Crypto’s drive for instant, atomic settlement is creating a capital-efficiency problem: trading firms must fund each transaction in full, unable to offset obligations against receivables, which forces unnecessary movement of capital and could limit scaling as volumes rise.
In traditional finance, delayed settlement provides time to batch and net trades before final payment. Clearinghouses reconcile and multilateral net obligations so only net differences are settled. For example, if Alice owes Bob $100 and Bob owes Alice $90, clearing means only $10 needs to move. That compression dramatically reduces the capital required to support high volumes of activity.
Ethan Buchman, founder of Cycles Protocol and co‑founder of Cosmos, criticizes crypto markets as “asset‑brained”: systems focused on moving assets while largely ignoring the liabilities side of balance sheets. “Every movement of assets is in service of discharging a liability,” he said, arguing that instant settlement strips out batching and netting practices that conserve liquidity in TradFi.
Historically, merchants and later centralized clearing organizations evolved to reduce the physical movement of money through multilateral set‑offs. Examples include informal netting at trade fairs evolving into formal clearing and, more recently, experiments in Yugoslavia and Slovenia, where multilateral netting and later software systems (e.g., “TETRIS”) applied liquidity‑saving mechanisms during economic stress, significantly lowering the capital that needed to change hands.
By contrast, most crypto markets finalize each transaction independently onchain. If Alice sends 10 ETH to Bob for one trade and Bob later owes Alice 9 ETH in a separate trade, crypto processes both transfers separately rather than netting them, resulting in 19 ETH of movement instead of a single 1 ETH settlement. Across many trades, that pattern requires participants to continuously pre‑fund positions and hold more capital than would be necessary with netting.
Instant settlement removes some counterparty risk but sacrifices the compression layer that lets TradFi support far greater volumes with less capital. Firms therefore overcollateralize positions on exchanges and lending platforms, tying up assets that could otherwise be deployed. During market stress, the scramble to meet settlement obligations intensifies as liquidity tightens.
Reintroducing clearing in crypto is challenging because traditional clearing relies on central counterparties that absorb default risk and require deep regulatory oversight and trust. Crypto broadly rejected that intermediary model, opting instead for fragmentation: bilateral arrangements and off‑exchange settlement venues provide limited netting within closed networks but do not solve the broader systemic inefficiency.
Buchman and Cycles propose a different primitive: a coordination layer that nets obligations across participants before settlement without acting as a central counterparty or holding custody. The idea is to enable multilateral netting across venues while preserving noncustodial, decentralized properties.
That approach faces obstacles. It requires wide participation and visibility into obligations, which is difficult in a fragmented market where firms operate across multiple venues and are reluctant to expose exposures. Without a central counterparty, default risk isn’t absorbed by a single institution—participants must still manage counterparty exposure. Coordinating netting across independent actors also raises operational complexity, especially during liquidity stress.
Buchman contends cryptographic tools can address some of these issues: participants could post obligations privately onchain, net them in coordination software, and use zero‑knowledge proofs to verify correctness without revealing sensitive details. In this framing, trust in institutions is replaced by trust in protocol design and cryptographic verification.
The trade‑offs are clear: reintroducing compression and liquidity efficiency may require new coordination primitives that change how settlement and credit risk are handled in decentralized markets. Whether the industry adopts multilateral netting mechanisms—centralized, decentralized, or hybrid—will shape crypto’s ability to scale without locking up excessive capital.
Cointelegraph Features publishes long‑form journalism, analysis and narrative reporting produced by Cointelegraph’s in‑house editorial team. Articles are edited and reviewed in line with Cointelegraph’s editorial standards and do not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Content in Features reflects the authors’ research or perspectives and not necessarily Cointelegraph’s views.