Integral Weekly Editorial Integrity Sunday November 01, 2026

Monday: Crypto-native infrastructure has a totally different style

There was a time when DeFi looked like a speaking platform for mavericks: a place where crypto-native firms experimented while traditional finance watched from a safe distance, assuming the technology would eventually either mature or disappear. That assumption is now obsolete. DeFi has grown up, acquired scale, bought distribution via acquiring TradFi firms and now has its own style which is totally different to that of conventional finance, as are its leaders.

That was clear in a discussion which I saw on Monday between Cactus Raazi, CEO Americas at B2C2, - yes, that really is his name, and interviewer JD Durkin. Cactus Raazi has an avant-garde persona as well as moniker, he looks and speaks nothing like a TradFi executive, and is very much part of the new age. He said stablecoins and tokenized deposits are pulling banks and payment companies toward crypto-native liquidity providers, while blockchain-based settlement is becoming a serious answer to the cost, delay and operational friction of traditional finance.

The shift is already visible in payments is his perspective. He said that money moving out of the blockchain through stablecoins was a major change, bringing new clients and new categories of demand. Some of the strongest new relationships are now with large banks that need blockchain-based transactional capabilities according to Cactus.

Securities and commodities are next, though the transition remains uneven. Blockchain-based securities are an obvious extension for crypto-native clients, while traditional market structure is only beginning to adapt. But the direction is visible in firms such as Robinhood moving toward blockchain-based transactional and operational formats.

It also reinforces a point Integral CEO Harpal Sandhu made a year ago: stablecoin-based settlement between liquidity providers and counterparties matters because it can reduce the time and cost of settlement. In markets where speed, collateral efficiency and operational certainty determine competitiveness, the case for stablecoin settlements is a market-structure milestone in which slow and expensive banks which have an adverse view of OTC derivatives could be dinosaurs compared to our industry’s

Cactus expects the next stage to be machine-driven. He is reluctant to reach for “AI” as a catch-all, but his underlying point is sound: as automation increases and machines take on greater responsibility, blockchain-based infrastructure becomes a natural deployment layer. Payments are already showing it. Commerce, settlement and post-trade processes are likely to follow.

Tuesday: The weekend is no longer a trading boundary

Revolut and Robinhood are no longer just consumer-finance brands. Revolut has hired a former TTFX (XM) executive and opened an office in Cyprus; Robinhood has launched its own trading platform. If anyone still doubts that they are aiming at the FX industry, the evidence is now hard to ignore.

Trading hours are now being discussed by these big hitters. The old FX convention of closing for the weekend is ending, with many brokers offering 24/7 trading driven by crypto markets. But a broker cannot make that decision credibly without a back-end engine capable of delivering spot crypto and competing with crypto natives and neobanks.

Revolut CEO Nik Storonsky argues that the US and Europe cannot compete with China’s 9-to-9, six-day working culture. The evidence is less convincing. China works about 35% more hours per worker than the US, yet produces only around a fifth of US output per hour. A Stanford study found output at 70 hours barely differs from output at 56, while the WHO links 55-plus-hour weeks to 745,000 deaths in a single year.

Even China is moving away from the model. Its Supreme People’s Court declared the 9-to-9, six-day schedule invalid in 2021, and average working hours fell last year for the first time in nine years.

For brokers, the lesson is not that people should work longer. It is that systems should. Automated trading, user-developed strategies and third-party tools can operate continuously but only if the broker has a comprehensive back end capable of connecting user-developed front ends, automated tools and round-the-clock liquidity.

The firms that win will not be those asking staff to work 72-hour weeks. They will be those whose infrastructure can work while everyone else is asleep.

Wednesday: Toshihiro Mibe’s admission is not just about cars…

I reflected this week on Honda CEO Toshihiro Mibe who a few months ago said that Honda has “no chance” against Chinese automakers after touring a highly automated EV supplier factory in Shanghai. His concern was not simply cost. It was speed: Chinese manufacturers can take a vehicle from concept to production in 18 to 24 months, roughly half the six to seven years required by legacy automakers such as Honda.

What has car manufacturing got to do with electronic trading, you may wonder. The same revolution is now confronting electronic trading.

