Retail was assured equitable markets. So why does the establishment continue to prevail?

Crypto has opened avenues for retail, while Wall Street capitalizes on it

Retail investors were presented with a narrative about market accessibility that was difficult to dispute: trading would become less expensive, information would be more readily available, public blockchains would unveil the inner workings, and the traditional hierarchy that once characterized finance would loosen its hold.

However, what this narrative overlooked, and what has become increasingly evident in both stocks and crypto, is that enhanced access did little to prevent the system from aligning itself with retail behavior. It has been analyzing, directing, pricing, and transforming it into a source of value for others.

This represents a new challenge arising from the democratization of the crypto market. Markets are now accessible, and retail investors are more informed and educated than ever before.

Yet, access and visibility have never equated to power. The true power resides with institutions, venues, market makers, token issuers, and insiders, all of whom possess superior tools, timing, and methods for converting public information into tangible advantages.

Arkham’s recent argument for the beneficial role of retail in crypto illustrates one aspect of this narrative. Public ledgers reveal more of the market than traditional finance ever did, and that alone has shifted the information balance in ways that would have been hard to envision a decade ago.

Now, anyone can track wallet transactions, model token supplies, monitor treasury activities, and users who would have been completely unaware until a decade ago can now observe a significant portion of the market that lies before them.

Related Reading

Bitcoin price falls below $70k, foreshadowing US market open after threat to “obliterate” all Iranian power plants

Bitcoin’s steep decline aligns with geopolitical tensions, as risk assets are reassessed by traders evaluating potential conflict spillover scenarios.

Mar 22, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

However, visibility does not eliminate hierarchy. A public board remains a board, and those with the fastest models, the best data, the most effective execution, and the clearest understanding of incentives continue to trade first and with greater accuracy.

This issue has already begun to emerge across the crypto market, albeit in various forms. CryptoSlate’s coverage of Bitcoin’s ETF-driven market structure shift demonstrated how demand increasingly flows through institutional channels that most retail investors do not control.

Another report on the role of stablecoins as crypto’s M2 highlighted a similar point from a different perspective: the market can be open to all while still being influenced by capital pools, liquidity channels, and settlement systems that ordinary traders may never encounter.

Where the house resides now: within the market’s concealed machinery

The best illustration of this in stocks is found in the market’s concealed machinery.

Retail order flow is so valuable that exchanges and market centers compete for it, create incentives around it, and describe it in regulatory documents using terms far more revealing than what the average investor would ever see on a brokerage interface.

Recent SEC filings from 24X and NYSE Arca outline rebates and tiered incentives designed to attract more retail activity and motivate firms to direct that order flow to their platforms.

Related Reading

Crypto finally got SEC clarity. Why didn’t the market care?

Even after the SEC and CFTC established a more crypto-friendly framework, investors continued to focus on the one aspect these agencies cannot provide: enduring legal certainty.

Mar 21, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

A market does not create formal reward structures around something unless it can be monetized.

Viewed from this perspective, democratized trading begins to lose some of its innocence.

Retail is now regarded as a commercially appealing input, a stream of orders with characteristics valuable enough for exchanges and intermediaries to compete for, package, and profit from. The interface may communicate in terms of convenience and empowerment, but the underlying structure speaks in the language of routing economics, credits, execution quality, internalization, and rebates.

All of this may sound technical until you realize it dictates where retail orders are directed, who gains first access to them, and who profits from the process.

This same pattern becomes even more difficult to overlook in crypto, partly because the industry spent years portraying itself as the solution to precisely this type of extraction. The promise was that if finance were reconstructed in public, if ledgers were transparent and intermediaries fewer, some of the old asymmetries would diminish.

While this may have been accurate in the early days of crypto, it is certainly no longer the case. The house has merely adapted to a different environment. Its advantage no longer relies on private information, but on speed, interpretation, tools, sequencing, and the ability to act on public information more swiftly and confidently than others.

The SEC’s January 2025 DERA working paper on crypto payment for order flow found that crypto payment for order flow lacked transparency and generated fees approximately 4.5x to 45x higher than those in equities and options. The environment it examined resulted in an estimated $4.8 million in additional daily trading costs.

Even without treating the paper as the definitive word on every aspect of the crypto market, the message is clear: a market can appear frictionless from the front end while still imposing a hidden premium through its underlying architecture. And those costs typically fall on individuals least equipped to recognize where the extraction is occurring.

CryptoSlate’s report on how crypto derivatives liquidations contributed to Bitcoin’s 2025 crash illustrated how quickly visible participation can be overwhelmed by leverage and forced positioning. A subsequent report argued that while on-chain scarcity is transparent, price discovery is not.

Related Reading

What is Stagflation? Why Bitcoin was made for the economic conditions set to dominate 2026

Stagflation: The term of the year for 2026 and why Bitcoin enthusiasts need to understand its implications

Mar 22, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Retail can observe more of the game yet still be the product

This is why transparency, while important, should never be mistaken for symmetry.

A blockchain can render a treasury wallet visible, clarify token movements, and allow anyone to track issuance, unlock schedules, staking behavior, and governance activities. However, none of this ensures that all participants are equally positioned to comprehend what these elements signify in real time.

Public information still requires gathering, cleaning, interpreting, ranking, and acting upon. By the time a retail trader becomes aware that a significant holder has begun moving funds, or that a token with an inflated fully diluted valuation is approaching another supply release, those with superior systems have already modeled the pressure, adjusted their positions, and prepared to trade the response.

A project can claim unparalleled transparency while still establishing a framework in which those closest to the project possess insider knowledge, leaving those farthest from it to bear the consequences later.

This is not to assert that retail can never succeed, or that ordinary investors are uniquely naive, or that markets were somehow fairer in the past. The reality is much more complex and unsettling because it resides within the very design of the system.

Retail participation has become more accessible, visible, and culturally significant across financial markets. Simultaneously, it has become highly monetizable for the institutions, venues, issuers, and counterparties operating around it. The user is welcomed as an owner, thinks like a participant, but often gets treated like a product.

This is why the previous promise of democratized markets now feels incomplete.
The system has opened up, and the data has become more visible. Many of the old barriers protecting the market have been dismantled, yet none of this has prevented its deep, inherent structure from rewarding those who can exploit retail flow.

The house always prevails. That is why it did not vanish; it merely became more abstract, technical, and significantly harder to recognize as it learned to present itself as infrastructure.

Thus, the lingering question is not whether retail investors were granted access to the market, as they clearly were, nor whether modern finance is more accessible than before, as it undoubtedly is.

The more challenging question, and one that lingers longer, is whether all this openness has fundamentally shifted the balance of power, or if it has merely made the language more inviting and the extraction of value more sophisticated.

The post Retail was promised fair markets. So why does the house keep winning? appeared first on CryptoSlate.