From the Desk of AMINA CFO Mike Foy: Five Institutional Takeaways from PREDICT 2026

When people talk about crypto in 2026, the conversation has changed. It’s no longer about experimentation, proof-of-concepts, or whether the technology works. The focus has shifted to infrastructure: how digital assets fit into the financial system, how they scale responsibly, and how they coexist with regulation rather than attempt to outrun it. 

The launch of Bitcoin ETFs was the unmistakable inflection point. We’ve seen significant movement since with more and more large institutions coming to the forefront, publicly announcing their plans to tackle digital assets. These are commitments made in boardrooms and disclosed to shareholders, and not just experimental capital. This momentum is irreversible. 

That was the backdrop at PREDICT 2026: New Financial Fabric – Digital Assets, Smart Infrastructure, Global Resilience. What stood out wasn’t a single prediction or product idea, but a shared recognition that digital assets are increasingly being treated as long-term financial architecture, not speculative instruments. From an institutional perspective, the questions are now practical ones: where are the real bottlenecks, where are the risks being underestimated, and how do you implement this in a way that holds up over time? 

Even as a crypto bank purpose-built for crypto and founded on the premise that digital assets would play a significant role in the global economy, AMINA still navigates challenges around risk frameworks and regulatory compliance as products evolve. For traditional FIs where crypto is being integrated into existing structures, these conversations can become significantly more complex. The institutions that will lead this transition are the ones that can figure out how to embed crypto into the operating model, and not just as a bolt on. Here are the ways in which I see institutions approaching crypto as it enters its next phase of maturity. 

If there is one issue that still isn’t solved, it’s interoperability. We’ve made progress on tokenisation, on stablecoins, and on settlement efficiency. But we’re still operating in a fragmented system. I often compare it to the early days of railroads: different gauges, different tracks, different engines. It was a nightmare and it took a long time before those systems were harmonised. The winner becomes the network with the biggest adoption and the most buy-in from institutional participants. It’s about ease of use, making infrastructure as accessible as possible for adoption at scale.  

Today, the market is caught in a tension. Single-issuer dominance gives you scale, but it concentrates power and balance sheets in ways banks are uncomfortable with. As Fabrizio Burlando (Chief Executive Officer, BANCOMAT) pointed out during the webinar, banks are reluctant to tokenise assets if deposits simply flow off to a small number of stablecoin issuers. On the other hand, a fragmented, multi-issuer landscape avoids that concentration but doesn’t scale. Emerging models address this through common standards where banks can issue while maintaining reserves, but multiple approaches are still being explored. 

The mistake going into 2026 would be to assume that today’s market leaders are permanent. Standards are still being designed. Institutions that help shape them will have structural advantages; those that wait for clarity will end up adopting someone else’s architecture. That’s why neutral, regulated bridging infrastructure matters — rails that sit between issuers and regulated institutions, enabling interoperability without forcing banks to take issuer risk or pick long-term winners before the market has settled. 

Another area I think the market is still underestimating is reserve quality. Stablecoins are often treated as interchangeable unit price instruments, but their risk profiles are very different. You really need to scrutinise what sits in those reserves, because not all reserves are the same. 

Some are backed entirely by sovereign debt , while others include lending exposure and less transparent instruments. On top of that, we don’t really know how much leverage exists in the system overall. Leverage can build through lending or repo-style activity within reserves, through yield-seeking behaviour as rates compress, and through the extensive reuse of stablecoins as collateral across trading and derivatives markets. The challenge is that it is often opaque and only becomes visible under stress.  

At AMINA, we only work with regulated counterparties and maintain an incredibly high bar for any project we are connected with. That due diligence becomes even more critical as the stablecoin landscape expands. 

The takeaway into 2026 is straightforward: don’t assume that stable means safe. Institutions should be reviewing stablecoin reserves with the same discipline they apply to money market funds. Counterparty due diligence needs to look like traditional credit analysis, not crypto-native shorthand. 

In that environment, transparency and regulatory oversight stop being abstract principles and start becoming real advantages. When reserves, flows, and controls are visible and supervised, institutions are better insulated from sudden repricing events. That matters most when risk comes back into the conversation, which it always does. 

Institutional adoption is no longer a question of “if.” It’s happening because clients are demanding it. During the webinar, 44% of attendees said client demand is the primary driver of their digital asset strategy. As Dhiraj Bajaj (Global Head, Financial Institution Sales, Transaction Banking, Standard Chartered) noted, banks are often reacting to client behaviour: if banks don’t support alternative payment and settlement methods, someone else will. 

That creates urgency, but urgency comes with risk. Institutions that rush in without proper infrastructure, compliance frameworks, and counterparty due diligence will run into regulatory and operational issues. At the same time, institutions that wait for perfect regulatory clarity risk losing talent, relevance, and market positioning. 

The real question for 2026 isn’t whether to adopt digital assets, but how to implement them safely. Banks and financial institutions need to map their regulatory approach, identify custody and infrastructure partners that align with their risk standards, and invest in training across teams. The institutions that succeed will be those that focus on regulated implementation like de-risking adoption through governance, licensing, and institutional-grade controls, because for most institutions, getting this wrong even once is not an option. 