A conversation with an experienced liquidity manager at an FX broker made the parallel clear. He argued that the old tug of war between brokers and banks is becoming obsolete: brokers are expected to send order flow to banks, while banks remain wary of counterparty risk, rely on long settlement cycles, and apply spreads and charges that are ultimately passed on to the taker through custodian banks. “Why should we be beholden to big legacy corporations that dont like our business?” he asked me.

The traditional interbank FX model was built for a slower market. It is poorly suited to an industry where neobanks, crypto-native firms and vertically integrated brokers can launch products, connect liquidity and adapt their client experience far faster than traditional participants.

Toshihiro Mibe’s alarm was not only about Chinese automakers’ speed. It was about automation, efficiency and deeply integrated local supply chains. During his visit to Shanghai he saw factories with fewer people, better integration and shorter development cycles. Electronic trading faces the same challenge. It’s no good just having a big sales team. It is now about agile infrastructure: a core back end that allows brokers to develop products quickly, connect third-party tools, deploy their own interfaces and respond to client demand without rebuilding the business each time.

The competitive question is no longer whether a broker can offer FX, crypto, equities or CFDs. It is how quickly it can connect new markets, new liquidity, new front ends and new automated workflows.

Legacy automakers are discovering that a six-year development cycle is causing them to lag and lose customers. Brokers relying on rigid legacy stacks, slow bank settlement and inflexible distribution arrangements may be facing the same reckoning.

Thursday: TradingView tightens its grip

On Thursday I noted that TradingView will as of next week allow indicator scripts to be sold only through its own marketplace. Vendors who continue taking payment elsewhere risk having their scripts blocked.

It is a significant move because TradingView has become a default part of the modern trader’s workflow. For many, it is the go-to charting environment; for a growing number, it is also a place to execute actual trades. Brokers with flexible back-end platforms have been quick to integrate TradingView through APIs, allowing clients to execute directly from its interface.

That makes TradingView’s new policy more than a marketplace rule. It gives the platform greater control over a valuable layer of the trading experience: the indicators, tools and third-party scripts traders use to make decisions.

For brokers, the implication is clear. If TradingView restricts how independent script vendors monetise and distribute their work, brokers may need to offer more third-party tools through their own platforms. That requires a front end that is genuinely flexible, one that can integrate independent indicators, custom tools and third-party applications rather than locking clients into a closed ecosystem.

TradingView integrations are only available to brokers with real control over their front end product range. The same principle now applies to independent indicators: brokers that own their interface and back end can decide how to offer them; those dependent on a single vendor’s front end will have to accept that vendor’s rules.

In trading technology, control of the client experience is becoming as important as control of liquidity, execution or risk. Platforms that own the chart, the workflow and the marketplace are increasingly able to set the terms for everyone else.

Friday: Perps are going mainstream. Keep up or get FOMO

Crypto.com’s launch of cryptocurrency perpetual contracts with 5% leverage for eligible US retail traders this week is another sign that perps have moved from their crypto-native origins toward being a mainstream retail product. Kraken paved the way earlier this year with its CFTC-regulated perpetuals offering in North America.

Perps are no longer a niche product that can be left to specialist crypto platforms. They are becoming part of the competitive area for retail trading flow.

That was clear in my conversation today with a Dubai-based DEX start-up, whose board wanted its sales team to target traders currently using traditional brokers and move them onto perps. The ambition was not merely to add another instrument, but to try to take market share from established FX and CFD firms by offering a product they may not yet be able to deliver. If this is the intention of a small startup, imagine what big firms like Kraken and Crypto.com can do to potential retail clients of trad electronic trading firms with these new perps product ranges.

For brokers, the opportunity is to meet that challenge rather than concede it. Being able to offer FX, crypto and perpetuals through one vendor is increasingly a commercial advantage. Integral Digital, for example, provides API access to perps through OKX, Binance, ByBit, KuCoin and Gate.io, allowing firms with their own front end or the ability to connect third-party front ends to offer all three asset classes in one place, and from an LP / institutional angle perspective, it is easier to offer liquidity from one technology, rather than take multiple and try to normalise distribution.

The question for brokers is whether they will offer them perps on their own terms or watch crypto-native firms take their clients instead.