DeFi Dispatch: DeFi News and Signals May 2026 (Issue 2)

<h2 id="learnings-for-busy-readers"><strong>Learnings for Busy Readers</strong></h2><ul><li>The barriers to institutional onchain deployment in 2026 are not technical. They are operational: policy frameworks, internal approval processes, and jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction regulatory interpretation.</li><li>MiCA clarifies the licensing perimeter but every compliance team interprets staking provisions differently - accounting treatment, capital treatment, and product scope are still institution-by-institution calls.</li><li>Late-stage deals collapse on internal alignment, not commercial or technical grounds. CISO and procurement are the most frequent blockers. Scope creep is the other deal killer.</li><li>Regulated institutions cannot interface directly with smart contracts. They need a legal counterparty they can hold accountable - a requirement DeFi protocols do not always accommodate.</li><li>Protocol selection is driven by client demand and unit economics, not by network fundamentals alone. Hyperliquid is the standout case study for ecosystem alignment right now.</li><li>Reporting and reconciliation has moved from a nice-to-have to a hard requirement. Translating onchain activity into standard accounting formats is now a non-negotiable part of the institutional stack.</li><li>The advice from every panelist: start small, move quickly on familiarisation, and build infrastructure for where you expect to be in five years - not for the first use case.</li></ul><p>On May 20, 2026, P2P.org hosted a live practitioner roundtable on institutional digital asset infrastructure. The panel brought together Alexander Loktev, CRO at P2P.org (Moderator), Pavel Jakovlev, Head of Product Growth and Innovation at <a href="https://aminagroup.com/?ref=p2p.org"><u>AMINA Bank</u></a>, John Hallahan, Director of Business Solutions and Advisory EMEA at <a href="http://fireblocks.com/?ref=p2p.org"><u>Fireblocks</u></a>, and Patrick Delaney, CEO at <a href="https://ampli.net/?ref=p2p.org"><u>Ampli</u></a>.</p><p>The conversation covered five topics:</p><ol><li>how institutions actually go from approval to live onchain deployment</li><li>compliance architecture under MiCA</li><li>the institutional go-to-market reality</li><li>multi-network exposure and validator selection</li><li>reporting and reconciliation</li></ol><h2 id="a-recap"><strong>A recap:</strong><br></h2><p>The technology works. That is no longer the question. What is holding institutions back in 2026 is the layer underneath. Compliance teams interpreting the same regulation differently, internal stakeholders who can block a deal at the last stage, operational models that were not built for onchain at scale, and reporting infrastructure that most institutions are still building in arrears.</p><h2 id="the-problem-is-never-technical"><strong>The problem is never technical</strong><br></h2><p>John Hallahan opened with a diagnosis that shaped the rest of the conversation.</p><blockquote><em>“The key issue is never technical. Where it breaks down is across three different areas: policy - the operational burden of approval processes and whitelisting; the operating model - unstaking, monitoring slashing risk, reconciling rewards; and the regulatory piece - in some jurisdictions staking is interest, in others it is a service fee. Compliance teams want to see that mapped before anything is signed off.”</em></blockquote><p>- John Hallahan, Fireblocks</p><p>Pavel confirmed it from the bank side. AMINA Bank has been operationalising <a href="https://aminagroup.com/individuals/staking/?ref=p2p.org"><u>staking </u></a>across ten protocols for several years, using a delegation model with infrastructure partners including P2P.org. The work is unglamorous and ongoing.</p><blockquote><em>“We want to make sure that our clients' </em><a href="https://aminagroup.com/individuals/custody/?ref=p2p.org#custody-services"><em><u>funds are segregated</u></em></a><em>, we know exactly who we are interacting with, we minimise smart contract risk as much as possible, and the funds are not commingled. Same rules apply. We just have to replicate them onchain.”</em></blockquote><p>- Pavel Jakovlev, AMINA Bank</p><p>Patrick added a dimension specific to agentic capital management. The security architecture around agent permissions is where institutions consistently underestimate the complexity.</p><blockquote><em>“Session keys that control the permissions of the agents are often stored on some centralised server. You have a huge risk silo where everything is in one place, and if that gets compromised, the attacker would have control over everything.”