I started my journey in crypto consulting in a rather formal capacity. I found myself being referred to as "counsel" as I began advising crypto exchanges—though, the government actually prefers the term "Crypto Trading Platform."

My role as CTP external counsel involved tackling a broad spectrum of issues, ranging from the language used in marketing newsletters to the security mechanisms of alternative 'layer 1' networks.

For several years, I worked as a junior in one of Canada's top financial regulatory law practices. Not because I initially sought out financial regulatory law, but because I was determined to serve the crypto industry as it needed me.

By the time I was halfway through law school I was aware of my commitment to the industry. I knew that once I graduated and secured a position at a big firm, I would see myself working within the crypto sector. Because motivation and direction aligned, I got what I was looking for.

I began working on crypto-related files immediately. It quickly became clear that our clients shared a common set of challenges: navigating securities laws and dealing with securities regulators.

The Reality of Regulated Crypto

In the world of finance, if you're offering an investment product, you can bet that securities regulators will scrutinize every aspect of your operations. From asset listings to transactions, from moving assets to how you communicate about them—there's a regulatory framework that dictates your every move.

This was my first experience in consulting, and it was an invaluable. I had the privilege of learning from some of the best lawyers in the country, who, because of their expertise, attracted well-funded, reputable clients who were more than willing to engage with an eager junior like me.

Though I can't name these clients, I will express my gratitude to them. They were consistently moral and competent business owners, operating in a tough, heavily regulated environment.

The Conflict Between Crypto and Regulation

After three years in this role, I began to notice some fundamental conflicts between the core principles of crypto and the objectives of financial regulation.

This topic warrants a separate discussion, but the gist of my observation is this: On-chain networks are designed for censorship resistance, while financial regulation is fundamentally about enforcing censorship. As a result, the concept of "regulated crypto" is, in my view, inherently contradictory.

This realization led me to predict that the crypto industry would eventually split into two distinct factions: regulated crypto and unregulated crypto.

The Future of Unregulated Crypto

I had firsthand experience with what regulated crypto looked like—it was, honestly, a bit dull. It is simply the traditional financial industry on Wall Street, but with crypto instead of stocks. The fact that recent crypto ETF products are being offered by traditional entities like Blackrock and Fidelity only reinforces this point.

Unregulated crypto, however, is a different story. Entities like Consensys, the Ethereum Foundation, Uniswap Labs, and Solana Labs are not Wall Street—they're more like Silicon Valley, creating technology and culture that has never existed before.

This is what drew me to unregulated crypto. But I also recognized that Wall Street and regulators would not be fans of this unregulated space. I knew the angles regulators would take to try to rein it in and which technologies would be most resistant to their efforts.

We’ve already seen the SEC target both Consensys and Uniswap Labs, yet neither has ceased operations. They have substantial war chests and are prepared to fight the SEC. These battles will likely continue until one of three outcomes occurs:

1. Unregulated crypto is subdued: Founders around the world become too fearful of regulatory repercussion to build censorship-resistant entities.
2. Unregulated crypto self-regulates: Similar to how developers globally have set the TCP/IP standards that the internet runs on without government-enforced oversight.
3. Governments loosen regulations: The industry voluntarily self-regulates under a new regime for the sake of standardization and efficiency.

Personally, I find option (a) unlikely.

The Global Perspective on Unregulated Crypto

In the United States, startups are genuinely concerned about regulatory backlash.

The typical path for these companies involves validating their idea and then securing funding from venture capitalists and private equity firms. These firms, in turn, rely on wealthy limited partners for their capital. Since these wealthy entities already benefit from the current regulatory system in the West, they are hesitant to fund startups that might not comply with regulations—they have no incentive to disrupt the favourable status quo they currently enjoy.

However, this fear is less prevalent in places like India, Vietnam, Europe, and many other regions outside the U.S. (excluding China, Nigeria, and North Korea). Several factors contribute to this difference:

• The SEC is hesitant to reveal its ambition of becoming the global financial regulator. Pursuing too many non-U.S. entities is a bad look.
• Local regulators in these regions are more willing to allow nascent industries to develop, given that they don't have a significant existing financial industry to protect. For context, the United States holds 50% of the world's capital markets and financial services industry.
• Many of these jurisdictions have little to no established financial industry, so their financial regulators lack experience and aren't well-practiced in enforcement.

This crypto-friendly environment is partly why, even though the 2+ year crypto developer count is at an all-time high, the U.S. has lost -14% of its global developer share since 2018. The U.S. now only accounts for 28% of global crypto developer share, and this continues to fall.

Consulting for the Future

This leaves us with options (b) and (c) as the more plausible outcomes. Many, including figures like Balaji Srinivasan, believe that option (b) —self-regulation—will eventually prevail. They argue that the nation-state and its regulations are not permanent fixtures of history. They are likely right.

However, option (c) might be what we see in the interim with the new U.S. administration in 2025. If the pressure is significant enough and zero-knowledge solutions become effective and widely recognized, new regulations could emerge that are more conducive to innovation.

Given either scenario, continuing to consult within the framework of traditional financial regulation seemed to offer little value. That’s why I transitioned from my legal practice to establishing a consultancy for individual investors.

This consultancy prepares investors for either outcome—whether the industry moves towards self-regulation or new, more lenient regulations are introduced. We monitor global regulators, builders, and markets, and make investment decisions based on our insights.

Regulators prefer the term "crypto trading platforms" over "exchanges" because "exchange" is a regulated term typically reserved for entities trading securities, which crypto is generally not classified as.