The Russian crypto circuit was initially designed as a tool for cross-border settlements, but sanctions pressure is gradually narrowing the opportunities to operate outside the country. This paradox calls into question the economic viability of the entire structure. However, as my analysis shows, the true value of this project lies in a different dimension.
For whom is the infrastructure being created?
The crypto circuit is not a single product, but a multifaceted ecosystem beneficial to different categories of participants. For foreign trade companies, it is a natural extension of EPS (electronic payment systems) and the provision of additional powers. Investment divisions gain an expanded range of digital products, including opportunities for digital financial assets (DFAs) and attracting international capital. Financial and credit institutions see in the circuit the potential for scaling lending — from long-term to short-term, as well as implementing factoring and debt securitization.
For the state, represented by the Central Bank, the Ministry of Finance, and the Federal Tax Service, the circuit is needed to bring the de facto existing industry into a regulated, taxable channel. This solves problems related to AML/CFT and compliance with FATF requirements. Both legal entities and individuals in each of these categories will gain access to services and tools that are currently critically lacking.
Sanctions: Threat or Stimulus?
Contrary to concerns, bypassing sanctions is not the primary goal of the circuit. Pressure will undoubtedly continue — and is already being applied under the 20th EU sanctions package — but market participants are aware of this and are taking proactive measures. The system will operate similarly to fiat transactions: through interaction with licensed CIS solutions, managing the issuance of stablecoins based on banks, and using alternatives like DFAs and tokenization.
Fear of secondary sanctions against infrastructure elements is unfounded. It is technically impossible to track and block the entire issuance system at once — it can be easily duplicated, restarted from scratch, and scaled within Russia. Alternative solutions serve as a backup option for the most severe scenarios.
The Economic Rationale of a Closed Circuit
The value of cryptocurrency lies in its cross-border nature. If the circuit becomes completely closed within Russia, its economic rationale will sharply diminish. However, such a situation is impossible due to the decentralization of digital currencies. It is possible to restrict entry and exit into fiat outside Russia, but this will not completely close the circuit — not all countries support the policy of isolating Russia, and the DeFi sector is so developed that it is technically impossible to erect all barriers without destroying the corresponding tools.
The economic rationale of the Russian circuit lies precisely in giving the market the opportunity to bypass fiat restrictions using cryptocurrency and profit from it. This is not about isolation, but about creating an alternative channel for legitimate activity.
Who Wins and Who Loses?
In the long term, only the black market will lose — its financial flow through unregulated organizations will gradually decline. In my opinion, all other participants will only benefit. However, there is a harsher assessment: Russian banks are already deploying their own infrastructure and know how to work with crypto instruments, so they come out ahead. Small and medium capital, as well as startups, lose out. They have three paths: migration to other countries, selling to banks in the near future, or creating products that banks currently lack the time for but that are in demand by the market.
My expert opinion: Regulation will inevitably change the market, giving the "green light" only to institutional players with large client bases. Current independent alternatives are a temporary and, essentially, mythical concept. The crypto circuit will become a tool for traditional players and their clients — legal entities and individuals who will receive the same service at their preferred bank. This is not about anonymity, but about legality and convenience for the mass user.