Different Speeds, Different Mandates: Talos’ Samar Sen on How Institutions Approach Digital Assets

Institutional engagement with digital assets is no longer a uniform story. In recent years, major financial institutions have taken markedly different approaches to blockchain-based markets. Some have focused on tokenization, putting traditional instruments into programmable form. Banks, meanwhile, have explored tokenized deposit models and internal settlement rails as well as issuing their own digital assets like stablecoins.

Amid the growing wave of institutional capital entering digital assets, the more revealing question is not who participates, but how participation is governed inside the institution. Regulatory requirements, operational standards, and internal conviction often determine whether a strategy moves forward or stalls.

Speaking exclusively with BeInCrypto at Liquidity Summit 2026 in Hong Kong, Samar Sen, Head of International Markets at Talos, shared how those internal dynamics play out when institutions evaluate digital asset opportunities.

Adoption Requires More Than Rules

According to Sen, regulatory clarity remains the most decisive factor in institutional participation. He noted that progress across jurisdictions has helped reduce uncertainty, but clear rules remain essential for large-scale adoption.

“We’ve seen a lot of advancements in regulation all over the world,” Sen acknowledged.

While once the dominant concern, infrastructure has matured significantly. Institutional-grade custody, execution platforms, and portfolio management systems now operate across major markets, addressing many of the operational gaps that previously slowed adoption.

Yet even where regulatory frameworks have advanced and infrastructure is in place, in many institutions, the remaining hurdle is internal.

“There may be management that is still evaluating the underlying tech or still need some time to understand the potential of the tech to revolutionize finance,” he said.

That hesitation often reflects unfamiliarity rather than outright resistance, he added. For institutions built on decades of precedent, conviction takes time. As a result, digital asset initiatives can stall even when the external conditions appear favorable.

The Compliance Checklist Behind Institutional Trust

When asked what signals actually build trust for institutions evaluating crypto counterparties, Sen pushed back on the idea that visibility alone carries weight. While he acknowledged that industry gatherings and brand presence may help with awareness, institutional trust is earned differently.

“Typically, what builds trust will be, first of all, licensed or regulated entities within their jurisdictions,” Sen said.

He also added that institutions look for demonstrable internal controls, such as SOC 2 Type II certifications, audit trails, and operational safeguards. Track record also matters, particularly if leadership has experience in traditional finance and has built a reputation for delivering under regulatory scrutiny.

Peer adoption plays a role as well. Institutions often look outward, assessing who else is using the same infrastructure, and how widely it has been adopted across the industry. 

“If you’re a big bank, and you go to talk to a vendor to provide you with technology, if that vendor is providing that technology to some of your peers and competitors, that’s another way that can establish some kind of trust,” he explained.

Not All Institutions Move at the Same Speed

Although regulatory clarity and operational safeguards form the foundation, institutions are not entering digital assets uniformly. Sen described three distinct profiles emerging in the market.

Some organizations act as early movers. These firms understand the structural shift underway in capital markets and are willing to commit resources ahead of full certainty. They tend to invest in building internal digital asset teams and engage proactively with new infrastructure providers.

Others take a more measured approach. These fast followers prefer to wait for clearer regulatory direction or proof of concept before scaling exposure. Their risk appetite is lower, and they often rely on external validation before committing capital.

Then there are institutions that remain behind the curve. In some cases, leadership has yet to develop conviction around the underlying technology. In others, digital asset initiatives exist but lack internal coordination, resulting in fragmented or misaligned strategies.

Sen noted that institutions should not be expected to move in lockstep. He added that different risk tolerances and internal mandates shape the pace of adoption.

“And that’s okay because with digital assets and the underlying technology, there are many entry points to participate in  the asset class, to get comfortable with the new providers and ecosystem participants. We are here to help navigate that,” he stated.