Liquidity 2026 (LTP Summit) was an event where infrastructure came first. The focus was on how digital assets and tokenized products can fit with traditional markets. The main theme was about what institutional players really need: clear frameworks for risk and collateral, secure ownership, strong custody and settlement, as well as trading mechanisms that work even under stress, especially in a market that never closes.
An event for the history books
Liquidity 2026 (LTP Summit) was largely about infrastructure.
Focused discussions, panels with experts, and small group conversations showed how digital assets and tokenized products can work together with traditional markets.
The theme was clearly held throughout: “Building bridges between digital assets and traditional finance – creating the next generation multi-asset infrastructure.”
The fourth edition took place on February 9, 2026, at JW Marriott in Hong Kong. The event gathered institutions and those building market structures. The organizers wanted many institutional visitors (over 1,000 on-site, over 400 institutions) and set up a program about market trends, regulations, and practical issues.
During the event, we also saw:
Institutional discussions about the strength of settlement systems and how exchanges behave under stress;
Debates about whether today's infrastructure meets the demands for interoperability, custody, and risk management.
Moreover, the community's wishes and needs were given space as the infrastructure grows.
Adrian Tan, Binance APAC Head of VIP and Institutional, said this:
“It’s all about user demand. If there is demand, then you develop the product. You shouldn’t try to sell something no one wants.”
So, how was the demand at LTP Summit this year?
Demand leads to more digital and tokenized assets being included in institutional multi-asset solutions with clear risk limits, smooth trading, reliable settlement, and secure custody.
Therefore, Liquidity 2026 was much about how liquidity is created, priced, and how risk is managed on different platforms. The program highlighted this with sessions like “Trading is about to converge – how institutional liquidity is connected, priced, and risk-managed,” discussions about capital flows, and the desire to create products for institutions.
If more assets are to function as balance sheet tools (staked assets, stablecoins, RWAs, tokenized credit), then the market must understand how they behave under stress, how they connect to financing, and where there is still friction.
Liquidity 2026 addressed this in panel 7: “Crypto after the hype – what remains, what has left, what happens next.”
The conference therefore provided a clear picture of what real adoption requires.
Risk frameworks: Collateral, Ownership, and Where Deals Fail
Topics like “Everything can become collateral: staked assets, RWAs, stablecoins, and tokenized credit” forced panelists to respond to which assets are allowed and which are dangerous.
We saw that institutions are not looking for new blockbuster sellers. They want to build repeatable ways to evaluate many types of assets, even as markets change. This means that one must take assets on-chain and break them down into clear risks.
Emmanuelle Pecenicic from Fidelity International explained the list like this:
“We see four main risks: risk around ownership, operational risk when moving capital and tokens on-chain, custody risk, and liquidity risk.”
The troubling thing is that these risks are not as visible. Ownership may be clear, but liquidity is thin. Liquidity may look good until the custody conditions are tested under stress. Operational pathways generally work, but may cease to function just when the market is shaky and everyone wants safety at the same time.
“Everything can become collateral” only works when the foundation holds, especially under stress and outside regular market hours.
Pecenicic gave an example:
“In a fund environment, you have digital twins (someone else creates a copy of your product) and the end investor cannot demand direct ownership of the real asset. Therefore, such digital twins cannot be used as collateral.”
BitMEX's CEO, Stephan Lutz, explained another limitation:
“Founders often focus on the business model and whether there is something to offer. But they miss that most institutions manage other people's money, so they have a fiduciary responsibility. They need to balance business benefits with building trust that the money won't disappear.”
During the discussions at Liquidity 2026, trust was broken down into measurable parts: clear ownership, operational controls (approvals, access, monitoring, limits), custody arrangements, and liquidity that has been stress-tested.
How the exchange works, auto-deleveraging, and the reality of liquidation around the clock
The event emphasized the idea that trading now occurs on both digital and traditional marketplaces. It is about how liquidity is linked, priced, and how risks are managed. Institutions do not view trading venues the way retail traders do. Retail traders care most about price, fees, and ease of trading. Institutions are more interested in how trading venues operate during chaos: how to manage volatility, how liquidations occur, and whether the risk engine can suddenly impact results.
Here, Ian Weisberger, CEO of CoinRoutes, raised an important point about automatic deleveraging:
”I think the big problem is actually the automatic deleveraging that occurs on some crypto exchanges. If you look at October 10, when many companies may have been forced to leave the market, and even in the recent days, you see that people are losing their positions.”
He continued:
”If you are a TradFi executive, you are used to getting a call – a margin call – then they call you and you have to post more collateral. But in crypto, this can happen at 2 AM and then you lose your position.”
”You really need a system, like CoinRoutes, that can tell you when your leverage is automatically being reduced and how close you are to losing your position with all counterparties.”
The more portfolios contain both digital, tokenized, and traditional instruments, the less one accepts trading venues that can close positions at different times. This is especially true when collateral requirements and capital efficiency are important for institutions.
What is still holding back institutions and what is changing
But it is not always an easy road ahead. At the summit, the focus returned to what institutions become interested in as they move beyond curiosity. They focus on risk management, compliance procedures, policy development, and regulations that determine how tokenized and digital assets can be used at scale.
Ian Loh, CEO of Ceffus, explained why:
”In leading jurisdictions, infrastructure has grown rapidly when there are clear regulations. When the rules are clear, the infrastructure usually follows.”
He added:
”Compliance comes first. When an institution adheres to the rules, it shows that it meets standards and governance requirements. Then you know that the infrastructure also lives up to institutional demands.”
Therefore, there was a strong focus on regulations and compliance during the event. This was evident both in language and in regulations: who could participate depending on jurisdiction, clear disclaimers of liability, and reminders that the speakers were expressing their own opinions, not those of the organizers.
It also shows how institutional usage will develop, with controlled access and clear boundaries around what is said and offered.
In an interview with BeInCrypto, Warren Burke, co-founder of NXMarket, answered: What concerns institutions about crypto that the industry underestimates?
”Cybersecurity, but I see this changing with RWA. Authorities require global standards in smart contracts to ensure security, transparency, and compliance for investors.”
Burke was also asked: Are institutions moving because there is an opportunity, or is it because competitors are forcing it?
”I would say it’s about opportunities, even if a competitor presents an opportunity. Most institutions don’t want to be first. Past performance matters, it often shows where success lies.”
Participants left Liquidity with a sense that the market is moving forward, but understood that institutions only move faster when the infrastructure feels predictable, can be scrutinized, and is robust.
What is the ultimate goal?
If Liquidity 2026 had a main theme, it was that institutions are not attracted by isolated loud news. The industry needs systems that work predictably. This applies to, for example, custody and post-trade for real products, risk frameworks that make on-chain risk understandable for committees, and trading venues that do not surprise at 2 AM when there is low activity.
This perspective also shapes the meeting's theme: building the future financial infrastructure for multiple asset classes and thus linking digital assets and traditional finance. This is necessary for institutions that want to include digital and tokenized assets in standard portfolios.
The conclusion is that when we have credible infrastructure, the playing field changes. New workflows, new instruments, and new ways to spread and finance risk become possible, without everyone having to deal with the old idiosyncrasies of crypto.
Adrian Tan described the way forward like this:
”I think the end goal is more than a TradFi reform. It will be a brave new world with smart applications and decisive changes. We have come a long way as an industry, but overall we are still very young.”
The next edition of LTP Summit, expected in 2027, will likely show how much of the 2026 discussions have become reality in functioning systems. Read more about the company behind the event here.