Crypto’s push for instant, atomic settlement is creating a capital-efficiency drag: each onchain transfer must be fully funded, so trading firms cannot offset payables against receivables and must move and lock up more capital than necessary. That behavior can limit scaling as volumes increase because liquidity that could be reused is tied up to satisfy every individual claim.
In traditional finance, delayed settlement, clearinghouses and multilateral netting compress gross obligations before final payment. Clearing organizations reconcile trades and settle only net differences — if Alice owes Bob $100 and Bob owes Alice $90, only $10 changes hands. That compression dramatically reduces the capital required to support high transaction volumes.
Ethan Buchman, founder of Cycles Protocol and co‑founder of Cosmos, calls many crypto systems “asset‑brained”: they focus on moving assets while largely ignoring the liabilities side of balance sheets. “Every movement of assets is in service of discharging a liability,” he says, and instant settlement strips out batching and netting practices that TradFi uses to conserve liquidity.
Historically, market participants found ways to avoid needless movement of money — from informal netting at trade fairs to formal clearinghouses — lowering the capital that had to physically change hands. Even in 20th-century experiments in places like Yugoslavia and Slovenia, multilateral netting and software systems (for example, programs called “TETRIS”) were used to compress obligations during stress and reduce liquidity needs.
By contrast, most crypto markets finalize each trade independently onchain. If Alice sends 10 ETH to Bob for one trade and Bob later owes Alice 9 ETH in another, crypto processes both transfers separately, producing 19 ETH of movement rather than a single 1 ETH net settlement. Repeated across many counterparties and venues, that pattern forces continuous prefunding and substantial overcollateralization on exchanges and lending platforms. During market stress, the scramble to meet settlement obligations intensifies as liquidity tightens.
Reintroducing a compression layer in crypto is hard because traditional clearing depends on central counterparties that absorb default risk and operate under heavy regulation and trust — a model crypto largely rejected. Instead the market is fragmented: bilateral arrangements and closed‑network settlement reduce frictions inside small groups but don’t solve systemwide inefficiency.
Buchman and Cycles propose a different primitive: a coordination layer that nets obligations across participants before settlement without acting as a custodian or central counterparty. The goal is multilateral netting across venues while preserving noncustodial, decentralized properties.
That design faces real obstacles. It needs broad participation and visibility into obligations, which is difficult when firms operate across many venues and are reluctant to expose exposures. Without a central counterparty, default risk isn’t absorbed by one institution, so participants still manage counterparty exposure, and coordinating netting across independent actors adds operational complexity — especially under liquidity stress.
Cryptographic tools could mitigate some issues: parties might post obligations privately onchain, perform coordinated netting offchain, and use zero‑knowledge proofs to verify correctness without revealing sensitive details. This replaces institutional trust with protocol and cryptographic assurances, but adoption, interoperability and incentives remain open questions.
Bringing compression back to crypto requires new coordination primitives and trade-offs about how settlement and credit risk are handled. Whether the industry adopts centralized, decentralized or hybrid multilateral netting will shape crypto’s ability to scale without locking up excessive capital.
Cointelegraph Features produces long‑form journalism and analysis by its editorial team. Articles follow Cointelegraph’s editorial standards and do not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Content reflects the authors’ research and perspectives, not necessarily Cointelegraph’s views.