Regulated Firms Build Crypto Infrastructure Amidst New Rules
The European Union’s MiCA framework is establishing a predictable environment for crypto services. Stablecoins are utilized for payments, settlements, and cross-border operations. Tokenized assets are being tested by banks and asset managers. As a result, banks, brokers, and fintech platforms are planning to launch crypto services, which can include custody, trading, or stablecoin rails. However, these companies operate under strict rules and require infrastructure that meets high standards for uptime, access control, compliance, and reporting. A simple API or SDK is insufficient; a complete infrastructure strategy is necessary. This article outlines how regulated companies can integrate crypto services without increasing their risk.
Why Regulated Companies Are Moving into Crypto
There are several reasons why traditional financial companies are building crypto services now. MiCA provides legal clarity within the EU. Stablecoins like USDC are becoming tools for fast payments. Clients are requesting access to crypto products. Tokenized assets are gaining interest from institutions. The goals differ from those of startups; regulated firms require long-term infrastructure capable of handling audits, reporting, and operations at scale.
Common Entry Points for Crypto Integration
Regulated companies typically begin their crypto journey by focusing on one or two specific services, depending on their market and compliance readiness. One common starting point is custody. Firms offering custody focus on secure wallet infrastructure, enabling users to deposit and withdraw assets safely. This creates a foundation for other services, such as staking or tokenized investments.
Some companies prioritize trading access. These platforms allow users to buy and sell cryptocurrencies while avoiding custody by keeping assets off-chain or locked within internal systems. This limits custody-related risks while still meeting customer demand.
Another growing use case is stablecoin integration. Payment firms and cross-border platforms are utilizing assets like USDC or EURC to provide faster and more cost-effective alternatives to traditional rails like SWIFT or SEPA. Others are entering crypto through tokenized asset offerings, where banks and brokers begin experimenting with digital versions of bonds or private equity instruments. Each approach necessitates a tailored infrastructure stack and a different level of compliance maturity. But all of them depend on having reliable custody, transaction logic, and audit controls from the outset.
Core Infrastructure Requirements
When a regulated company adds crypto to its platform, the infrastructure must meet the same operational and legal standards as any other financial system. Custody systems should be built on secure methods like MPC or HSM, and must include fine-grained control over who can initiate and approve transactions. Access needs to be managed by role, with multi-level approvals and detailed permissions. Logging and audit trails must be available in real time. Every transaction, user action, or system change needs to be tracked and stored securely, with full export capabilities for regulators or internal teams. Uptime is also critical. Crypto services should match the reliability of traditional trading or banking infrastructure, which means deploying redundancy, health checks, and fallback systems to minimize service interruptions.
Beyond the backend, companies also need tools for real-time monitoring. Dashboards that track delays, performance, or anomalies help operations teams respond quickly. And when working with infrastructure vendors, transparency is essential. Regulated companies need visibility into how the platform works, what its performance history looks like, and how it supports ongoing compliance.
Compliance as a Technical Requirement
Many crypto compliance rules are enforced through software. Regulated companies must understand the infrastructure requirements behind these rules.
Travel Rule
When users send crypto to external wallets, the system needs to detect when to apply the Travel Rule. This means adding metadata, identifying the receiving service, and preventing non-compliant transfers.
MiCA Enforcement
MiCA requests clear control over custody, user asset management, and risk policies. These controls must be built into the infrastructure. Manual policies are insufficient.
Regional Requirements
Some regions require local data storage or restrict where wallets can be accessed from. This requires supporting designs and deployments.
At Scalable Solutions, we build compliance into the platform. Features like transaction screening, withdrawal checks, and audit logs are not optional add-ons; they’re part of the standard architecture.
What to Build In-House and What to Use from Vendors
Companies that want to offer crypto services need to decide which parts of the infrastructure they will build themselves and which parts they will source from vendors. In most cases, maintaining control over the user interface, onboarding experience, internal dashboards, and risk/compliance rules specific to their business makes sense.
At the same time, core infrastructure like key custody, blockchain node access, transaction screening, and monitoring tools can be more efficient and secure when provided by specialized vendors. The key is to work with providers who offer transparency, regulatory readiness, and clear service-level commitments. Systems that don’t provide access to logs, lack proper client separation, or operate as black boxes can create serious operational and compliance risks.
When choosing a vendor, companies should avoid platforms that: Don’t share logs or audit data; Use shared infrastructure without strong isolation; Have no proof of regulatory readiness; Can’t meet SLA and uptime requirements.
Lessons from the Field
What Didn’t Work
A European broker launched a crypto service using a basic white-label backend. The system gave internal staff access to wallets without proper role separation. When regulators asked for logs, the company couldn’t provide them. The service was shut down after a few months.
What Worked
A payment platform added USDC payouts using vendor-based custody and compliance modules. They kept control over AML policy logic and used modular infrastructure. The service launched quickly and passed a regulatory audit within six months.
Conclusion
For regulated companies, crypto is no longer out of reach. However, it must be added with the same care as any other financial service. The infrastructure must support controlled key management, transaction screening, role-based access, logging and audit tools, and regional deployment strategies – all in one simply manageable source.
