For years, the crypto industry had a ready-made explanation for weak mainstream adoption: Washington. Executives pointed to a hostile SEC, an absent rulebook, regulatory uncertainty and an enforcement regime that often treated the whole sector as presumptively fraudulent. The story was convenient enough that much of the public, and many investors, accepted it. 

However, there’s no denying that this excuse is no longer viable. The GENIUS Act is federal law, the SEC has dropped several of its marquee enforcement cases and the CLARITY Act has cleared the House and is advancing through the Senate. By almost any measure, this is the most favorable regulatory environment the crypto industry has ever operated within. 

But the buyers that policy shift was meant to convert still have not arrived, and what holds them back has never been a problem of regulation alone but a problem of trust—the kind no rulebook can give a first-time buyer.

Ask the people who never bought

For all the industry noise about hostile regulators, the people who never bought crypto have never been shy about their reasons for staying away, and almost none of those reasons involve securities law. 

Ask two thousand of them, as a Harris poll for the National Cryptocurrency Association did. Forty-three percent of non-users point to security worries as their primary hesitation. Another 68 percent say they are curious about crypto but do not know where to begin. One concern is the fear that their money will vanish. The other is the sense that the door has no handle. A Senate vote fixes neither problem.

What is more revealing is that existing crypto users rank regulation surprisingly low on their own list of priorities. When the National Cryptocurrency Association asked current holders what would encourage deeper adoption, “smart regulation and oversight” ranked near the bottom at 32 percent, below even the share who simply wanted to pay for their everyday purchases with crypto. 

The industry’s most hard-fought political victory appears to matter less to consumers than basic usability. The profile of recent adopters reinforces the point. 

The 12 million Americans who reportedly entered crypto last year were more likely to be female, middle-income and mostly hold everyday jobs with no connection to Wall Street. Many were introduced to crypto not through exchanges or policy debates, but through familiar financial platforms. What opened the door for them was a familiar brand at the checkout, the same logos they already trust with the rest of their money.

The logo does the work no rulebook ever could

Crypto’s most effective on-ramp has always been a familiar logo. Americans pay through a short list of brands they already trust, and they treat everything else with suspicion.

PayPal, Venmo, CashApp and Apple Pay are where their day-to-day money goes, and anything outside that ecosystem asks for a trust they have not yet given. Crypto amplifies the trust problem because users are evaluating multiple unknowns simultaneously: the asset itself, the platform offering it and often the payment flow required to access it. 

A checkout that wants raw card details from a brand consumers have never heard of competes with every familiar place their money already goes, and it loses before the first transaction clears. That is why platforms such as Cash App, Robinhood and PayPal succeeded in bringing millions of Americans into crypto despite offering features that a serious exchange might consider basic. 

The technology itself had little to do with it. What brought those buyers in was a name they already trusted with their money, and that recognition closed the sale.

The friction can be even more mundane. Banks routinely decline a first-time crypto transaction because the merchant code trips a fraud filter. To experienced crypto users, this is an unexpected inconvenience. To a newcomer, it feels like evidence that the entire system is broken. 

A trusted intermediary in that flow solves much of that problem. Banks and consumers already recognize the platform. Familiarity smooths the experience in ways regulation cannot. Every one of these fixes happens in the product and at checkout, which is precisely where Washington has no reach.

They won the fight and built for the wrong audience

A whole tier of the industry built its strategy around a single bet that it would win the moment the SEC “lost.” The theory held that regulation was the only wall between crypto and the mainstream, and that the masses would pour in once it came down.

The SEC backed down, the wall came down and now those firms get to find out what that bet built for them. For most, the answer is a stack of trust signals pointed at the wrong audience.

Proof-of-reserves dashboards, audit badges and pages of compliance language took real money and real engineering to build, and every one of them reassures the people already deep in crypto and the investors who watch from the sidelines. Yet none of it reaches the first-time buyer.

The first-time buyer scans a payment page for a logo they know, and an audit seal or a reserves chart means nothing to them, because they have no way to read it and no reason to care. What they wanted was a name they already trusted, and a compliance page is the opposite of that.

These firms mistook the end of the lawsuits for the arrival of the customer. Those are not the same thing. 

The industry won its battle with Washington. But in many ways, it was fighting on the wrong front. The bill for that is now coming, and Washington is no longer there to take the blame.

Crypto will win the mainstream when it disappears

Picture crypto five years from now. Most people who own it will not call themselves crypto users at all. They will simply use financial apps that happen to rely on blockchain infrastructure behind the scenes, much as people stream music today without thinking about the compression protocols powering Spotify. 

Stablecoins may quietly earn yield inside savings products. International transfers may settle on-chain without users ever seeing the rails underneath. Consumers will notice only that payments arrive faster, costs fall or balances grow more efficiently. Crypto does the work, and no one needs to name it.

