Opinion by: Hedi Navazan, chief compliance officer at 1inch
Web3 needs a clear regulatory system that addresses innovation bottlenecks and user safety in decentralized finance (DeFi). A one-size-fits-all approach cannot be achieved to regulate DeFi. The industry needs custom, risk-based approaches that balance innovation, security and compliance.
DeFi’s challenges and rules
A common critique is that regulatory scrutiny leads to the death of innovation, tracing this situation back to the Biden administration. In 2022, uncertainty for crypto businesses increased following lawsuits against Coinbase, Binance and OpenSea for alleged violations of securities laws.
Under the US administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission agreed to dismiss the lawsuit against Coinbase, as the agency reversed the crypto stance, hinting at a path toward regulation with clear boundaries.
Many would argue that the same risk is the same rule. Imposing traditional finance requirements on DeFi simply will not work from many aspects but the most technical challenges.
Openness, transparency, immutability, and automation are key parameters of DeFi. Without clear regulations, however, the prevalent issue of “Ponzi-like schemes” can divert focus from effective innovation use cases to conjuring a “deceptive perception” of blockchain technology.
Guidance and clarity from regulatory bodies can reduce significant risks for retail users.
Policymakers should take time to understand DeFi’s architecture before introducing restrictive measures. DeFi needs risk-based regulatory models that understand its architecture and address illicit activity and consumer protection.
Self-regulatory frameworks cultivate transparency and security in DeFi
The entire industry highly recommends implementing a self-regulatory framework that ensures continuous innovation while simultaneously ensuring consumer safety and financial transparency.
Take the example of DeFi platforms that have taken a self-regulatory approach by implementing robust security measures, including transaction monitoring, wallet screening and implementing a blacklist mechanism that restricts a wallet of suspicion with illicit activity.
Sound security measures would help DeFi projects monitor onchain activity and prevent system misuse. Self-regulation can help DeFi projects operate with greater legitimacy, yet it may not be the only solution.
Clear structure and governance are key
It’s no secret that institutional players are waiting for the regulatory green light. Adding to the list of regulatory frameworks, Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) sets stepping stones for future DeFi regulations that can lead to institutional adoption of DeFi. It provides businesses with regulatory clarity and a framework to operate.
Many crypto projects will struggle and die as a result of higher compliance costs associated with MiCA, which will enforce a more reliable ecosystem by requiring augmented transparency from issuers and quickly attract institutional capital for innovation. Clear regulations will lead to more investments in projects that support investor trust.
Anonymity in crypto is quickly disappearing. Blockchain analytics tools, regulators and companies can monitor suspicious activity while preserving user privacy to some extent. Future adaptations of MiCA regulations can enable compliance-focused DeFi solutions, such as compliant liquidity pools and blockchain-based identity verification.
Regulatory clarity can break barriers to DeFi integration
The banks’ iron gate has been another significant barrier. Compliance officers frequently witness banks erect walls to keep crypto out. Bank supervisors distance companies that are out of compliance, even if it’s indirect scrutiny or fines, slamming doors on crypto projects’ financial operations.
Clear regulations will address this issue and make compliance a facilitator, not a barrier, for DeFi and banking integration. In the future, traditional banks will integrate DeFi. Institutions will not replace banks but will merge DeFi’s efficiencies with TradFi’s structure.
Recent: Hester Peirce calls for SEC rulemaking to ‘bake in’ crypto regulation
The repeal of Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 121 in January 2025 mitigated accounting burdens for banks to recognize crypto assets held for customers as both assets and liabilities on their balance sheets. The previous laws created hurdles of increased capital reserve requirements and other regulatory challenges.
SAB 122 aims to provide structured solutions from reactive compliance to proactive financial integration — a step toward creating DeFi and banking synergy. Crypto companies must still follow accounting principles and disclosure requirements to protect crypto assets.
Clear regulations can increase the frequency of banking use cases, such as custody, reserve backing, asset tokenization, stablecoin issuance and offering accounts to digital asset businesses.
Building bridges between regulators and innovators in DeFi
Experts pointing out concerns about DeFi’s over-regulation killing innovation can now address them using “regulatory sandboxes.” These dispense startups with a “secure zone” to test their products before committing to full-scale regulatory mandates. For example, startups in the United Kingdom under the Financial Conduct Authority are thriving using this “trial and error” method that has accelerated innovation.
These have enabled businesses to test innovation and business models in a real-world setting under regulator supervision. Sandboxes could be accessible to licensed entities, unregulated startups or companies outside the financial services sector.
Similarly, the European Union’s DLT Pilot Regime advances innovation and competition, encouraging market entry for startups by reducing upfront compliance costs through “gates” that align legal frameworks at each level while upgrading technological innovation.
Clear regulations can cultivate and support innovation through open dialogue between regulators and innovators.
Opinion by: Hedi Navazan, chief compliance officer at 1inch.
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.
