TLDR:
MCIs are entities that perform multiple functions in the cryptoasset ecosystem — such as trading, custody, lending, and exchange — within a single platform, raising unique regulatory and systemic risk concerns.
What Makes MCIs Different
Traditional financial markets segregate functions: brokers execute trades, exchanges match orders, custodians hold assets, and lenders make loans. MCIs combine these functions, creating efficiency but also concentrating risk. The 2022 collapses of FTX, Celsius, and Voyager illustrated how MCI failures can devastate customers when commingled functions create undisclosed risks.
Regulatory Concerns
The Bank for International Settlements and other regulators have identified MCIs as systemic risks requiring enhanced oversight. Key concerns include conflicts of interest between functions, commingling of customer and proprietary assets, inadequate risk management, opaque internal governance, and contagion risk to broader markets. New regulations like MiCA in the EU and proposed US frameworks aim to require separation of certain functions and enhanced disclosures.
Implications for Crypto Businesses
Crypto startups offering multiple services must structure their business carefully to comply with evolving regulations. Best practices include legal separation of entities for distinct functions, segregated customer asset accounts, transparent disclosure of conflicts, robust internal controls, and regular audits. Founders should consult specialized crypto counsel early in product design to avoid structural problems that are difficult to fix later.
References
Why regulators worry about “multifunction” crypto firms
Multifunction cryptoasset intermediaries (MCIs) are firms that combine several services — trading, custody, lending, market-making, even token issuance — inside a single group. International bodies such as the FSB and IOSCO have flagged them as a particular risk because bundling these functions creates conflicts of interest that are separated in traditional finance: the same entity can hold customer assets, trade against them, and lend them out. The collapse of firms that mixed these roles is the cautionary backdrop. The regulatory direction is toward disclosure, governance and the separation or ring-fencing of conflicting functions. For Türkiye, this informs how crypto-asset service providers are licensed and supervised, and why custody and proprietary activity attract particular scrutiny.