Wall Street’s Involvement in Crypto Would Lead to Higher Crypto Adoption, Said 85.84%

Traditional financial institutions like Standard Chartered, Nomura, and Charles Schwab are entering the cryptocurrency trading market, creating or supporting new crypto companies to cater to fund managers.

These established firms believe that despite recent cryptocurrency price crashes and the failure of some crypto companies, there is still demand for crypto trading among institutional investors. The collapses of certain crypto businesses have raised concerns about transparency and regulation in the industry, leading asset managers to seek reassurance about the safety of their investments.

Traditional institutional investors prefer dealing with reputable, regulated counterparts in the crypto space. While newcomers face competition from established crypto exchanges like Binance and Coinbase, they hope to leverage their financial expertise and untarnished reputations to attract institutional customers.

To understand how the public views this news and their opinion on the impact of it on the crypto market, the online survey app Real Research published a survey on Wall Street taking on established crypto companies.

Highlights:

• 39.03% were more inclined to trade cryptocurrencies on crypto exchanges than on traditional financial platforms.
• The crypto companies were seen as a safer place to store assets by 33.43%.
• 50.91% thought Wall Street’s involvement in crypto would be very effective in attracting fund managers.

Wall Street Taking on Established Crypto Companies

2 in 3 were aware that traditional financial institutions like Standard Chartered, Nomura, and Charles Schwab are developing their own digital trading platforms for cryptocurrencies. In detail, 65.39% were familiar with it, and 34.61% weren’t.

The purpose behind Wall Street’s involvement in crypto is that those financial institutions believe fund managers will prefer established names over often opaque and risky cryptocurrency exchanges. Half of the participants thought this strategy was very effective. To break it down, 50.91% thought it was very effective, 41.57% claimed it was somewhat effective, 5.69% suggested it was somewhat ineffective, and only 1.83% thought it was very ineffective.

Which One Will You Choose?

Surprisingly, the participants didn’t favor the established traditional financial institutions when comparing them to the well-known crypto exchanges. 39.03% stated that they will be more inclined to trade cryptocurrencies on crypto exchanges such as Binance and Coinbase than on platforms established by Standard Chartered, for example. 32.91% favored traditional financial institutions, and 28.06% abstained.

The cryptocurrency market promises its users decentralization, security, and transparency. In general, transparency and security are both very crucial in traditional financial institutions as well. In comparing the two, the crypto companies were seen as a safer place to store assets by only a small margin. 33.43% chose the crypto companies, while 33.14% claimed that traditional financial companies would be safer. The rest of the participants didn’t provide a clear answer.

The Impact of Wall Street’s Involvement in Crypto

The involvement of traditional financial institutions in the cryptocurrency market could have a positive impact on the broader adoption and perception of cryptocurrencies, according to 66.58%. On the contrary, 33.42% claimed the opposite and stated that Wall Street’s involvement in crypto could have a negative impact on the crypto market.

As for the traditional financial institutions’ impact regarding wider acceptance and usage of crypto, the opinions varied. Wider acceptance of crypto could be somewhat likely (55.52%), highly likely (30.32%), somewhat unlikely (12.02%), or highly unlikely (2.14%).

Wall Street’s involvement in crypto could be a positive step toward bridging the gap between the old and new financial systems, according to 82.43%. In detail, around 55.02% believe a gap bridge between the two is possible, and 27.41% stated it was definitely possible. Then again, around 15.23% claimed that involvement might not be a positive step in bridging the gap, and 2.34% said involvement is definitely not a positive step.