The creation of a regulated crypto circuit in Russia is not merely a tribute to the digital asset trend, but a strategic maneuver aimed at cross-border settlements and the legalization of an already existing market. However, the paradox of the situation is that the sanctions pressure, which this circuit is partly designed to circumvent, itself calls into question its economic efficiency.
The key question is: for whom is this infrastructure being built? The answer is ambiguous. On one hand, the state sees it as a tool to bring the industry out of the shadows, solve AML/CFT issues, and comply with FATF standards. For exporters, it expands opportunities for foreign trade settlements. For the financial sector, it offers new credit and investment instruments, including asset tokenization. On the other hand, retail users have long been using cryptocurrency for transfers, and the share of such transactions, according to various estimates, is growing by 20-30% annually. Regulation here solves the problem of access to instruments for large banks, not for the end consumer.
Sanctions: Threat or Stimulus?
Contrary to fears, secondary sanctions will not be a fatal blow. The circuit's infrastructure, like fiat payments, can be adapted. Key protective measures include: interaction with licensed solutions in CIS countries, which blurs the trail; decentralized issuance of stablecoins based on banks (technically, blocking the entire network is impossible — it is easily duplicated); and creating backup options in the form of digital financial assets (DFAs) and tokenization. The market is aware of the risks and is already taking steps to mitigate them.
A Closed Circuit: Does It Make Sense?
The main value of cryptocurrency lies in its cross-border nature. A completely isolated circuit within the Russian Federation lacks economic sense. However, completely closing it is impossible due to the decentralized nature of the technology and the developed DeFi sector. Even with attempts to restrict fiat entry and exit, not all countries will support the policy of isolation, and technically erecting all barriers would mean killing the instrument itself. The real goal is to give the market the ability to bypass fiat restrictions and profit from it.
Who Wins?
Opinions differ here. An optimistic scenario: only the black market loses, while all legal players win in the long term. A realistic scenario: large banks win, as they are already deploying their own infrastructure and have a client base. Small and medium-sized businesses, as well as startups, end up losing. They have three paths: migration abroad, selling to a bank, or creating niche products that banks do not yet need but are in demand by the market.
Ultimately, regulation will give the "green light" to institutions with large client bases. The new audience for crypto depositories and wallets is traditional bank clients who will receive the same service, but from their preferred bank. The market faces inevitable consolidation.
Cryptalist expert opinion: Building a crypto circuit is not so much an attempt to bypass sanctions as it is a belated attempt by the state to take control of an already established market. However, by forcing innovations into rigid frameworks, we risk getting not a "green light" for development, but a new round of bureaucracy that will push the most flexible players towards jurisdictions with more mature regulation, such as the UAE or Hong Kong.