The maturing crypto market is witnessing two parallel shifts: traditional forex brokers are moving beyond third-party payment gateways to own their wallet infrastructure, while proprietary trading firms are rising as a new capital-access layer for crypto traders. These trends, captured in separate analyses, underline how digital assets are reshaping operational and trading models across the industry.
In a detailed Q&A, Shawn Yan, founder of wallet-infrastructure provider Cregis, described why FX brokers are now prioritizing control over digital asset flows. Stablecoin deposits and withdrawals have become a baseline client expectation, especially in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. Initially, brokers plug into payment gateways, which work well at low volumes. However, as transaction volumes grow, three pain points emerge: escalating percentage-based costs, loss of control over client funds held by third parties, and slower withdrawal speeds compared to crypto-native platforms.
The solution is a shift to owned wallet infrastructure. Yan noted that owning infrastructure is not the same as controlling it; what matters is control over assets, governance, and compliance. Cregis, with its MPC wallets and payment engines, has helped brokers like ATFX make this transition. In the ATFX case, large-value inflows now route directly into the broker’s own environment, improving capital control and enabling role-based approval workflows. Yan emphasized that such a migration is operationally heavy, requiring address management, reconciliation, and AML monitoring, but it ultimately reduces costs, speeds up settlements to near-instant, and enhances reputation by avoiding reliance on pooled PSP arrangements.
Simultaneously, a sponsored analysis highlights how proprietary trading firms have entered the toolkit of sophisticated crypto traders. With evaluation fees replacing the need for large personal capital, traders can access firm capital and keep a majority share of profits, provided they adhere to drawdown rules rather than face exchange-style liquidations. The article stresses that evaluating prop firms requires the same rigor as assessing exchanges: payout track record, rule stability, instrument depth, and scaling plans are key. Currently, most firms offer only BTC and ETH as CFDs, lacking native perpetual funding rates, so strategies may not transfer directly. Nonetheless, the model appeals to capital-constrained traders seeking risk-managed access to larger positions.
Neither development moves coin prices directly, but both reflect a deepening infrastructure that could support broader institutional participation over time.
