Aside from liquidity, what do institutions bring to crypto? What precisely is their value added? This is an instructive question to ponder, because there is little consensus on what deeper institutional participation means for an industry that is riven with contradictions.
The long-running wait for Bitcoin ETF approval, giving pensions and funds exposure to BTC, may well prove to be a positive catalyst for industry growth. But in focusing on price action, observers are missing out on the real benefit of broadscale institutional adoption. The greatest benefit of deepening institutional adoption may be the regulatory certainty it ushers in.
Tax and Compliance
There are a number of areas where institutional involvement is forcing regulators to give straight answers. Chief among these are taxation and compliance. What trades can a business legally make, how should they be disclosed on its balance sheet, and what steps must it take to report these activities?
Determining what constitutes a taxable event in crypto depends on your dominion. While U.S. traders are required to calculate profit and loss (PnL) on every trade on a decentralized exchange (DEX), perps position, and on-chain event, other countries take a less rigorous approach, while a few don’t bother to tax it at all.
#Bitcoin ETFs will be Delayed until the Final Deadline
The SEC is trying to show that they are not interested and attempting to push the dates until the final deadline, even though both the SEC and BlackRock know the inevitable outcome.
Regardless of where you reside, determining your obligations when buying, selling, and storing digital assets can be a headache. But it could be worse: imagine how much more is at stake for businesses, whose public accounts must be scrutinized, and which typically require permission to even list Bitcoin (BTC) on their balance sheet.
There are good reasons why a higher bar is set for enterprises in terms of compliance, disclosure, reporting, and taxation compared to consumers. It’s a primary reason why it’s taken so long for serious institutional adoption to manifest. But as the trickle of financial firms gaining a foothold in the space turns into a flow, the retinue of lawyers and lobbyists in tow has begun to yield dividends. When BlackRock starts beating the drum for a Bitcoin ETF, even the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has to sit up and take notice.
Grayscale’s favorable court ruling against the SEC on Aug. 29 has shown the power institutions can muster in forcing regulators to renegotiate. The precedent this appeals decision sets will further increase the confidence of institutions in their ability to reframe legislation in their favor.
Seeking regulatory clarity
For those who already have skin in the game — sole traders, trading firms, family funds, venture capitalists — greater institutional involvement can only be a good thing. When the largest institutions decide they want in, it forces regulators to play ball. Not every provision that’s consequently pushed through the statute books will aid the industry — some will be asinine — but collectively they provide something that’s been missing for years: clarity.
Is Bitcoin a security? What about Ether (ETH) or Solana (SOL)? The answer, at present, depends on who you ask. Some agencies seem intent on declaring everything bar Bitcoin a security; others take a more measured approach, focusing their enforcement efforts on the most egregious token sales and shills.
Institutions can’t trade assets that lie in regulatory no man’s land: they need black and white, not shades of gray. Their increasing participation in the market is bound to provide clearer answers in terms of crypto classification, which will benefit the entire industry.
In addition, greater institutional involvement is legitimizing digital assets by making them less exotic to those tasked with regulating them. Crypto opponents can’t justifiably claim the industry to be a hotbed of money laundering and wash trading when its most active participants include the world’s leading trading firms.
Signs of institutional adoption
Today, businesses and governments are pressing ahead with blockchain-based initiatives such as CBDC pilots. In Asia alone, Hong Kong and the Bank of Japan are exploring programs involving digital currencies.
Meanwhile, banks from the U.S. to Europe are introducing crypto custody and trading services for their clients. And in August, Europe’s first spot Bitcoin ETF listed in Amsterdam, proving that institutional willpower eventually gets things done.
Regulators and institutional players are still catching up in terms of expertise to those who helped build the industry from the ground up in its early days through hands-on participation. No one has complete mastery. But as a rising tide lifts all ships, greater institutional involvement will bring benefit to all players, from the humblest yield farmer to the richest whale. Rather than assume any one group has it all figured out, an open and collaborative dialogue is most likely to lead to positive outcomes. Regulators, institutions and early adopters each offer unique insights.
You don’t have to thank them, but big institutions are a net positive for the industry. Bigger players produce better rules — and better outcomes for everyone.
Gracy Chen is the managing director of the crypto derivatives exchange Bitget, where she oversees market expansion, business strategy, and corporate development. Before joining Bitget, she held executive positions at the Fortune 500 unicorn company Accumulus and venture-backed VR startups XRSPACE and ReigVR. She was also an early investor in BitKeep, Asia’s leading decentralized wallet. She was honored in 2015 as a Global Shaper by the World Economic Forum. She graduated from the National University of Singapore and is currently pursuing an MBA degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
The idea of a wealth tax has raised its head – yet again – as the government attempts to balance its books.
Downing Street refused to rule out a wealth tax after former Labour leader Lord Kinnock told Sky News he thinks the government should introduce one.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:19
Lord Kinnock calls for ‘wealth tax’
Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said: “The prime minister has repeatedly said those with the broadest shoulders should carry the largest burden.”
While there has never been a wealth tax in the UK, the notion was raised under Rishi Sunak after the COVID years – and rejected – and both Harold Wilson’s and James Callaghan’s Labour governments in the 1970s seriously considered implementing one.
Sky News looks at what a wealth tax is, how it could work in the UK, and which countries already have one.
Image: Will Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer impose a wealth tax? Pic: PA
What is a wealth tax?
A wealth tax is aimed at reducing economic inequality to redistribute wealth and to raise revenue.
