Different rules everywhere is itself a cost
Step back from any single framework and a pattern emerges: the EU has MiCA, the US is assembling federal stablecoin rules through the GENIUS Act while still working out market structure and token classification, and FATF's Travel Rule gets implemented slightly differently in each of the dozens of countries that adopt it. For a crypto business operating globally, this isn't just an inconvenience, it's a direct, ongoing cost. Legal and compliance teams need to track and satisfy multiple, sometimes conflicting, regimes simultaneously; a product decision that's compliant in one jurisdiction may need to be re-architected or geo-fenced in another; and the sheer uncertainty of operating across frameworks that are still being finalized makes long-term planning harder than it would be under one settled global standard.
This fragmentation cost falls disproportionately on smaller projects and startups. A large, well-capitalized exchange can afford a compliance department that tracks MiCA, GENIUS Act implementation, and evolving Travel Rule guidance across dozens of countries simultaneously. A small team building a novel DeFi protocol generally cannot, which means regulatory fragmentation doesn't just add cost, it actively shapes who can compete at all, favoring incumbents with the resources to navigate complexity over newer entrants with better ideas but thinner legal budgets.