Russia's regulated crypto ecosystem is not being built to bypass sanctions — that is merely a side effect, not the goal. Its true purpose is to create a full-fledged, legal infrastructure for cross-border settlements, investments, and financial services. The paradox is that it is precisely external pressure that makes this ecosystem viable, not the other way around.
The key value of cryptocurrency is its cross-border nature. If the ecosystem were confined solely within Russia, its economic significance would be minimized. However, due to the decentralization of digital assets, complete isolation is technically impossible. Even with attempts to restrict fiat gateways, there are countries that do not support isolationist policies, as well as a developed DeFi sector where erecting all barriers without destroying the tools is unrealistic.
Who benefits from the new system?
Expert opinions are divided. On one hand, only the black market will lose out — its financial flow will not disappear entirely but will gradually shrink. All other participants are in the black in the long term. On the other hand, the hard reality is this: large banks, which are already building their own infrastructure and know how to work with crypto instruments, come out ahead. Small and medium-sized businesses, as well as startups, lose out. They have three paths: migration, selling to banks, or creating niche products that banks currently lack time for but that are in demand by the market.
Who needs crypto depositories?
Crypto depositories and wallets are created for clients — this is a legal requirement. The use of cryptocurrency has long moved beyond a narrow circle of anonymous users. Buying a car or real estate with crypto, or transferring funds abroad, requires proof of the legal origin of funds and readiness to answer questions about taxes. The function of depositories and regulated wallets is to help users operate within the legal framework. Excesses by market participants and the state are inevitable, but they are more often caused by incompetence rather than malicious intent. New products are complex on both technical and user levels, and it will take years to improve the qualifications of all participants.
My analysis: Regulation will inevitably change the market, giving the "green light" only to institutional players with large client bases. Independent alternatives are a temporary phenomenon. The market will consolidate, and those who cannot adapt will be absorbed or disappear. This is neither good nor bad — it is evolution.