TradFi doesn’t want DeFi. It wants blockchains.

Blockchain adoption is a cost story, not a conviction story. Builders should plan for both.

There’s a version of the future that’s become almost canonical in crypto: DeFi and TradFi converge, permissionless liquidity meets institutional distribution, and the result is some elegant hybrid that captures the best of both worlds — and the new system subsumes the old.

It’s a comforting story. It’s also mostly wrong.

Here’s the more honest version: where TradFi can use a blockchain to improve its existing business, it will. Not because it has embraced decentralization, but because it’s a compelling COGS story — the technology happens to cut costs, improve settlement, expand distribution, and tighten its grip on customer relationships.

What this means is that institutions aren’t somehow merging with DeFi. Instead, they’re selectively using the parts of DeFi that fit within their operating constraints and discarding the parts that do not; they’re reconfiguring DeFi around institutional requirements. The result is unlikely to look like either traditional finance or today’s DeFi. Instead, we’re beginning to see the emergence of a new category built on blockchain rails but optimized for institutional constraints: programmable financial infrastructure.

That dynamic may evolve as regulatory frameworks mature. Legislation such as the CLARITY Act could eventually make it easier for institutions to engage directly with permissionless systems. But regardless of what becomes legally possible, TradFi’s risk posture won’t reset overnight. Institutions still adopt technology through the lens of cost, risk, control, and operational fit — which is why this presents the industry with two opportunities, not one.

The first is helping institutions adopt the infrastructure they are ready for today. Every primitive an institution adopts — from atomic settlement to programmable money to tokenized collateral — validates the technology, builds out shared rails, and pulls real volume and capital onchain.

The second is to continue building the open, crypto-native financial system that institutions are not yet prepared to use.

These are not competing bets. They can and should exist in parallel, and done well, each reinforces the other. Open networks and ecosystems keep producing the primitives, markets, and innovations that institutions eventually adopt. If both succeed, convergence happens naturally — not because one system fully replaces the other, but because both increasingly come to rely on the same underlying infrastructure.

What TradFi is actually doing

TradFi adopts a primitive when it does two things at once: improves cost, risk, or distribution and stays compatible with control and accountability. The primitives that institutions discard — open access, pseudonymity, immutable execution — pass the first test but fail the second. That’s why the adoption pattern is predictable rather than arbitrary, and why builders can use it as a design test. That is, if a feature delivers value only by removing institutional control, it will almost certainly be reshaped or rejected, however elegant it may be.

Let’s put some primitives through the test. Atomic settlement collapses the gap between trade and finality, erasing counterparty risk and freeing the collateral institutions to park against unsettled trades. A shared ledger turns the highest hidden cost to the back office, reconciliation, into a non-event. Programmable money lets coupon payments, margin calls, and corporate actions run as code instead of a chain of manual instructions. AMM curve math, stripped of its permissionless wrapper, reappears as the pricing engine for onchain FX and tokenized money-market NAVs.

Each improves a number on a P&L or removes a line of operational risk and its associated cost, but none requires an institution to believe in decentralization. So let’s be precise about what’s happening with initiatives like JPM’s permissioned blockchain for institutional deposits, or the tokenized money market funds at BlackRock, and Franklin Templeton: These aren’t enterprises dipping a toe into DeFi. They’re using blockchain to do things they already do — settling interbank payments, managing fund subscriptions, and distributing yield-bearing instruments — but with better plumbing. These are deployments that use blockchains’ technical properties (programmability, transparency, atomic settlement) and deliberately discard the properties that make native DeFi work (open access, pseudonymity, and trustless execution).

That’s not a failure or a compromise. It’s a deliberate architectural choice, and one that tells us a great deal about where this is heading.

Different buyers, different rules

It would be a mistake to assume that institutional adoption is simply a larger distribution channel for existing DeFi infrastructure. Institutions are not evaluating protocols the way crypto-native users do. When institutions consider software vendors, infrastructure partners, operational risk, compliance controls, and long-term ownership of critical systems, they follow their standard operating procedure. The result is that success in DeFi does not automatically translate into success with institutions.

Enterprises rarely buy the “best” technology. They buy the technology that best fits existing workflows, risk models, and procurement processes, among other things.

Any technology that enters a heavily regulated, risk-managed, liability-averse institutional environment gets shaped by that environment. It happened with the internet (enterprise firewalls, private intranets). It happened with cloud computing (private cloud, VPCs, FedRAMP). It’s happening with AI (internal deployments, data residency requirements, model governance). Blockchain is no different.

The reconfiguration happens along two axes:

1. Compliance: KYC, AML, sanctions screening, investor accreditation, and regulatory reporting requirements aren’t negotiable for most institutions. Permissionless systems don’t natively accommodate these requirements. Institutions need the ability to freeze assets, reverse transactions, and identify counterparties. DeFi was not originally designed around those requirements, and accommodating them often requires meaningful architectural changes. This may evolve. For example, CLARITY could make it easier for institutions to access permissionless systems while meeting regulatory requirements. But today, most institutions must evaluate blockchain infrastructure through the lens of control, accountability, and operational risk.

2. Enterprise value delivery. This axis is often underappreciated. Institutions aren’t adopting blockchain because they believe in permissionlessness as a principle. They’re adopting it because it can compress costs, reduce reconciliation friction, create new distribution channels, or embed them more deeply in a customer relationship. The value proposition has to be expressed in those terms, or it doesn’t survive procurement.

Stablecoins may be the clearest example. Banks, payment providers, and fintechs increasingly view them as useful settlement infrastructure because they enable faster movement of dollars across networks and geographies. Yet few are embracing the broader philosophy of permissionless finance. They’re adopting programmable dollars because they’re useful, not because they’re trying to recreate the financial system around DeFi’s principles.

