Competition will bring down bank spreads on cryptocurrency in Russia: analysts' forecast
The Russian market for bank operations with cryptocurrency is just beginning to take shape, and the first spreads will be noticeably higher than on classic crypto exchanges. However, banks are unlikely to maintain a markup of 5–7% or more amid growing competition. This is the conclusion I reach when analyzing current dynamics and expert assessments in the field of transactional banking.
The key factor determining the price for the client is not so much the bank's desire to earn, but rather the real cost of liquidity, the client's own willingness to overpay for a regulated framework, and the difference compared to familiar fiat transfer channels. At the start, banks will be forced to factor into the price the costs of liquidity, compliance, hedging, and building new infrastructure. In certain products, the markup could easily reach several basis points.
Why high spreads are a temporary phenomenon
Spreads of 5–7% and higher will not be sustainable in a competitive market. As several banks and other regulated players enter the market, the margin will begin to shrink rapidly. The spread itself is shaped by the market, not the regulator. It consists of the global price of the crypto asset plus the cost of liquidity, hedging, infrastructure, and the specific bank's margin.
The Bank of Russia is expected to regulate primarily the access rules, the composition of participants, and the market infrastructure, rather than set specific 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 product users, the volume of real user liquidity in the order book, and the cost of the bank's own liquidity, which will be required in significant amounts on its balance sheet. I consider the cost of infrastructure and the bank's legal structure to be secondary factors.
Who will win the battle for the client
Victory will go to those with a larger marketing budget and a higher willingness to take risks for a dominant position in the new economy. This is not only about qualified investors. The more liquidity providers and competition there are among banks, the closer prices will be to market levels. In this sense, the mechanism will resemble the currency market more than a product with an administratively set tariff.
The mass client is currently not ready to pay for the mere word "bank." This is linked to the level of stress among the retail audience since 2022: the Russian user is willing to accept many scenarios to meet their needs, except one—an unjustifiably high cost of service. The picture is different for affluent clients. Large capital continues to move between countries, and with an average transaction size of 3–5 million rubles, a person is willing to pay for speed, transparency, and the absence of problems. Which such a client will prefer—their own accountant or a Russian bank—is a rhetorical question.
My conclusion: the market for bank cryptocurrency in Russia will see rapid saturation, and in the coming years we will witness margins comparable to over-the-counter deals on major platforms. Banks that bet on technological sophistication and speed, rather than a monopoly markup, will take leading positions in this new segment.