Blockchain and Nation-State Infrastructure: Why Bother?

We listen to talk after talk about crypto finally achieving asset-class legitimacy, but truly speaking, the encroachment of Wall Street giants into the blockchain space is a double-edged sword.

The following is an opinion editorial written by Karel Kubat, Founder of Union Labs.

As blockchain enthusiasts, we’ve long championed decentralization, transparency, and democratized access—the 2008 principles that revolutionized our global view of financial economies—but the recent buy-in from Wall Street behemoths is threatening the 16 years of architecture we’ve built on these foundations. Financial titans like JP Morgan, Standard Chartered, HSBC, and Goldman Sachs are diving deep into blockchain, spurred on by the SEC’s approval of spot Bitcoin and Ether ETFs and BlackRock’s tokenization initiatives. Yes, institutional buy-in boosts legitimacy and drives market expansion, but at what cost?

These market developments are undoubtedly lucrative for some and bring a level of validation to the builders who have worked tirelessly to sustain this ecosystem. However, participation from legacy organizations brings with it a growing risk of reproducing the same kinds of centralized structures that blockchain set out to dismantle. Additionally, greater involvement from traditional finance attracts stronger regulatory frameworks and more regimented policy structures from nation-state institutions, which risks stifling innovation and limiting the autonomy of our blockchain networks. So, why bother?

A TradFi Pedestal

Not long ago, these financial giants were the loudest critics of crypto’s credibility and efficacy. For context, in 2017, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase famously declared, “Bitcoin is a fraud”. In this era of heavy skepticism, financial governance in the U.S. looked down its nose at this whole ecosystem—if it even dared to look at all. Yet now, as the two start to realize the potential upside of Wall Street ETFs, we seem incredibly eager to shine a light on their arrival. We need to ask ourselves if these major private and public players can be trusted with the future of blockchain ecosystems when they have, for years, continued to struggle with the provision of clear and feasible regulatory frameworks.

It’s still unclear if digital assets are securities or commodities, leading to endless lawsuits and regulatory headaches for major exchanges in the US. These opaque rules and guidelines have fostered a mass jurisdictional exodus, as companies look for legal respite to innovate in other places. As blockchain technology continues to evolve rapidly, and technologies like ZK proofs and modular systems come to prominence, trying to cram a technical square peg into a round regulatory hole both undermines security and holds back productive innovation.

Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom

When it comes to interoperability, the traditional financial system is happiest when dealing with centralized bridges that they can more easily influence, take control of, or even prosecute. However, as Web3’s history has taught us, centralized bridges impose extra rules on the protocols that they link together, and their centralization makes them more of a security risk. We saw this play out with the Ronin Bridge hack in 2022, where $625 million was siphoned off by North Korean hackers. This incident—one of many—underscores the inherent risks of centralized points of failure within the blockchain ecosystem.

So aside from fragmenting the blockchain ecosystem’s user base and clogging up channels for greater liquidity, these systems also introduce security vulnerabilities that make them a seriously shaky foundation for the future of this movement. And what if the state—by fair means or foul—takes an interest in a particular bridging system and puts away one of its key figures? The arrest of MultiChain’s CEO shows how quickly centralized projects can collapse in on themselves.

To circumvent these centralized points of failure, we need to continue building permissionless and trustless systems that can’t be taken down by the state, regulator, or any one owner. Decentralized, open-source zero-knowledge (zk) bridges may not be a silver bullet, but they offer a more promising and equitable future. Distributed, anonymous, and autonomous, these bridges can operate with minimum governmental interference and therefore maximum freedom, empowering participants to move assets freely and generate proofs locally and economically.

This allows for true interoperability, giving protocols sovereign control without the heavy hand of regulatory requirements. It also makes these bridges nation-state-resistant: if a given bridge provider is regulated out of existence or prosecuted, users can continue bridging using the decentralized infrastructure.

In this vision, protocols would enjoy greater freedom, with no unnecessary requirements, no user flow restrictions, and no extra security vulnerabilities. Crypto would again become a space where no single country, company, or party has an unfair advantage, effectively returning to the decentralized spirit at the heart of blockchain.

So even if it’s true that the entry of traditional finance giants into the blockchain arena can spark waves of wider interest, it also undermines core blockchain principles around decentralization and innovation. As we move ahead, we must not forget why blockchain was created in the first place, or we risk reproducing the same rigid systems we sought to escape.

Imagine instead a world where thousands of blockchains communicate seamlessly—a future where fragmented liquidity becomes a cohesive, high-performance ecosystem. This vision is within reach. We are on the cusp of making blockchain as efficient and interconnected as the internet itself. Decentralized, horizontal scalability is the only way forward, making crypto truly useful for the wider global community.

Source