That was always the likeliest path to mainstream adoption. Not mass ideological conversion but gradual integration into products people already trust and understand. No courtroom ruling or congressional committee could hurry it along or hold it back. 

Trust grows one familiar screen at a time, through repeated experiences with products that feel safe, familiar and useful. The next ten million crypto users will arrive through the companies that make crypto feel indistinguishable from every other financial tool already sitting on their phones. 

Today’s (March 25) House Financial Services Committee hearing on “Tokenization and the Future of Securities” reflects how far the conversation about digital assets, securities law and institutional custody frameworks has traveled in a remarkably short time. The committee memorandum indicates that lawmakers are examining regulatory gaps, investor protection, market integrity and capital formation, a scope that would have been difficult to imagine in a congressional setting only a few years ago. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) puts tokenized real-world assets above $26 billion globally, including more than $11 billion in tokenized Treasury debt. Those numbers are growing quickly, and Washington is paying attention. 

But scale and institutional momentum do not automatically translate into value for the people this technology is supposed to serve. The more important question is whether tokenization delivers something better for ordinary investors, or whether it remains a back-office upgrade dressed in the language of democratization. 

An infrastructure case is not enough

The industry case for tokenization is by now familiar. The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC) points to streamlined post-trade infrastructure and asset mobility. Nasdaq presents tokenization as part of a broader push toward continuous market operations and more automated securities workflows. BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, Franklin Templeton’s on-chain money market fund and a growing roster of institutional entrants have demonstrated that the pipes can be built and that serious capital will flow through them. These are real improvements, but they are mostly invisible to end users.

Settlement that clears in minutes rather than days is a genuine operational advance. Programmable compliance and automated corporate actions reduce friction for institutions managing large portfolios. Interoperability between platforms, if it arrives, could unlock liquidity in asset classes that have been historically difficult to trade. The infrastructure argument is not wrong. It’s simply insufficient as a consumer proposition. 

The question that matters to retail investors is more direct. Does tokenization make investing easier to understand, easier to access and meaningfully better than the products they can already use today? If the answer is no—if tokenized securities feel like a slower, more confusing version of buying an ETF through a brokerage app—the technology will struggle to find a mainstream audience regardless of what it does to settlement timelines. 

I’ve argued before that the first 60 seconds still decide whether a user stays or leaves a financial product. The same rule applies here with particular force. Faster settlement will not rescue a product that opens with confusing onboarding, dense disclosures or custody arrangements that feel remote and fragile. The infrastructure can be elegant, but if the experience is not, it doesn’t matter. 

Access has to be visible to the user

If tokenized investing ends up much like buying securities through a standard retail app, the novelty will remain buried in the plumbing, and the market will reflect that. Retail users already have access to stocks, ETFs and fractional shares through interfaces that have been refined over years of competitive pressure, so tokenization has to widen access in a way users can actually feel. Robinhood, Fidelity, Schwab and others have already lowered the barrier to entry for mainstream securities investing to a considerable degree. Tokenization has to widen access in a way users can actually feel, not just in a way that analysts can diagram. 

The real opportunity lies in the asset classes and markets that those platforms have not reached. Private credit, real estate, infrastructure debt and pre-IPO equity are categories where retail participation has historically been limited by minimum investment thresholds, accreditation requirements and illiquidity. Tokenization’s strongest consumer case is opening doors to assets that have been harder to reach, then packaging that access in products that ordinary people can navigate without a financial glossary or a lawyer. 

This requires both the underlying technology and clear regulatory pathways, intuitive interfaces and the kind of trust that only comes from a track record and familiarity. I have made a similar point about adoption following familiar behavior, payment methods and recognizable flows in other contexts. Tokenized investing will face the same test, and it will fail if the product feels like a specialist tool built for insiders who already understand what they’re buying.

Ownership has to travel, trust has to hold

Portability of ownership is another key test. If tokenized assets cannot move between users across regulated, authorized environments—with clear custody, transfer protocols and legal enforceability—their promise stays theoretical. Ownership that cannot be exercised or transferred is not meaningfully different from ownership that does not exist. Even DTCC’s testimony frames the core opportunity in terms of interoperability, asset mobility and liquidity. The vision only works if the pipes connect.

This is why law and custody matter more than elegant technology. The most sophisticated on-chain infrastructure in the world is worth little to an ordinary investor who cannot answer the question: if something goes wrong, what do I actually own and who is responsible for it? That has not always been easy to answer in the tokenized asset space, and until it is, institutional adoption will outpace retail adoption by a considerable margin. 

