a16z crypto general partner, Arianna Simpson, has shared concerns about companies rushing to enter the trading business, warning that they might be affecting the industry’s chances at growth. Successful companies are increasingly expanding into the trading industry, but a16z crypto executives believe that trading should be an avenue to make profit and not the whole business Why is more trading platforms a concern? Venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz’s crypto division has warned blockchain entrepreneurs that their rush toward trading platforms may be affecting the industry’s potential for innovation and sustainable growth. In a guidance published for crypto builders in 2026, a16z crypto executives said that trading offerings should be a means to increase revenue, but not a final business model. a16z’s crypto partner, Arianna Simpson, pointed out that nearly every successful crypto company outside of stablecoins and core infrastructure has either already started offering or is planning to offer trading services. With companies all implementing identical strategies, only a handful of dominant companies can flourish in the industry. Simpson said it’s similar to a “marshmallow test” for founders. Individuals who resist the temptation of immediately providing products according to the market could build more valuable companies in the long run. She stressed that while trading serves an important market function, companies should focus on the “product” part of product-market fit rather than treating trading as their final destination. Miles Jennings, a member of a16z crypto’s policy team, identified that legal uncertainty has been one of the biggest barriers to building blockchain networks in the United States over the past decade. The country’s securities laws have been stretched and enforced in ways that force founders into regulatory systems designed for traditional companies rather than decentralized networks. Jennings said the lack of clear regulations has led to industry distortions. For instance, product strategy was replaced by risk mitigation, and engineers took a backseat to lawyers. Founders were advised to avoid transparency, token distributions became legally arbitrary, governance structures became performative, and organizational designs prioritized legal protection over functionality. Most problematically, tokens were designed to avoid economic value and lacked scalable business models. Meanwhile, projects that ignored regulatory concerns often outperformed those building in good faith. Will regulatory clarity enable better blockchain networks? The anticipated regulatory framework would allow blockchain networks to operate transparently with clear compliance guidelines instead of having to change their structures to avoid legal risk. Good-faith builders who have prioritized compliance and sustainable models can compete on more level ground once regulatory standards apply uniformly across the industry. The crypto industry entered 2026 with significant momentum from Bitcoin’s performance and growing institutional adoption, but the concentration of successful business models around trading platforms suggests that the industry may be converging much earlier than expected. Goldman Sachs released a report identifying regulatory reform as the biggest catalyst for institutional crypto adoption in 2026. They noted that crypto infrastructure firms could benefit from ecosystem growth while facing less exposure to trading cycles. The bank’s survey data shows that 35% of institutions have identified regulatory uncertainty as the biggest hurdle to adoption, while 32% see regulatory clarity as the top catalyst. Join a premium crypto trading community free for 30 days - normally $100/mo.
