Institutional Crypto Trading Is Quietly Rewiring Around Stablecoin Settlement and Cross-Venue Routing

The infrastructure shift happening in crypto markets right now has less to do with price action and more to do with how institutions move liquidity. The Caladan and Finery Markets connection is a signal of that deeper change—one where stablecoins have become the settlement backbone and single-venue order books are becoming yesterday’s plumbing.

The data tells a connectivity story, not just a volume story

Start with the numbers. Finery Markets reported a 112.6 percent year-over-year jump in OTC spot volume during H1 2025, backed by 4.1 million institutional trades and a 57.6 percent increase in executed deals. Those figures matter, but the composition matters more. Stablecoins now account for 74.6 percent of all OTC transactions, and USDC alone saw turnover rise 29 times year over year. Crypto-to-stablecoin flows surged 277.4 percent, far outpacing the 48.5 percent growth in crypto-to-fiat lanes.

What’s happening? Institutions are treating stablecoins as the default settlement vehicle, which means they’re rewiring how they route orders and manage execution. That shift creates immediate pressure to connect across multiple venues instead of relying on a single exchange’s order book.

Why networks beat single venues for institutional execution

An ECN—electronic communication network—sits between traditional finance infrastructure and crypto-native architecture. Caladan processes over $170 billion in annual transactions across 1,000-plus assets. Finery Markets connects clients in 35-plus countries using a hybrid model that combines order book liquidity with RFQ (request for quote) and quote stream functionality. Both operate on a non-custodial basis, meaning participants maintain their own custody arrangements while the network routes execution signals.

For a large institutional desk, the practical payoff is immediate. Instead of checking prices at one venue and executing there, traders can broadcast a request to multiple market makers, compare firm quote responses in real time, and hit the best executable price that matches their compliance rules. During fast markets, that reduces uncertainty because Finery’s pricing is firm and uses no last look—no surprise rejections at execution time.

The integration also creates an audit trail. When you route orders across venues, you generate a timestamped record showing quote times, response times, and fill details at each endpoint. That matters enormously for best-execution reporting and cost analysis, especially when regulatory changes or market stress shift liquidity between venue clusters.

The policy and operational drivers

Europe’s MiCA regulation forced exchanges to delist non-compliant stablecoins, but it also created a clear on-ramp for approved alternatives. That policy environment, combined with the 74.6 percent stablecoin share in OTC, means compliance teams are no longer asking “should we use stablecoins for settlement?” They’re asking “which stablecoins and which venues support them?”

That question naturally leads to networked routing. A desk holding USDC on multiple exchanges needs a way to see prices across those venues simultaneously and route to the best execution. Caladan’s multi-venue price distribution and Finery’s ECN model both solve that problem. The non-custodial design also appeals to compliance teams because it preserves custody separation without forcing wallet or custodian redesigns.

The data also shows altcoins are gaining institutional footprint. While majors still dominate, SOL, LTC, XRP, TRX, and ADA represented 16.7 percent of combined OTC volumes. For a market maker, that breadth means you need consistent quote coverage across different venue clusters, which reinforces the case for multi-venue networks.

What improves and what stays risky

For brokers and market makers, a networked crypto trade signals system delivers three things: better price discovery, cleaner execution measurement, and faster inventory rotation when stablecoin settlement cycles outpace fiat cycles.

For end clients, the benefit goes beyond top-of-book pricing. It’s about operational control. An integrated workflow lets a desk compare execution quality across venues and verify that internal best-execution rules were followed. That’s material for cost reporting and for adjusting strategy when policy or market events shift where liquidity clusters form.

But risks remain. A non-custodial ECN doesn’t eliminate counterparty or settlement risk—it redistributes it. Participants still establish bilateral trading and settlement agreements, and the platform (Finery) is explicitly not a party to those contracts. That design choice preserves flexibility but requires rigorous onboarding and credit vetting.

Stablecoin concentration introduces another class of risk. If a stablecoin issuer or banking partner faces pressure, routing helps you see prices during stress but it won’t guarantee redemption outcomes. A secondary market with sufficient depth can buffer a minor depeg, but regulatory shocks or issuer insolvency could outrun that protection.

The execution claims also need real-world verification. Firm pricing and no-last-look policies improve price certainty in theory, but the proof is in fill ratios and response times during high-volatility windows. Institutions should demand those metrics from any ECN or routing provider they evaluate in 2025.

The market structure lesson

This integration reflects a broader market microstructure evolution. Stablecoin rails are now the default for institutional settlement, and cross-venue routing is becoming table stakes. An ECN connection is the logical response to that shift, not a luxury feature.

The real test will be whether institutions can measure and verify execution quality across the network. Price certainty during fast markets, measurable best execution across venues, and reduced operational friction in settlement are the metrics that matter. If those improve while stablecoin adoption stays elevated, the market will continue shifting toward networked routing and away from single-venue dependence.

If depeg events or policy shocks push settlement failure rates higher, routing alone won’t solve the problem—firms will need ECNs, OEMS platforms, and custodians to coordinate risk more tightly. For now, the integration signals that crypto markets are adopting the plumbing that traditional finance has used for decades, adapted for a stablecoin-first world.