Circle’s evolution is an apt illustration. Arc reflects how blockchain infrastructure is increasingly being packaged for institutional buyers: emphasizing compliance, operational controls, trusted counterparties, and integration into existing workflows rather than permissionless access and composability. The value proposition isn’t permissionlessness for its own sake. It’s faster settlement, global reach, and improved capital efficiency delivered in a form institutions can actually adopt.

Even organizations like SWIFT increasingly frame blockchain through this lens. Their efforts around tokenized asset interoperability are not attempts to replace existing financial institutions. They’re attempts to improve how existing institutions coordinate with one another using the SWIFT network. The pattern appears repeatedly: Blockchain adoption that strengthens established financial networks rather than displacing them.

This is simply how powerful technologies evolve when they encounter large, established markets.

Two opportunities for builders

At the industry level, it would be a mistake for everyone to abandon one opportunity for the other. At the company level, it would be a mistake to try to pursue both at once.

Institutional adoption and open networks can reinforce one another at the ecosystem level. But for most teams, they remain fundamentally different businesses. Building for institutions requires understanding procurement, compliance, controls, channel partners, and long sales cycles. Building for open networks requires optimizing for developers, liquidity, composability, and network effects. The customer, distribution model, product requirements, and success metrics are often entirely different.

This doesn’t mean one opportunity is better than the other. It simply means founders should be clear-eyed about which market they’re serving, and be aware that what unites them are the rails underneath: public blockchains as neutral settlement.

Partnering with institutions and building an adjacent financial system aren’t in tension. When done right, each makes the other more valuable. The permissioned layer brings volume, legitimacy, and capital; the open layer keeps producing primitives the permissioned layer adopts next. Convergence, when it comes, happens at the rails — not by one system surrendering to the other.

Public blockchains may become increasingly important settlement rails, even as the applications built on top of them become progressively more permissioned.

Building for programmable financial infrastructure

There are two approaches to consider when building this new programmable financial infrastructure: building from scratch or adapting existing products.

Consider networks like Canton. Rather than adapting existing DeFi infrastructure, they are designed specifically around institutional requirements for privacy, compliance, and controlled interoperability. The goal isn’t to bring banks into DeFi. It’s to use blockchain-based coordination while preserving the governance, confidentiality, and operational controls that institutions require.

Not every successful institutional strategy requires rebuilding from scratch. Morpho, for example, is taking the opposite approach. Rather than abandoning its DeFi primitives, Morpho has focused on making them easier for institutions and asset issuers to consume. Apollo’s ACRED fund, for example, uses Morpho as part of its onchain lending strategy, pairing a DeFi- native lending primitive with institutional-grade distribution, compliance, and fund structures. The result is neither pure DeFi nor a fully isolated institutional stack. It is a model where institutions selectively adopt existing crypto infrastructure while packaging it in a way that aligns with their own requirements for control, compliance, and distribution.

This new category is purpose-built for institutional constraints. It draws from DeFi, but operates in a more permissioned, compliant manner and is therefore necessarily different from what exists today.

Some teams, like Morpho, have successfully adapted crypto-native infrastructure for institutional use cases. But builders shouldn’t mistake this for the default playbook. Institutions are a distinct customer segment with distinct requirements. In many cases, designing for those requirements from the outset will prove more effective than adapting products originally built for open networks.

The opportunity to keep building in DeFi

The innovations institutions are adopting today did not originate inside banks, asset managers, or existing financial infrastructure. They emerged from open networks where builders were free to experiment with new market structures, coordination mechanisms, and financial primitives.

That distinction matters. Institutions are not the industry’s primary source of innovation: The permissioned layer is often downstream from the open one.

This brings us to the more important strategic point: If our industry becomes too focused on selling to banks and asset managers, we risk mistaking a large buyer category for the entire opportunity. TradFi is an important customer. But it’s not the only one.

Designing for institutional requirements is a legitimate and valuable pursuit, but it is only one lane, not the whole road. The companies that endure will be the ones that remain clear-eyed about who they are building for. Institutional adoption may be a large opportunity, but it is not simply an extension of DeFi. Success in one market does not guarantee success in the other.

***

If you’re building for institutions, embrace it fully. Don’t assume crypto-native traction automatically translates into enterprise adoption. Learn the customer, understand the buying process, and build intentionally around institutional requirements.

If you’re building for open networks, keep doing so. Don’t abandon your vision simply because institutions are the loudest buyers in the market today.

Remember: These are complementary, not competitive. One adapts, commercializes, and scales proven innovations. The other discovers them. A version of this technology will almost certainly become part of the financial plumbing of the existing TradFi system. But that is not the only future being built. Open networks remain the industry’s most important source of experimentation and innovation, and many of the primitives that shape tomorrow’s institutional infrastructure will likely emerge there first.

TradFi isn’t adopting DeFi. It’s selectively adopting parts that fit its model. The opportunity for builders is not to chase every market at once; it’s to understand which one they’re building for. And to execute accordingly. The future may indeed run on institutional infrastructure, but many of its most important innovations will continue to emerge from open networks.

---

You’re receiving this newsletter because you signed up for it on our websites, at an event, or elsewhere (you can opt out anytime using the ‘unsubscribe’ link below). This newsletter is provided for informational purposes only, and should NOT be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. This newsletter may link to other websites or other information obtained from third-party sources — a16z has not independently verified nor makes any representations about the current or enduring accuracy of such information. Furthermore, the content is not directed at nor intended for use by any investors or prospective investors in any a16z funds. Please see a16z.com/disclosures for additional important details, including link to list of investments.