Competition will force Russian banks to reduce spreads on cryptocurrency.
The launch of banking operations with cryptocurrency in Russia will be marked by inflated spreads, but maintaining a markup of 5–7% or higher will not be possible under healthy competition. This conclusion follows from an analysis of market mechanisms and assessments by transaction banking experts.
At the initial stage, banks will be forced to factor into the price the cost of liquidity, compliance procedures, hedging, and the expenses of building new infrastructure. In certain products, the markup could reach several basis points, making services expensive for the end consumer. However, this is a temporary phenomenon.
Why High Spreads Won't Last Long
The key factor that will work against banks is market competition. As soon as several major players and other regulated participants enter the market, margins will begin to shrink rapidly. The spread will not be set administratively—it will be shaped by the market, based on the global price of the crypto asset, the cost of liquidity, hedging, and the infrastructure costs of a specific bank.
The Central Bank of Russia will likely focus on regulating access rules, the composition of participants, and infrastructure, rather than setting specific quotes. This means that markups across different banks could vary significantly, especially at first.
Within a single bank, the spread will depend on the number of active product users, the volume of real user liquidity, and the cost of liquidity for the bank itself, which will be required on balance sheets in significant amounts. Infrastructure and legal costs take a back seat.
The Battle for Clients: Who Will Win
In this race, the winner will be the one with the larger marketing budget and a greater willingness to take risks to dominate the new economy. This applies not only to qualified investors but also to the mass-market client.
The more liquidity providers and competition there are among banks, the closer prices will be to market levels. The mechanism will resemble the currency market rather than a product with an administratively set tariff. The mass-market client is currently unwilling to pay for the mere word "bank." Retail audience stress levels have been high since 2022: the Russian user is open to many scenarios to meet their needs, but not to unjustifiably high service costs.
The picture is completely different for affluent 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 a lack of problems. Such a client would rather choose their own accountant than a Russian bank if the latter does not offer competitive terms. The question is rhetorical.
My view: banks that are the first to enter the market with adequate spreads and build reliable infrastructure will capture the lion's share of both retail and institutional traffic. Those who try to profit from inflated markups will quickly lose clients to more flexible competitors.