Marc Zeller, a prominent figure in the Aave ecosystem, examines the limits of traditional insider trading regulations in delivering genuine market fairness and uses recent Aave governance decisions to illustrate how decentralized autonomous organizations can distribute power differently from legacy finance. In a wide-ranging discussion, he underscores how protocol design, community-driven governance, and transparent on-chain processes reshape what fairness and accountability can look like in crypto.
The conversation also highlights why actual control over digital assets remains central to the promise of decentralized finance. By focusing on ownership, governance, and structural safeguards, Zeller’s perspective sheds light on how DeFi participants navigate risk, responsibility, and trust without relying solely on conventional regulatory frameworks.
Marc Zeller challenges the myth of insider trading laws as a guarantee of fair crypto markets
Marc Zeller questions the widespread assumption that traditional insider trading laws are enough to ensure fairness in crypto markets, arguing that the reality is more complex than many investors believe. While insider trading rules are designed to prevent market participants from using non-public information for unfair advantage,Zeller suggests that simply pointing to these regulations does not automatically make the crypto ecosystem transparent or equitable. his comments draw attention to the gap between legal frameworks largely built for traditional finance and the fast-moving, globally distributed nature of digital assets, where information flows differently and enforcement can be uneven.
By challenging this “myth” of regulatory protection, Zeller underscores the need for market participants to rely on more than legal safeguards when assessing risk and integrity in the crypto space. Rather than treating insider trading laws as a comprehensive shield, his remarks highlight the importance of due diligence, robust governance practices, and clearer disclosure standards across projects and platforms. This perspective does not dismiss the role of regulation, but it emphasizes its limitations in a sector where many activities occur across borders, on decentralized infrastructures, and sometimes outside the immediate reach of traditional market watchdogs.
Aave governance case study shows how DAOs can outcompete traditional finance in transparency and speed
The Aave governance process has emerged as a practical case study in how decentralized autonomous organizations, or DAOs, can handle complex decisions with a level of transparency that is challenging to replicate in traditional finance. Rather of boardroom discussions held behind closed doors, key proposals, risk assessments, and community feedback are conducted in public forums and on-chain voting systems. This structure allows token holders and protocol participants to see not only the final outcome of a decision, but also the full trail of debate, amendments, and stakeholder input that led there. For market observers, this open decision-making process provides a clearer view into how major changes to lending parameters, risk frameworks, or protocol upgrades are evaluated and implemented.
At the same time, the Aave example highlights how DAOs can move at a different pace than legacy financial institutions when responding to shifting market conditions or emerging risks.Because governance proposals are published, discussed, and then voted on using predefined on-chain mechanisms, the path from identifying an issue to executing a response can be streamlined once consensus forms. However,the same openness that underpins this speed and transparency also introduces constraints: decisions still depend on community coordination,voter participation,and adherence to protocol rules,rather than unilateral action. As a result, Aave’s governance illustrates both the potential for DAOs to outpace traditional finance in clarity and responsiveness, and the practical limits imposed by collective, rules-based decision-making.
Why asset ownership is the cornerstone of DeFi and what users must do to truly control their wealth
In decentralised finance, holding assets directly in a self-custodial wallet is often presented as the basic condition for genuine control over digital wealth. Unlike funds held on centralised exchanges or platforms,where access depends on a third party’s solvency,security practices,and internal policies,self-custody gives users control of their private keys and,by extension,their coins and tokens. This shift is meaningful because it reduces reliance on intermediaries that can impose withdrawal limits, suspend trading, or become vulnerable to hacks and regulatory actions. At the same time, the practical reality is that self-custody transfers operational responsibility to the user, who must safeguard seed phrases, manage wallet access, and understand how to interact with DeFi protocols without institutional backstops.
For users who want to move closer to full control of their wealth, the practical steps go beyond simply downloading a wallet. They include learning how non-custodial wallets work,verifying smart contract addresses before signing transactions,and understanding the risks of approving token spending in DeFi applications. Users must also consider how they back up recovery phrases, how they protect devices from malware, and how they evaluate the security track record of protocols they engage with.While this approach does not eliminate risk,it changes its nature: instead of counterparty and platform risk,users face operational and technical risk,which can be managed but not ignored. In this environment, effective asset ownership in DeFi is less about chasing opportunities and more about building the knowlege and habits needed to exercise control responsibly.
From regulation to self custody concrete steps for policymakers builders and investors in the next DeFi cycle
As policymakers contend with the next phase of decentralized finance, the focus is shifting from abstract debates about regulation toward concrete, implementable frameworks that can coexist with the core principles of crypto. Rather than attempting to retrofit DeFi into legacy rules designed for centralized intermediaries, regulators are increasingly being pushed to consider how on-chain transparency, open-source code, and programmable compliance tools can serve policy goals such as investor protection and market integrity. This involves examining how requirements around disclosures, custody standards, and risk management might be adapted to protocols that operate without a single controlling entity, while remaining mindful that overly prescriptive rules could drive activity offshore or into less transparent channels.
For builders and investors, this same transition is reinforcing the importance of self-custody and verifiable control over assets as central features of the next DeFi cycle. Self-custody refers to users holding their own private keys rather than relying on centralized platforms, a model that can reduce counterparty risk but demands better security practices and clearer user education. In practice, that means protocols are under pressure to design more intuitive wallets, fail-safes, and recovery options, while institutional investors are assessing how to blend self-custody tools with professional-grade compliance and reporting. Across these groups, the emerging priority is to turn lessons from past market stress into practical standards-around custody, governance, and transparency-that can support innovation without ignoring the structural vulnerabilities that have already been exposed.
zeller’s remarks underscore a broader inflection point for crypto: Insider trading rules may shape the legal perimeter, but they do little on their own to guarantee a level playing field. Instead, he argues, it is the design of systems – from Aave’s tokenholder governance to the very notion of self-custodied assets - that will determine whether DeFi can deliver on its promise of more open and resilient markets.
As regulators worldwide debate how to police the next generation of finance, experiments like aave’s DAO offer a live case study in how power can be distributed, incentives aligned and communities given a direct say in protocol evolution. for Zeller and many in Web3, the future of fair markets won’t hinge solely on enforcement actions or courtroom precedents, but on whether users truly own their assets and can meaningfully participate in the rules that govern them.
