April 20, 2026
By Anjali Kochhar
In an exclusive interview with Block Wind News, Tom Menner, an expert in digital assets and formerly Chief Technology Officer at SBI Digital Markets, breaks down institutional adoption, regulatory complexity, and why the digital asset ecosystem is still part experiment, part reality.
Q. Where does institutional adoption of digital assets currently stand—are we still experimenting, or have we entered early-scale deployment?
I’d say we’re in early scale deployment, but with one foot still firmly in experimentation. And the reason I answer it that way is that “digital assets” isn’t one thing. It’s crypto, it’s stablecoins, it’s tokenised assets, it’s NFTs, it’s CBDCs—they all sit under the same umbrella, but institutions look at each of them very differently.
If you look at the past few years, we’ve already gone through cycles. ICOs were huge at one point, then they died out. NFTs had their moment—people were paying absurd amounts—and that faded too. Even the metaverse didn’t really take off the way people expected.
Now we’re seeing interest in stablecoins, tokenisation, things like that. But I’ve been around long enough to say—people in the industry always think, “this is it, we’ve figured it out.” And my view is: we’ll see. At the end of the day, something only sticks if it either attracts real investment or provides clear utility—faster payments, better liquidity, real use cases.
Q. Which digital asset classes are gaining traction right now?
It really depends on who you’re talking about and where they are geographically. There’s no universal answer. From what I’ve seen, stablecoins are getting a lot of attention right now, especially after regulatory clarity in places like the US. There’s growing interest in the idea of yield-bearing stablecoins—if I can hold something and get 2–4% on it, that starts to look like a savings product.
Tokenised real-world assets—like real estate or gold—have had some interest, particularly in regions like Asia or the Middle East, and among high-net-worth individuals. But it hasn’t been massive demand. In developed markets, frankly, traditional systems are already very mature, so it’s hard to convince investors to shift.
We also experimented with things like tokenised revenue streams—movies, music, intellectual property. Interesting idea, but again, not huge traction. And importantly, institutions aren’t really touching those kinds of assets. That’s more of a retail play.
If you ask me what might stick, I’d say stablecoins with yield have a better shot than most things right now.
Q. What are the biggest structural gaps between traditional finance and the digital asset ecosystem?
A big one is infrastructure—both technical and regulatory. Everyone talks about liquidity and seamless movement of assets, but the reality is, we’re not fully there yet.
For example, if you buy something on Ethereum and want to move it to another blockchain like Solana, it’s possible, but it’s not simple. And once you cross borders, it gets even more complicated. You buy an asset in India, try to sell it in Singapore—now you’re dealing with different regulatory treatments, different compliance rules.
Traditional finance already has global rails—SWIFT, for instance. Digital assets are supposed to improve that, but we’re still solving for interoperability, jurisdictional differences, and legal recognition.
So yes, the promise is there. But there are a lot of details that need to be worked out before it becomes seamless.
Q. How do you see digital assets reshaping financial infrastructure over the next decade?
I’ll be honest—I’m a bit of a cynic here. I’ve seen too many cycles of hype. So I tend to say: I’ll believe it when I see it.
At the end of the day, it comes down to value. What is this technology actually doing for investors, institutions, or consumers? If it improves efficiency, reduces fraud, speeds up settlement—great. Then it has a future.
Regulators are still figuring out their stance. Take Singapore—they don’t like crypto as an asset class, they see it as speculative. But they do believe blockchain, tokenisation, CBDCs—those are the future of finance.
So we’re going to see a period of experimentation, some chaos even. Different countries will take different approaches. Institutions will test products. Some will fail. Eventually, we might see some convergence—but we’re not there yet.
Q. Are institutions building for real demand right now, or is this still supply-driven?
It’s a mix.
Some players—like BlackRock with Bitcoin ETFs—clearly did their homework. They understood their audience and built something people wanted. And those products have done well.
But a lot of the market is still experimental. People are building things and hoping they catch on. I’ve seen plenty of products that just didn’t go anywhere because there wasn’t real demand.
There’s also this mindset in the space—“let’s try it and see what happens.” That’s been true since the ICO days, through NFTs, and now into tokenisation and stablecoins.
If something is genuinely new and compelling, it might work. But if it’s just a slightly different version of something that already exists, especially in mature markets, it’s much harder to gain traction.
Q. How are regulatory approaches in Asia shaping the global digital asset ecosystem?
Asia has an interesting advantage—it doesn’t always have the same legacy infrastructure as the West, so it can leapfrog.
I like to compare it to telecom. Instead of laying down expensive infrastructure, many countries went straight to mobile. Digital assets could play a similar role in financial services—payments, capital markets, banking.
There’s also a higher appetite for risk in parts of Asia. Crypto adoption is strong, though often for different reasons than in the West. In the US, it can be philosophical—decentralisation, freedom. In Asia, it’s often more about opportunity—“what’s the next coin I should buy?”
You’re also seeing regional hubs like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai taking the lead in different ways. Each has its own regulatory stance.
And globally, there’s a lot of interest in Asia because of this—because markets are still being built, and there’s room to shape how things evolve.
Q. What is the biggest misconception institutions still hold about digital assets?
I think it comes down to risk.
Traditional finance is built around risk management—they live and breathe it. DeFi, historically, didn’t. It was more about moving fast, building things, not worrying as much about governance or compliance.
As these two worlds come together, that gap becomes very important. Some institutions might be overestimating how mature the DeFi side really is, especially when it comes to risk.
At the same time, there’s also a temptation to chase returns. You see something offering 20% and think, “why not?” But this is a new asset class, a new ecosystem. There are real risks—technical risks, regulatory risks, operational risks.
The smart institutions are thinking carefully about how to use this technology while managing those risks. Others might not be as cautious.
Eventually, I think this all converges. It won’t be “DeFi vs TradFi.” It’ll just be finance. And the parts of digital assets that make sense will get absorbed into the broader system.
