Banking spreads on cryptocurrency in Russia: why high markups are doomed to disappear
With the start of cryptocurrency banking operations in Russia, spreads will initially be noticeably higher than on classic crypto exchanges. However, maintaining a markup of 5–7% or more in a competitive market will not be possible. Such is my forecast, based on an analysis of transaction banking and payment trends.
The key factor determining the price for the client is not the bank's greed, but the costs of liquidity, the user's willingness to pay for a regulated framework, and the difference from the cost of familiar fiat transfers. At the outset, banks will have to factor into the price the costs of compliance, hedging, and building new infrastructure, which could easily add several basis points to the spread.
Why spreads will be high at first and then decline
At the moment of launch, inflated spreads are inevitable: banks must recoup investments in liquidity and the legal structure. But I do not consider the sustained retention of margins at 5–7% or higher to be viable. As soon as several banks and other regulated players enter the market, the margin will begin to compress fairly quickly. Ultimately, the spread is shaped by the market, not the regulator: it is composed of the global asset price, the cost of liquidity, hedging, and the specific bank's margin.
The Bank of Russia, as I understand it, will regulate primarily the access rules, the composition of participants, and the infrastructure, but will not set buy and sell quotes. Therefore, markups may vary significantly across different banks. Within a single bank, the spread will depend on the number of active users, the volume of real client liquidity, and the cost of its own liquidity, which will have to be held on balance sheets in significant amounts. Infrastructure and legal costs are a secondary factor.
Who will win the competition for the user
Victory will go to those with a larger marketing budget and a greater willingness to take risks for dominance in the new economy. This is not only about qualified investors. The more liquidity providers and competition among banks, the closer prices will be to market levels. The mechanism here resembles the currency market, not a product with an administratively set tariff.
The mass client is currently not ready to overpay for the mere word "bank." Since 2022, the level of stress among the retail audience has been high: the Russian user is willing to accept many scenarios to meet their needs, but not an unjustifiably high cost of service. A different picture emerges among wealthy clients. Large capital continues to move between countries, and with an average transaction of 3–5 million rubles, a person is willing to pay for speed, transparency, and the absence of problems. The question of whom such a client will prefer—their own accountant or a Russian bank—is rhetorical.
My conclusion: the market will quickly reach equilibrium, and banks that fail to offer competitive spreads will lose both the mass and premium audience. Sustainable advantages will go to those who invest in liquidity and client experience, rather than in short-term margins.