</em></blockquote><p>- Patrick Delaney, Ampli</p><p>The through-line across all three answers is the same: the gap between an institution receiving internal approval to go onchain and actually going live is larger than most expect, and almost none of it is explained by the technology.</p><h2 id="mica-gives-you-the-map-it-does-not-tell-you-how-to-read-it"><strong>MiCA gives you the map. It does not tell you how to read it.</strong></h2><p>The compliance discussion produced the clearest illustration of where the industry actually is on regulation. MiCA is in place. It is working. And it has not resolved the questions that matter most to compliance teams inside regulated institutions.</p><blockquote><em>“What </em><a href="https://www.fireblocks.com/glossary/markets-in-crypto-assets?ref=p2p.org"><em><u>MiCA</u></em></a><em> provides is a very clear framework around authorisation. The licensing perimeter is very clear. But every tier one that we work with is interpreting MiCA's staking provisions in a slightly different way. Accounting treatment, capital treatment, how staking is characterised - those are still being worked out on an institution-by-institution basis.”</em></blockquote><p>- John Hallahan, Fireblocks</p><p><a href="https://aminagroup.com/?ref=p2p.org"><u>AMINA Bank</u></a> is a useful case study in what operating under MiCA actually requires. The bank serves European clients through <a href="https://eu.aminagroup.com/?ref=p2p.org"><u>its Austrian entity</u></a>, which introduces hard product constraints. USDT and Ethena's USDe cannot be offered to European clients under the current framework. Every new product goes through a multi-stakeholder sign-off process spanning compliance, technology, and jurisdictional review across Europe, <a href="https://hongkong.aminagroup.com/?ref=p2p.org"><u>Hong Kong</u></a>, and Abu Dhabi simultaneously.</p><p>Switzerland, where AMINA holds its primary banking licence, has a longer regulatory history with <a href="https://aminagroup.com/individuals/custody/?ref=p2p.org"><u>digital assets</u></a>. The DLT Act predates MiCA by several years, and AMINA’s compliance team is in active dialogue with FINMA on innovations including zero-knowledge proof frameworks that could allow regulators to verify wallet history and source of funds without compromising client privacy. That is the direction the regulatory frontier is moving - not more restriction, but more sophisticated verification.</p><p>The practical implication for anyone selling into or operating within regulated institutions: MiCA compliance at the infrastructure layer does not close the compliance conversation internally. It opens it.</p><h2 id="deals-do-not-die-on-technical-grounds"><strong>Deals do not die on technical grounds</strong></h2><p>The go-to-market section was the most commercially direct part of the session. John's framing was unambiguous.</p><blockquote><em>“No one person can make a single decision to buy, but any of them can literally block the deal.”</em></blockquote><blockquote>- John Hallahan, Fireblocks</blockquote><p><a href="https://www.fireblocks.com/industry/banks?ref=p2p.org"><u>Fireblocks works with over one hundred banks</u></a>. The patterns are consistent. Two things kill late-stage deals. The first is internal alignment failure. The CISO and procurement are the most frequent blockers. Getting the CISO team comfortable with the risk basis of staking - a very different product from custody - is a step that cannot be skipped.</p><p>The second is scope creep. A <a href="https://www.fireblocks.com/blog/digital-asset-custody-strategy-banks?ref=p2p.org"><u>bank aligns on custody</u></a> and <a href="https://www.fireblocks.com/products/staking?ref=p2p.org"><u>staking</u></a>. Then at the eleventh hour, someone wants to add a <a href="https://www.fireblocks.com/blog/stablecoin-issuance-infrastructure-for-banks?ref=p2p.org"><u>stablecoin project</u></a>, a <a href="https://www.fireblocks.com/blog/next-chapter-transaction-banking?ref=p2p.org"><u>tokenisation initiative</u></a>, and a <a href="https://www.fireblocks.com/platforms/defi?ref=p2p.org"><u>DeFi</u></a> proof of concept.</p><blockquote><em>“If you are renegotiating the scope of things late stage, that is where deals can fall apart.”