Not All Crypto Yield Is Created Equal

Opinion by: James Harris, group CEO of Tesseract

In an environment of tightening margins and heightened competition, yield is no longer optional. It has become a necessity.

This gold rush mentality obscures a critical truth defining the industry’s future: Not all yield is created equal. The market’s obsession with headline returns sets up institutions for catastrophic losses. 

On the surface, the industry is brimming with opportunity. Protocols advertise double-digit returns. Centralized platforms tout simple “yield” products. Marketplaces promise instant access to borrowers.

These disclosures are not nice-to-have nuances for serious institutions, but table stakes that mark the line between fiduciary responsibility and unacceptable exposure.

MiCA exposes the industry’s regulatory gap

Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework has introduced a structural shift. For the first time, digital asset firms can obtain authorization to provide portfolio management and yield services, including decentralized finance strategies, across the EU’s single market.

This regulatory clarity matters because MiCA is more than a compliance box to tick; it represents the minimum threshold that institutions will demand. Yet the vast majority of yield providers in the crypto space operate without oversight, leaving institutions exposed to regulatory gaps that could prove costly.

The hidden costs of “set it and forget it”

The fundamental problem with most crypto yield products lies in their approach to risk management. Most self-serve platforms push critical decisions onto clients who often lack the expertise to evaluate what they are truly exposed to. These platforms expect treasuries and investors to choose which counterparties to lend to, which pools to enter or which strategies to trust — a tall order when boards, risk committees and regulators demand clear answers to basic questions about asset custody, counterparty exposure and risk management.

This model creates a dangerous illusion of simplicity. Behind user-friendly interfaces and attractive annual percentage yield (APY) displays lie complex webs of smart contract risk, counterparty credit exposure and liquidity constraints that most institutions cannot adequately assess. The result is that many institutions unknowingly take on exposures that would be unacceptable under traditional risk frameworks.

The alternative approach of comprehensive risk management, counterparty vetting and institutional-grade reporting requires significant operational infrastructure that most yield providers simply do not possess. This gap between market demand and operational capability explains why many crypto yield products fail to meet institutional standards despite aggressive marketing claims.

The APY illusion

One of the most dangerous misconceptions is that a higher advertised APY automatically indicates a superior product. Many providers lean into this dynamic, promoting double-digit returns that appear superior to more conservative alternatives. These headline numbers almost always conceal hidden layers of risk.

Related: Bringing Asia’s institutional yields to the onchain world 

Behind attractive rates often sit exposures to unproven decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols, smart contracts that have not weathered market stress, token-based incentives that can vanish overnight and significant embedded leverage. These are not abstract risks; they represent the very factors that led to substantial losses in previous market cycles. Such undisclosed risks are unacceptable for institutions accountable to boards, regulators and shareholders.

The market implications of this APY-focused approach are becoming increasingly apparent. As institutional adoption accelerates, the gap between yield products prioritizing marketing appeal and those built on sustainable risk management will widen dramatically. Institutions that chase headline yields without understanding underlying exposures may find themselves explaining significant losses to stakeholders who assumed they were investing in conservative income products.

A framework for institutional yield

The phrase “not all yield is created equal” should become how institutions evaluate digital asset income opportunities. Yield without transparency amounts to speculation. Yield without regulation represents unmitigated risk exposure. Yield without proper risk management becomes a liability rather than an asset.

Accurate institutional-grade yield requires a combination of regulatory compliance, operational transparency and sophisticated risk management — capabilities that remain scarce.

The crypto yield space is experiencing this transition now, accelerated by frameworks like MiCA that provide clear standards for institutional-grade services.

The regulatory reckoning

As MiCA takes effect across Europe, the crypto yield industry faces a regulatory reckoning that will separate compliant providers from those operating in regulatory gray areas. European institutions will increasingly demand services that meet these new standards, creating market pressure for proper licensing, transparent risk disclosure and institutional-grade operational practices.

This regulatory clarity will likely accelerate consolidation in the yield space, as providers without proper infrastructure struggle to meet institutional requirements. The winners will be those who invested early in compliance, risk management and operational transparency — not those who focused primarily on attractive APY marketing.

The natural evolution

Digital assets are entering a new phase of institutional adoption. Yield generation must evolve accordingly. The choice facing institutions is no longer between high and low APY but between providers delivering sustainable, compliant yield and those prioritizing marketing over substance.

This evolution toward institutional standards in crypto yield is inevitable and necessary. As the space matures, surviving providers will understand that in a world of sophisticated institutional investors, not all yield is created equal, and neither are the providers who generate it.

Demand for yield will continue growing as crypto integrates deeper into institutional portfolios. The future belongs to a specific type of provider. Those delivering yield that is attractive, defensible, compliant and built on transparent risk management principles. The market is separating along these lines. The implications will reshape the entire crypto yield landscape.

Opinion by: James Harris, group CEO of Tesseract.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.