It is a direct levy on all, or most of, an individual’s, household’s or business’s total net wealth, rather than their income.
The tax typically includes the total market value of assets, including savings, investments, property and other forms of wealth – minus a person’s debts.
Unlike capital gains tax, which is paid when an asset is sold at a profit, a wealth tax is normally an annual charge based on the value of assets owned, even if they are not sold.
A one-off wealth tax, often used after major crises, could also be an option to raise a substantial amount of revenue in one go.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:51
Wealth tax would be a ‘mistake’
How could it work in the UK?
Advocates of a UK wealth tax, including Lord Kinnock, have proposed an annual 2% tax on wealth above £10m.
Wealth tax campaign group Tax Justice UK has calculated this would affect about 20,000 people – fewer than 0.04% of the population – and raise £24bn a year.
Because of how few people would pay it, Tax Justice says that would make it easy for HMRC to collect the tax.
The group proposes people self-declare asset values, backed up by a compliance team at HMRC who could have a register of assets.
Which countries have or have had a wealth tax?
In 1990, 12 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries had a net wealth tax, but just four have one now: Colombia, Norway, Spain and Switzerland.
France and Italy levy wealth taxes on selected assets.
Colombia
Since 2023, residents in the South American country are subject to tax on their worldwide wealth, but can exclude the value of their household up to 509m pesos (£92,500).
The tax is progressive, ranging from a 0.5% rate to 1.5% for the most wealthy until next year, then 1% for the wealthiest from 2027.
Image: Bogota in Colombia, which has a wealth tax
Norway
There is a 0.525% municipal wealth tax for individuals with net wealth exceeding 1.7m kroner (about £125,000) or 3.52m kroner (£256,000) for spouses.
Norway also has a state wealth tax of 0.475% based on assets exceeding a net capital tax basis of 1.7m kroner (£125,000) or 3.52m kroner (£256,000) for spouses, and 0.575% for net wealth in excess of 20.7m kroner (£1.5m).
Image: Norway has both a municipal and state wealth tax. Pic: Reuters
The maximum combined wealth tax rate is 1.1%.
The Norwegian Labour coalition government also increased dividend tax to 20% in 2023, and with the wealth tax, it prompted about 80 affluent business owners, with an estimated net worth of £40bn, to leave Norway.
Spain
Residents in Spain have to pay a progressive wealth tax on worldwide assets, with a €700,000 (£600,000) tax free allowance per person in most areas and homes up to €300,000 (£250,000) tax exempt.
Image: Madrid in Spain. More than 12,000 multimillionaires have left the country since a wealth tax was increased in 2022. Pic: Reuters
The progressive rate goes from 0.2% for taxable income for assets of €167,129 (£144,000) up to 3.5% for taxable income of €10.6m (£9.146m) and above.
It has been reported that more than 12,000 multimillionaires have left Spain since the government introduced the higher levy at the end of 2022.
Switzerland
All of the country’s cantons (districts) have a net wealth tax based on a person’s taxable net worth – different to total net worth.
Image: Zurich is Switzerland’s wealthiest city, and has its own wealth tax, as do other Swiss cantons. Pic: Reuters
It takes into account the balance of an individual’s worldwide gross assets, including bank account balances, bonds, shares, life insurances, cars, boats, properties, paintings, jewellery – minus debts.
Switzerland also works on a progressive rate, ranging from 0.3% to 0.5%, with a relatively low starting point at which people are taxed on their wealth, such as 50,000 CHF (£46,200) in several cantons.
The Chinese owner of British Steel has held fresh talks with government officials in a bid to break the impasse over ministers’ determination not to compensate it for seizing control of the company.
Sky News has learnt that executives from Jingye Group met senior civil servants from the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) late last week to discuss ways to resolve the standoff.
Whitehall sources said the talks had been cordial, but that no meaningful progress had been made towards a resolution.
Jingye wants the government to agree to pay it hundreds of millions of pounds for taking control of British Steel in April – a move triggered by the Chinese group’s preparations for the permanent closure of its blast furnaces in Scunthorpe.
Such a move would have cost thousands of jobs and ended Britain’s centuries-old ability to produce virgin steel.
Jingye had been in talks for months to seek £1bn in state aid to facilitate the Scunthorpe plant’s transition to greener steelmaking, but was offered just half that sum by ministers.
More on British Steel
Related Topics:
British Steel has not yet been formally nationalised, although that remains a probable outcome.
Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, has previously dismissed the idea of compensating Jingye, saying British Steel’s equity was essentially worthless.
Last month, he met his Chinese counterpart, where the issue of British Steel was discussed between the two governments in person for the first time.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:31
Inside the UK’s last blast furnaces
Jingye has hired the leading City law firm Linklaters to explore the recovery of hundreds of millions of pounds it invested in the Scunthorpe-based company before the government seized control of it.
News of last week’s meeting comes as British steelmakers face an anxious wait to learn whether their exports to the US face swingeing tariffs as part of US President Donald Trump’s trade war.
Sky News’s economics and data editor, Ed Conway, revealed this week that the UK would miss a White House-imposed deadline to agree a trade deal on steel and aluminium this week.
Jingye declined to comment, while a spokesman for the Department for Business and Trade said: “We acted quickly to ensure the continued operations of the blast furnaces but recognise that securing British Steel’s long-term future requires private sector investment.
“We have not nationalised British Steel and are working closely with Jingye on options for the future, and we will continue work on determining the best long-term sustainable future for the site.”