</em></blockquote><p>- John Hallahan, Fireblocks</p><p>Pavel added the internal knowledge dimension. Pockets of expertise do not always communicate across large organisations. The technology built in 2018 could be optimised, but doing so would require rebuilding everything from scratch - a decision most institutions are not positioned to make, and one most infrastructure providers are not helping them think through.</p><h2 id="protocols-are-a-business-decision-not-a-technology-decision"><strong>Protocols are a business decision, not a technology decision</strong></h2><p>The network selection discussion moved quickly past which chains are technically capable and into how institutions actually make the call.</p><blockquote><em>“To launch an offering and be competitive as an institution, you need to cover all the major staking protocols that you can get on a Revolut or a Robinhood or an eToro, or else you are not going to be competitive. Then the validator partner choice flows quickly to unit economics.”</em></blockquote><p>- John Hallahan, Fireblocks</p><p>Pavel described AMINA’s internal process: customer requests trigger reviews, the top 100 to 200 networks are always tracked, and specific ecosystems get deeper reviews when client demand signals are strong enough. He highlighted Hyperliquid as the most interesting current case.</p><blockquote><em>“I have never seen more fanatical - in a good way - alignment across token holders, users, and developers. Most of our customers do not sell Hype. They just acquire it and keep it.”</em></blockquote><p>- Pavel Jakovlev, Amina Bank</p><p>The practical consequence is that clients are now requesting staking against Hype assets with the ability to borrow against them, which requires LST infrastructure and a rethink of how bonding and unbonding periods interact with lending products. The Hyperliquid example matters beyond the specific ecosystem: it illustrates what institutional protocol selection actually responds to - not network fundamentals in the abstract, but demonstrated user behaviour that creates specific product requirements on the institutional side.</p><p>Patrick raised the broader paradox this creates: DeFi was built to eliminate middlemen, and now banks are using it on behalf of clients. Alexander offered a reframe:</p><blockquote><em>“Agents give a feeling that it is me. When I interact with DeFi through my agentic ecosystem, it feels like I am working directly with the end product, passing all the middlemen. In reality, we are just moving all the middle players into an infrastructural layer where they interact through APIs with the agentic world. But from the user perspective, that is how it feels - and that matters.”</em></blockquote><p>- Alexander Loktev, P2P.org</p><h2 id="reporting-is-where-institutional-confidence-is-built-or-lost"><strong>Reporting is where institutional confidence is built or lost</strong></h2><p>Alexander opened the reporting section with a framing that applies across the full product stack. Staking is increasingly a commoditised product. Custody was commoditised before it. DeFi will be commoditised. The decisions clients make between infrastructure providers are increasingly driven by the operational services built around the core product - and reporting is at the top of that list.</p><blockquote><em>“Two or three years ago, clients were fine getting just a list of logs and onchain records. With the scaling of their staking operations, that stopped working. What they strictly require today is explanation.”</em></blockquote><p>- Alexander Loktev, P2P.org</p><p>John confirmed it from the infrastructure side. <a href="https://www.fireblocks.com/blog/fireblocks-acquires-tres?ref=p2p.org"><u>Fireblocks acquired TRES Finance</u></a> specifically because regulated entities were pulling blockchain data but could not get it into standard accounting formats.</p><blockquote><em>“If you are a regulated entity doing quarterly reporting, that accounting audit reconciliation offering is now a core part of the infrastructure stack. It is going to be pretty much non-negotiable.”</em></blockquote><p>- John Hallahan, Fireblocks</p><p>Pavel was direct about what AMINA’s regulatory position requires. The bank goes through both internal and external audits regularly. On occasion, the regulator comments on punctuation. The scrutiny is not going to decrease as the product set expands into DeFi and <a href="https://aminagroup.com/corporates/stablecoin-rewards-account/?ref=p2p.org"><u>more complex earn structures</u></a>.