Nasdaq’s testimony calls for clear statutory definitions and jurisdictional boundaries. I’m inclined to make the same argument. Markets grow when the rules are legible enough for both institutions and ordinary users to trust what they are buying. Ambiguity benefits sophisticated participants who can afford to navigate it. It disadvantages everyone else. 

The regulatory scaffolding being discussed in today’s hearing—custody standards, transfer agent definitions, broker-dealer treatment of digital assets—is the foundation on which retail participation either gets built or doesn’t.

Congress should evaluate tokenization by a tougher standard than settlement speed or institutional efficiency. Both matter, but neither is sufficient. If tokenization delivers broader access to asset classes that were previously out of reach, ownership that carries real legal weight and flexibility and a user experience that feels genuinely better than what already exists, this market will grow quickly and the public interest case will be clear. If it delivers faster plumbing for institutions while leaving the retail investors with a slightly more complex version of what they already had, tokenization may prove to be one of the more consequential missed opportunities in the recent history of financial technology, and one that leaves the public wondering what changed at all.

Stablecoins processed over $27 trillion in payments during 2024, prompting regulators worldwide to rush to create clear rules. In the span of just 12 months, the U.S. passed the GENIUS Act, the E.U. implemented MiCA and Hong Kong launched its own licensing regime. Regulatory uncertainty around payments has collapsed from 85 percent to 25 percent in two years. In that same period, other crypto sectors remained stuck in legal quicksand, spending their energy fighting regulators instead of serving users.

Today, over 85 percent of payment companies view stablecoin regulations as a net positive for business. While other corners of crypto continue to battle for legitimacy amid endless legal battles, payments are getting red-carpet treatment from governments eager to promote technology that solves real problems: faster settlement, lower costs and broader financial inclusion. But walk into most crypto platforms and you’ll find leverage tabs, yield farming and trading charts—not the simple payment tools that earned regulatory approval.

Platforms are chasing the wrong customers

According to the Federal Reserve, roughly 80 percent of stablecoin activity occurs in DeFi and trading, while only a small fraction involves merchant payments. This is largely because the industry built its infrastructure for yield farmers and arbitrage traders, not for businesses or individuals who need better payment systems.

The mismatch becomes obvious when you compare what users want. Many businesses cite real-time settlement as a top priority when adopting stablecoins. Yet most platforms still optimize for yield-seeking speculators who care more about APY than payment reliability and speed. This backward approach creates massive friction for mainstream adoption. Complex wallet setups confuse small business owners who just want to accept payments. Educational barriers overwhelm consumers who still associate crypto with volatility rather than utility. 

Visit the homepage of any major crypto platform, and you’ll see that flash loans get prominent placement, while basic merchant tools hide in submenus. The user experience screams “speculate here” when businesses need “pay here.” It’s no wonder, then, that adoption is stuck at 5 percent, even with strong regulatory support. Merchants looking for PayPal with lower fees and faster settlement instead find DeFi protocols full of impermanent-loss warnings and automated market maker (AMM) explanations.

Crypto companies locked themselves out

Regulators handed crypto its first legitimate pathway to mainstream adoption, but most platforms can’t access it because they spent years optimizing for yield farmers instead of utility. 

Traditional finance saw the gap and seized it. JPMorgan launched JPMD, a deposit token that functions like a stablecoin but integrates directly with traditional banking systems. The bank didn’t partner with existing crypto platforms or build on top of DeFi protocols. It created its own solution. That same pattern is visible through all of traditional finance. Visa expanded its USDC settlement capabilities by working directly with Circle, bypassing crypto exchanges entirely. Stripe spent $1.1 billion to acquire Bridge, bringing stablecoin infrastructure in-house rather than relying on existing platforms. Mastercard built comprehensive, end-to-end stablecoin transaction capabilities from scratch.

The result: traditional finance institutions are now building the payment infrastructure crypto platforms should have created. The regulated opportunity that crypto fought for years to achieve is now flowing around the industry rather than through it. 

The path forward already exists

A few crypto companies recognized this shift early and built payment-first platforms that work with regulators. Circle, for example, designed USDC specifically for institutional use cases, maintaining full regulatory compliance and transparent reserve backing. This discipline paid off when major payment processors and banks began integrating USDC directly into their infrastructure.

For crypto companies hoping to compete in this space, reliability must come first. This means simple APIs developers can integrate within hours and streamline customer onboarding that follows standard Know Your Customer procedures. The user experience feels familiar to mainstream businesses because it should. 

Payment utilities need uptime guarantees and fraud protection, backed by responsive customer support that speaks the language of business. DeFi jargon and governance tokens serve no value when what businesses want is reliable payment processing.

