally aimed to provide:

1. Censorship resistance
2. Trustless transactions
3. Verifiable history

Decentralization remains a spectrum, and projects may occasionally eschew some decentralization in the name of efficiency while still providing a subset of these attributes. But the end-game for cryptocurrency to succeed is ensuring that all three core tenets are maintained.

If you view what is happening with the Bakkts, Fidelitys and Coinbases of the world through the lens of these principles, a concerning trend emerges.


Censorship resistance implies that a user’s ability to interface with the currency should never rely on a potential single point of failure. In Bitcoin, public nodes can go down, but many exist to quickly fill their place. Thanks to decentralized consensus via Proof of Work, there is also no single entity who can censor your transactions from reaching the ledger.

The shift back to reliance on a single corporation (essentially a bank) as your window to a cryptocurrency network introduces a clear single point of failure. If Coinbase.com is hijacked or taken offline, a user relying on that provider essentially loses their access to the decentralized Bitcoin network.

Furthermore, if Coinbase or any centralized service provider simply find an account “suspicious” by their standards, they can block or severely limit a user’s access to their account or censor transactions from being broadcast.


For a digital currency to be be “trustless” in nature, a user should not be required to trust a central custodian, facilitator, or even fellow user in order to transact securely and reliably. In a system such as Bitcoin, if a user is holding their private keys, they have complete ownership and authority over their funds.

A common theme across Bakkt, Fidelity and Coinbase, however, is their push towards offering “custodial services” for users storing cryptocurrency with them - a practice antithetical to the premise of trustless financial transactions.

In offering custodial services, these companies seek to centrally control and manage the wallets containing Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. of both their large institutional and retail customers, obscuring away the notion of private keys in the name of convenience.

When users are transacting with the Bitcoin network via an ETF or Fidelity 401k plan backed in cryptocurrency, they own the cryptocurrency purely on paper and not in reality as the provider is simply moving balances around in a centralized database. Broadly speaking, if you aren’t holding your private keys, you aren’t holding cryptocurrency.

Additionally, as we saw with the Mt. Gox disaster, large sums of centrally managed cryptocurrency paint an enticing target for hackers to try and exploit.


Much of Bitcoin’s original success was fueled by a reaction to the allegedly corrupt practices that resulted in the 2008 financial crisis. The promise of blockchain was that through a publicly verifiable ledger, users would have confidence in the issuance and flow of the money supply, and that banks could not secretly destroy this new economy behind closed doors. With Bitcoin a user was able, at any point time, to securely verify the entire history of transactions which led to the current state of balances on the ledger.

But as huge sums of the digital money supply begin to pool in the vaults of institutional service providers, transactions increasingly exist outside of a public blockchain and are instead processed “off-chain” using private databases.

While many companies market this approach as offering faster speeds and lower transaction fees, the side effect is a regression to a state where a large portion of Bitcoin or Ethereum movement between owners is no longer cryptographically verifiable across time.


The challenge with institutional entry into cryptocurrency is that it tears down all three core value propositions the technology aims to offer.

If a user is accessing their account through a centralized website, handing custody of their private keys entirely to a trusted third-party, and is unable to verify a ledger of how their funds are being handled by that third-party, are they really using a cryptocurrency?

At this point in the debate, many argue that cryptocurrency provides a core benefit which has not been specifically outlined here - that cryptocurrency simply represents an asset class that is not issued or controlled by a government. While objectively true, we can paint a picture that some may find scarier than government issued fiat.

As institutional involvement in cryptocurrency expands, it will undoubtedly become enticing to the bankers and firms running billion dollar custodial services to issue their own crypto tokens which they can centrally control, collect fees on, and build monopolies around.

Given the seemingly enthusiastic response of the cryptocurrency user base to what already marks a re-centralization of the technology, I gravely fear that we are heading toward a future where Wall Street bankers control not only the services atop a currency, but centrally issue and manage the currency itself.

While this prediction may sound far-fetched, it has already begun with the issuance of highly centralized “stablecoin” crypto-tokens such as USDC managed by corporations like those we’ve already discussed.


A glimmer of good news here is that, out of the spotlight, work continues at the protocol level to maintain a degree of resistance to institutional dominance over cryptocurrency. From initiatives that offer non-custodial scaling such as Lightning or Plasma, to the increasing availability of secure hardware wallets, through to projects supporting user privacy like Zcash and Grin, there is some hope that cryptocurrency can fight back and stick to its roots.

The real question becomes whether the industry en masse will prioritize this resistance over the allure of market expansion and wealth that institutional re-centralization may offer. My extended observation of sentiment in the space suggests to me that this unfortunately may not be the case. At a macro-level, there is no denying that the institutions are coming - but for a movement previously described as “the real Occupy Wall Street”, cryptocurrency now sadly resembles a community that instead wants to be occupied by Wall Street itself.

Jackson Palmer is a technologist, best known for his role in creating the infamous cryptocurrency Dogecoin. Mr Palmer, an active member of the cryptocurrency space produces YouTube series "Crypto Explained" and "Crypto Weekly." Link Here
Op-eds may be submitted to newsdesk@diar.co for consideration. Publishing is not guaranteed.

Receive Diar Every Monday – The Digital Assets & Regulation Trade Publication

Something went wrong. Please check your entries and try again.


Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, the content of the articles published on www.diar.co constitutes intellectual property of Diar Ltd and may not be reproduced or republished in whole or in part without prior written consent. The information contained in the articles published on www.diar.co does not in any way constitute financial or investor advice and is only intended for informative purposes. Readers may not rely on such information to decide on investment or financing options or otherwise rely on such information in making decisions with monetary or financial effects. Diar Ltd does not accept any liability of any kind with regards to the validity of the information or with regards to any damage suffered as a result of reliance on such information. © 2018 Diar Ltd. Contact: newsdesk@diar.co