The purpose of Decentralized Finance (DeFi) was to create a universal and open financial system that would provide financial services to anyone, anywhere in the world, without the need for intermediaries. In the early years of DeFi, the DeFi sector was dominated by retail investors, developers, and crypto communities who were experimenting with lending, trading, and yield farming on public blockchains.
However, with the development of DeFi and the interest of traditional financial institutions in DeFi, the infrastructure of DeFi is slowly undergoing new developments. Instead of being a homogeneous system, DeFi is slowly developing new layers that are designed to meet the needs of retail and institutional investors.
This does not mean that the infrastructure of DeFi is splitting into two completely different systems but is instead a process of the gradual development of specialized systems. It is essential to understand the reasons for the development of DeFi infrastructure into retail and institutional systems in order to have a complete understanding of the future of blockchain finance in the traditional financial market.
Understanding DeFi Infrastructure in Context
DeFi infrastructure can be described as the technology and economic infrastructure that serves as the backbone for decentralized financial applications. This includes:
Public blockchains and Layer-2 scaling solutions
Smart contracts and decentralized protocols
Liquidity pools and automated market makers (AMMs)
Lending, borrowing, derivatives, and staking platforms
Oracles, bridges, wallets, and custody solutions
Governance infrastructure and compliance solutions
Tokenized real-world asset (RWA) platforms
During the early days of DeFi, all of the above infrastructure was built with a sole target audience in mind, which was retail crypto enthusiasts. However, with the rise of institutional actors within the DeFi space, it has become increasingly evident that the one-size-fits-all solution is not the most ideal.
Key Drivers for the Development of Retail and Institutional DeFi
1) Different Risk and Compliance Profiles
Retail and institutional users have different risk profiles.
Retail users are expected to:
Tolerate high volatility and protocol risk
Emphasize accessibility and innovation
Participate in experimental financial instruments
Institutions, on the other hand, need:
Compliance with regulations (KYC/AML)
Effective risk management and governance
Legal certainty and accountability
Predictable operational conditions
In this regard, institutions tend to favor managed or semi-permissioned environments over fully open systems. This has led to the development of institutional DeFi solutions in addition to traditional permissionless DeFi systems.
2) Scales and Capital Structure Differences
Retail DeFi is often associated with smaller transaction sizes and high-frequency trading, whereas institutional capital is associated with much larger transaction sizes and longer-term perspectives.
Institutional users require:
High liquidity and low slippage
Stable infrastructure that can support large transactions
Institutional-grade custody and settlement infrastructure
Integration with the existing financial infrastructure
These needs have led DeFi systems to develop specialized infrastructure for large-scale capital.
3) Regulatory and Legal Pressures
Regulatory scrutiny of crypto markets has intensified globally. While retail-focused DeFi platforms often operate in relatively open environments, institutions must adhere to strict legal standards.
This divergence has led to:
Permissioned liquidity pools
Regulated stablecoins and tokenized assets
Compliance-oriented DeFi frameworks
Hybrid models combining public blockchains with private access controls
Initiatives such as Project Guardian, led by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), illustrate this trend. Project Guardian explores the use of DeFi infrastructure for institutional-grade financial markets, including tokenized assets, regulated liquidity pools, and on-chain settlement, while operating within a compliant and supervised environment. These initiatives demonstrate how institutions are engaging with DeFi without fully adopting permissionless models.
Rather than replacing open DeFi, these developments are creating parallel infrastructures aligned with institutional expectations.
4) Technological and Security Expectations
Retail DeFi ecosystems often prioritize rapid innovation and composability, even at the cost of higher technical risk. Institutions, however, require:
Extensive smart contract audits
Formal verification and security guarantees
Insurance mechanisms and risk mitigation tools
Enterprise-grade infrastructure
These contrasting priorities have further accelerated the diversification of DeFi architecture.
Retail DeFi: Features, Opportunities, and Challenges
Retail DeFi is the most active and innovative area of the crypto space. It has remained the main driver of innovation in the blockchain finance sector.
Key Features of Retail DeFi
Open participation without centralized gatekeepers
Community-driven governance and token economics
Fast experimentation with financial primitives
High-yield opportunities and composable protocols
Universal accessibility via public blockchains
Benefits of Retail DeFi
Low entry barriers for users and developers
Fast innovation cycles and rapid product development
Transparency via on-chain activity
Financial inclusion on a global scale
Drawbacks of Retail DeFi
Vulnerability to smart contract bugs and hacks
High market volatility and speculation
Lack of regulatory clarity across jurisdictions
Liquidity fragmentation across multiple chains and protocols
Institutional DeFi: Emerging Models and Strategic Significance
Institutional DeFi refers to blockchain-based financial infrastructure designed to meet the operational, regulatory, and risk requirements of traditional financial institutions.
Rather than being fully decentralized, institutional DeFi often combines elements of blockchain technology with traditional financial controls.
Key Characteristics of Institutional DeFi
Permissioned or semi-permissioned access models
Compliance and identity verification layers
Institutional custody and settlement systems
Tokenization of real-world assets (RWAs)
Integration with traditional financial infrastructure
Advantages of Institutional DeFi
Regulatory alignment and legal clarity
Access to large-scale capital inflows
Enhanced security and operational stability
Potential for efficiency gains in traditional finance
Limitations of Institutional DeFi
Reduced decentralization compared to open DeFi
Slower innovation cycles due to regulatory constraints
Higher barriers to participation
Risk of reintroducing centralized intermediaries