The infrastructure requirements are straightforward but demanding. Companies need seamless fiat on-ramps that work like traditional banking. They have to provide transparent fee structures that businesses can budget around, and a mobile-first design that feels like existing payment apps people already trust. Companies that build this boring but dependable infrastructure will win the regulated payment market that the crypto industry spent years trying to create. 

Half of all attempts to buy cryptocurrency fail. Not because of market volatility or technical glitches, but because we can’t get past the front door. Research from Cointelegraph and Onramper shows that fiat-to-crypto transactions fail 50 percent of the time globally, and in some regions, abandonment reaches 90 percent. We’ve spent a decade building shinier wallets and splashier exchanges, yet somehow made the simplest step—actually buying crypto—harder than ever. 

While crypto promises to deliver frictionless global money, traditional financial systems continue to push back. Banks like Nationwide block credit-card crypto purchases outright, and Barclays followed suit. Meanwhile, payment networks add their own hurdles: Visa’s 2025 rules require special tracking codes for crypto transactions, ensuring extra scrutiny. The irony? Pay-by-bank rails clear at 99 percent success rates, while card-based crypto purchases struggle below 92 percent for crypto. The solution is staring us in the face—we’re just looking the wrong way.

We’re still building exchanges for the wrong audience

Most big crypto exchanges still look and act like trading floors, because that’s what they are. They’re built for professional investors seeking price discovery, liquidity and leverage—but for someone who just wants digital dollars to send home or hedge against inflation? Not so much. Regulators have flagged that some platforms even let everyday users borrow up to 125 times their initial investment, a level of risk that demonstrates that these exchanges were designed more for speculation than for practical use. For everyday users, it’s immediately clear these products weren’t built with them in mind. The latest rally underscored the point: ordinary retail traders barely showed up, while institutional investors and ETFs drove most of the buying, and for good reason.

Fintechs integrate crypto by making it invisible

The most successful growth stories don’t come from exchanges at all, but from fintech platforms where crypto is just another feature. Revolut crossed 50 million customers and more than doubled pre-tax profits in 2024, citing the rebound in crypto trading as a tailwind. Cash App integrated Bitcoin seamlessly and booked $2.73 billion in Bitcoin revenue in the first quarter of 2024, with $80 million in gross profit. Brazil’s Nubank signed up a million crypto users in its first month back in 2022. Today, one in four first-time buyers chooses USDC, often through apps they already use daily. No new apps, no new accounts, no specialized knowledge required. 

Even the payment giants have joined in. PayPal rolled out “Checkout with Crypto” at millions of merchants and later launched the PYUSD stablecoin across its ecosystem. Stripe reintroduced crypto payments with a simple model: accept USDC, settle in dollars and pay a 1.5 percent fee. For merchants, the process is turnkey. Crypto becomes just another payment option at checkout, with settlement still arriving in fiat. 

KYC doesn’t have to be a conversion graveyard

So where does the 50 percent failure rate come from? Much of it occurs during onboarding, where users abandon the process due to extensive Know Your Customer (KYC) checks. Exchanges often require passport uploads, proof of address and even video selfies. For someone trying to buy $20 work of crypto, that experience can feel wildly disproportionate. 

Fintechs solved this by leveraging the KYC already completed for traditional bank accounts. Cash App didn’t need new forms when it integrated Bitcoin; its users were already verified. Revolut and Nubank did the same. By removing duplicative verification, they cut abandonment dramatically. The lesson is simple. Remove the friction, and abandonment plummets. Make KYC invisible, and adoption climbs.

The API-first layer is the real unlock

Policy and speculation will always be part of the story, but the long-term growth engine depends on utility. And that utility will be delivered through familiar financial interfaces. When onboarding, payments and trust are already solved, adoption is no longer a decision and adding crypto becomes just another button. Consumers don’t need to understand blockchain to want cheaper remittances or a stable digital currency. Just as no one thinks about card networks when they tap to pay, they shouldn’t have to think about blockchains when they move money.

The infrastructure nobody sees is the infrastructure everybody needs

Stripe processes more than $1 trillion annually without users ever seeing its interface. Plaid connects 8,000 banks to apps, yet most people have never heard of it. Crypto needs this same invisible backbone. Companies like Paybis are building the essential infrastructure: white-label on/off ramps that integrate seamlessly into existing apps, simplified KYC that removes friction without compromising compliance and API-driven payment processing that converts fiat to crypto instantly. 

Imagine a Brazilian grocery app enabling USDC remittances with a drop-in on-ramp or low-code checkout, or a European neobank offering Bitcoin savings via an API without running a single node. In those cases, adoption doesn’t require a user to “choose crypto” at all. It simply happens because the technology is built into the systems they already trust. The future of crypto isn’t a shinier exchange or a more speculative token. It’s infrastructure that is so seamless, you never notice it’s there—until it’s everywhere.