Stablecoin innovation is increasingly being driven by macro conditions rather than technology alone. Falling interest rates globally are forcing issuers to rethink models built primarily around reserve yield. That shift is pushing stablecoin providers to focus more on how they transact, how they integrate into payment networks, and how programmability can add value beyond yield. 

Regional variation matters strategically. Stablecoins are going to take hold fastest where legacy payment systems are slowest to adapt, particularly across Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia-Pacific. The stablecoin landscape is likely to fragment and consolidate at the same time. Dominant players face pressure, while niche infrastructure and region-specific solutions emerge.  

The key point for institutions is this: stablecoins should be approached as payment infrastructure, not investment products. The value proposition is shifting toward programmable rails and network effects, and institutions that position themselves around utility, interoperability, and resilience will be better aligned with where the market is heading.

One area that deserves more attention as crypto integrates into financial systems is operational resilience — in particular quantum and cybersecurity risks.  

We’re already seeing projects unravelled by relatively simple vulnerabilities and poorly designed code. At the same time, longer-term threats like quantum computing are approaching faster than many expect. As Atakan Bakiskan (US Economist, Berenberg) observed, regulatory and risk frameworks are still catching up, even as the underlying technology continues to advance at speed. That gap matters, because cryptographic failures can undermine trust far faster than regulation can rebuild it. 

The implication is clear. Cybersecurity investment is non-negotiable, and cryptographic agility needs to be built into systems from the start. Institutions need custody and settlement architectures that can evolve toward quantum-resistant standards without disruption. As crypto integrates more deeply into financial systems, resilience against malevolent actors becomes a core requirement, not a technical afterthought.

Beyond these core themes, the institutional debate continues to evolve. Some participants still see stablecoins primarily as cross-border tools rather than domestic payment instruments. Others point to concentration risk, the absence of scheme-level standards, and the dependence on a narrow set of currencies. Regulatory frameworks outside Europe remain uneven and commercially driven. 

These are important discussions, but they sit at the edges of a broader consensus. What unites most institutional perspectives today is the recognition that adaptation is no longer optional. Banks once had to adapt to fintech disruption; now both banks and fintechs are adapting to digital asset infrastructure. The pace may differ, and the path won’t be linear, but the direction is clear. 

Crypto in 2026 is no longer about proving relevance. It’s about building resilient, regulated, and interoperable infrastructure that can support real economic activity at scale. The institutions shaping this layer today aren’t chasing short-term narratives. They’re laying foundations which are measured in years, governed by trust, and anchored in utility rather than speculation. 

—————————————————————————————————————— 

Disclaimer 

This document has been prepared by AMINA Bank AG (“AMINA”) in Switzerland. AMINA is a Swiss licensed bank and securities dealer with its head office and legal domicile in Switzerland. It is authorized and regulated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (“FINMA”). 

This document is published solely for educational purposes; it is not an advertisement nor a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any financial investment or to participate in any particular investment strategy. This document is for publication only on AMINA website, blog, and AMINA social media accounts as permitted by applicable law. It is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in any locality, state, country or other jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or would subject AMINA to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction. 

Research will initiate, update and cease coverage solely at the discretion of AMINA. This document is based on various sources, incl. AMINA ones, and was generated using artificial intelligence (“AI”). No representation or warranty, either express or implied, is provided in relation to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information contained in this document, except with respect to information concerning AMINA. The information is not intended to be a complete statement or summary of the subjects alluded to in the document, whereas general information, financial investments, markets or developments. AMINA does not undertake to update or keep current information. Any statements contained in this document attributed to a third party represent AMINA’s interpretation of the data, information and/or opinions provided by that third party either publicly or through a subscription service, and such use and interpretation have not been reviewed by the third party. 

Any formulas, equations, or prices stated in this document are for informational or explanatory purposes only and do not represent valuations for individual investments. There is no representation that any transaction can or could have been affected at those formulas, equations, or prices, and any formula(s), equation(s), or price(s) do not necessarily reflect AMINA’s internal books and records or theoretical model-based valuations and may be based on certain assumptions. Different assumptions by AMINA or any other source may yield substantially different results. 

Nothing in this document constitutes a representation that any investment strategy or investment is suitable or appropriate to an investor’s individual circumstances or otherwise constitutes a personal recommendation. Investments involve risks, and investors should exercise prudence and their own judgment in making their investment decisions. Financial investments described in the document may not be eligible for sale in all jurisdictions or to certain categories of investors. Certain services and products are subject to legal restrictions and cannot be offered on an unrestricted basis to certain investors. Recipients are therefore asked to consult the restrictions relating to investments, products or services for further information. Furthermore, recipients may consult their legal/tax advisors should they require any clarifications. 

At any time, investment decisions (including, among others, deposit, buy, sell or hold investments) made by AMINA and its employees may differ from or be contrary to the opinions expressed in AMINA research publications. 

This document may not be reproduced, or copies circulated without prior authority of AMINA. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, AMINA expressly prohibits the distribution and transfer of this document to third parties for any reason. AMINA accepts no liability whatsoever for any claims or lawsuits from any third parties arising from the use or distribution of this document. 

©AMINA, Kolinplatz 15, 6300 Zug