PaySpace Magazine Global has spoken to Maksym Sakharov, Co-Founder and Group CEO of WeFi, a fintech and Web3 company building towards decentralised on-chain banking future, about the challenges crypto providers face in current legal ambiguity circumstances and factors that slow down institutional adoption of stablecoins.
For crypto businesses operating in the United States, CLARITY Act was supposed to bring exactly what it name promises – legal and compliance clarity. However, one of the most expected payment regulation bills in the U.S. stalled with no renewed Senate vote in near sight. In this interview with WeFi CEO and Co-Founder, Maksym Sakharov, we explored how it affects the industry, whether digital asset companies are prompted to relocate and which factors are even more important than predictable regulatory environment when it comes to crypto demand and adoption.
What does the CLARITY Act’s setback mean for the US crypto industry?
The CLARITY Act’s delay reflects the complexity of establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework for the US crypto industry and the careful consideration such legislation requires. While it extends some uncertainty for companies making long-term investment and operational decisions, it also demonstrates the importance of reaching an agreement that provides clear responsibilities and workable rules for the industry. The legislation addresses fundamental questions about how digital assets should be classified and supervised, and those decisions will have lasting implications for financial institutions and businesses operating in the sector.
In the meantime, the industry continues to develop under existing regulatory frameworks. Federal agencies are advancing their own rules, while the GENIUS Act has already established a legislative foundation for payment stablecoins. For the US crypto industry, the priority is achieving regulatory consistency that allows businesses to plan with confidence. A carefully developed framework could ultimately provide a stronger foundation for long-term investment and adoption.
How do you see US crypto regulation developing over the next 12 months?
I expect US crypto regulation to develop gradually over the next 12 months, with progress coming from both federal agencies and continued legislative discussions. Different areas of the industry are likely to move at different speeds. Stablecoins already have a legislative foundation through the GENIUS Act, while broader questions surrounding digital asset classification, trading and market supervision still require further clarification.
One important development will be how regulatory principles translate into practical operating requirements. Financial institutions need to understand how rules apply to the services they intend to offer, including custody, settlement and customer protection. Agency guidance can provide some clarity, although comprehensive legislation would offer greater long-term certainty. I expect the next year to be defined by this gradual development of regulatory frameworks, with progress measured by how effectively businesses can incorporate the requirements into their operations.
Could delays in crypto legislation push digital asset companies to move their operations to other markets? Which markets are seen as more promising in terms of legal clarity?
Regulatory delays can influence where digital asset companies choose to establish operations, particularly when they are planning significant investments or introducing new financial services. However, I would expect more companies to diversify their regulatory presence than relocate entirely. Businesses can maintain their US operations while developing specific services in jurisdictions where the requirements are more clearly established.
The European Union stands out because MiCA provides a common regulatory framework across member states, making it easier to plan services for a larger market. Hong Kong has developed a dedicated licensing regime for stablecoin issuers, while the UAE has established regulatory structures for payment tokens and other digital asset activities. For infrastructure providers, legal clarity is only one consideration. Access to financial partners, reliable settlement arrangements and commercial demand also influence where operations make sense. The most attractive markets will be those that combine predictable regulation with conditions that support sustainable business activity.
How important is regulatory clarity for attracting institutional investors to digital assets?
Regulatory clarity is essential for attracting institutional investors because financial institutions must evaluate digital assets within established governance and risk management frameworks. Investment decisions involve responsibilities that extend beyond potential returns, including custody arrangements, asset classification, counterparty exposure and fiduciary obligations. When these conditions are clearly defined, institutions can assess digital assets through the same structured processes they apply to other investments.
This has important implications for how institutional participation develops. A predictable regulatory environment can make digital asset exposure easier to evaluate, approve and manage across different investment strategies. However, regulatory clarity alone cannot generate demand. Institutions still need sufficient liquidity, credible valuation methods and a clear investment rationale. I believe sustainable institutional adoption will depend on bringing these elements together, allowing digital assets to become a more established part of portfolio management without requiring institutions to compromise their existing standards.
How could changes in US crypto regulation affect the adoption of stablecoins? Is legislation the main barrier preventing banks and other traditional financial institutions from adopting stablecoins or is it just a minor obstacle?
Legislation is an important factor in stablecoin adoption, particularly for banks and other financial institutions that need clear rules before introducing new services. The GENIUS Act has provided a federal legislative foundation for payment stablecoins, creating a clearer basis for institutions to assess their potential role. However, I believe the larger challenge for widespread adoption will increasingly be operational and commercial.
Financial institutions already operate complex systems for payments, liquidity management and compliance. Integrating stablecoins requires them to determine how settlement, redemption and accounting will function alongside those existing processes. They also need sufficient liquidity and a clear economic justification for introducing new infrastructure. A bank may have the regulatory ability to use stablecoins without having a compelling reason to change its operations. Adoption will therefore depend on whether stablecoins can deliver measurable advantages in cost, settlement efficiency or capital management while meeting the reliability standards institutions already expect.
What are the most efficient use cases for stablecoins, and do they significantly differ from use cases for wider categories of crypto assets?
Stablecoins offer some of their clearest advantages in cross-border payments, business treasury operations and the settlement of tokenized financial assets. These activities often involve multiple institutions, different operating hours and funds that must remain available throughout the settlement process. Stablecoins can reduce the time required to transfer value and potentially improve how businesses manage liquidity, particularly when transactions involve different markets or financial intermediaries.
However, the efficiency of the transfer itself is only part of the equation. Businesses must also consider currency conversion, redemption, compliance and access to local financial systems. The strongest use cases are those where the entire transaction becomes more efficient, not simply the blockchain component. This also explains how stablecoins differ from other crypto assets. Their relatively stable reference value makes them suitable for payments and settlement, while assets such as Bitcoin and tokenized securities serve different investment or financial functions.
What risks should regulators address as stablecoins become more widely used?
I believe the most important priority is making sure that stablecoins remain reliable under different market conditions, particularly during periods of financial stress. As stablecoins become more widely used for payments and settlement, the ability to redeem them at their stated value becomes fundamental to maintaining confidence. This requires appropriate reserve management, sufficient liquidity and clear legal protections for holders.
Regulators must also consider the operational infrastructure supporting stablecoin transactions. Technology failures, weaknesses in custody arrangements and inadequate financial crime controls can create risks even when reserves are properly managed. As adoption grows, the potential effects of large-scale redemptions on traditional financial markets will also require attention. I would favor a proportionate regulatory approach that reflects the activities and risks of different participants. Strong safeguards should support reliable financial services while allowing institutions to develop practical applications within clearly defined requirements.