</p><p>Patrick described an emerging reporting dimension specific to agentic systems. The requirement is not just a log of what happened onchain - it is a log of intent versus execution: what did the agent propose, did it comply with the client's policy engine, was it approved or rejected and why. As institutions begin to explore agentic capital management, the reporting layer will need to account for the decision chain, not just the transaction record.</p><p><strong>Key Takeaways</strong></p><p>The closing question - what do institutions consistently get wrong when going onchain for the first time - produced four answers worth remembering:&nbsp;</p><blockquote><em>“Move slow on exposing yourself to risk, but move quickly in terms of familiarising yourself with the infrastructure. Eventually this is not going to be DeFi. It is going to be finance. You will be left behind if you brush it off as that crypto thing.”</em></blockquote><p>- Patrick Delaney, Ampli</p><blockquote><em>“Build your infrastructure and your operating model for where you think you are in five years, not your first use case. We have seen many early movers on the banking side who are now re-platforming. Build the stack for your strategy five years from now.”</em></blockquote><p>- John Hallahan, Fireblocks</p><blockquote><em>“I was speaking with a bank that banks other banks. They told me they know how to move billions onchain and the systems are good. They have not figured out how to move trillions yet. So once they do that, they will start moving. It is coming.”</em></blockquote><p>- Pavel Jakovlev, Amina Bank</p><blockquote><em>“Make your first step very small, but make it as soon as you can. At P2P.org, when we hire people, we give them a hardware wallet with a small amount and ask them to stake, unstake, and withdraw. It brings non-web3 people into the web3 world within a single day. They lose the stigma.”</em></blockquote><p>- Alexander Loktev, P2P.org</p><p>The replay is available <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md-SpGfPmOk&ref=p2p.org"><strong><u>here</u></strong></a>. P2P.org is a non-custodial validator infrastructure provider trusted by 190+ institutional clients, operating across 40+ networks with $10B+ in assets under validation and seven years of zero slashing events.</p><h2 id="frequently-asked-questions-faqs"><strong>Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)</strong></h2><h3 id="what-are-the-biggest-operational-barriers-to-institutional-onchain-deployment-in-2026"><strong>What are the biggest operational barriers to institutional onchain deployment in 2026?</strong></h3><p>Policy frameworks, internal approval processes, and regulatory interpretation - not technical complexity. The technology is largely solved. The operational layer underneath it is where institutions get stuck.</p><h3 id="how-are-regulated-institutions-handling-mica-compliance-for-staking-products"><strong>How are regulated institutions handling MiCA compliance for staking products?</strong></h3><p>MiCA provides the licensing and authorisation framework, but accounting treatment, capital treatment, and product scope are still interpreted differently by each institution's compliance team. MiCA compliance at the infrastructure layer does not close the internal compliance conversation.</p><h3 id="what-kills-institutional-deals-at-the-late-stage"><strong>What kills institutional deals at the late stage?</strong></h3><p>Internal alignment failures - typically the CISO or procurement team raising concerns - and scope creep, where an institution expands requirements significantly during the negotiation phase.</p><h3 id="how-do-institutions-decide-which-blockchain-networks-to-support"><strong>How do institutions decide which blockchain networks to support?</strong></h3><p>Client demand first, unit economics second. EVM-compatible chains, Solana, and Cosmos are the practical shortlist for most regulated institutions. New networks get added following formal reviews triggered by specific client requests.</p><h3 id="what-does-institutional-grade-reporting-for-onchain-positions-require"><strong>What does institutional-grade reporting for onchain positions require?</strong></h3><p>Translating onchain activity into standard accounting formats, maintaining complete audit trails, and for agentic systems, logging agent intent versus execution so every capital movement can be traced back to the authorisation that triggered it.</p><h2 id="disclaimer"><strong>Disclaimer</strong></h2><p>This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, compliance, or investment advice. Regulatory obligations may vary depending on jurisdiction and specific business activities. Readers should consult their own legal and compliance advisors regarding applicable requirements</p>