Hilbert Group, a publicly traded digital asset investment manager listed on Nasdaq Stockholm, is aiming to bring institutional-grade access to cryptocurrency markets to the U.S. In this interview with Traders Magazine, Jonathan Morris, Hilbert’s Chairman and a former senior executive at Blackstone, shares his perspective on the firm’s expansion plans, the changing attitudes of institutional investors toward crypto, and how Hilbert is navigating regulatory and governance challenges.

Can you walk us through your plans for expansion into U.S. capital markets, and what strategic opportunities are you prioritizing in the U.S.?

Currently, our investor base is primarily composed of Swedish retail shareholders and Norwegian institutional investors in Hilbert. Our expansion into U.S. capital markets is strategically focused on gaining access to the largest capital market in the world and diversifying our shareholder base. We have ambitious growth plans for Hilbert, and tapping into U.S. capital markets is essential in maintaining our accelerated growth trajectory. It is also evident that the US market has reached an inflection point in institutional adoption of crypto assets. With the change in administration, regulatory clarity, and approval of new vehicles like crypto ETFs we believe now is the ideal time for Hilbert Group to enter the US market and we intend to take advantage of this opportunity.

You’ve held senior roles at Blackstone and Credit Suisse and have led companies through IPOs. Which lessons or frameworks from that experience are most relevant as you guide Hilbert into new markets and potentially public-market activity in the U.S.?

Hilbert was built with institutional discipline from day one. Governance, risk management, and transparency sets it apart particularly in digital assets and that many firms only try to retrofit later. Having seen multiple public-market transitions the lesson is that execution and governance matter more as complexity increases. Since joining as Chairman in October, I’ve been focused on ensuring those standards continue to scale as Hilbert expands in the U.S. and engages public-market investors

What’s changed in terms of institutional demand and comfort level with crypto investing, and where do you see this heading in the next 12-18 months?

We’ve seen a significant shift in institutional attitudes toward crypto investing, particularly in the United States. The Trump administration’s pro-crypto stance has given institutions the confidence to invest in size and is expected to drive continued adoption over at least the next three years.

With this shift, the contrast between U.S. and European approaches to digital assets has become even more stark. While Europe has taken a more cautious regulatory approach through MiCA, we see opportunities in both markets as the U.S. has moved quickly to establish infrastructure for digital assets. This includes clearing regulatory pathways for U.S. pension funds to invest in crypto, the introduction of ETFs, and major financial institutions like Fidelity and JP Morgan issuing their own stablecoins.

The regulatory environment in the US has fundamentally transformed. The GENIUS Act, combined with greater clarity from regulators, has removed many of the institutional barriers that previously existed. Regulation is no longer the primary challenge, it’s now a question of investment philosophy and risk appetite. Institutions are now deciding whether Bitcoin aligns with their investment mandates, and perspectives on this remain divided.

Looking ahead 12 to 18 months, I’m optimistic about continued momentum in this space and the trajectory for institutional crypto investment remains positive.

Hilbert describes itself as providing “institutional-grade access” to cryptocurrency markets through systematic, algorithmic trading. What does “institutional-grade” actually mean in the crypto context?

“Institutional-grade” in the crypto context means meeting the comprehensive due diligence requirements that institutional investors demand. In short, addressing every item on their checklist without providing any reason for them not to invest.

This encompasses several critical areas: robust operational infrastructure, legal frameworks, compliance protocols including thorough KYC procedures, and transparent investor communication. The scrutiny from institutional investors is significantly more rigorous than what family offices or high-net-worth individuals typically require.

From a practical standpoint, institutional-grade access includes utilizing prime brokers that institutions trust for security and custody of digital assets, ensuring protection against hacking and other risks. It also means maintaining comprehensive documentation across all operational areas, from IT disaster recovery plans to detailed financial reporting.

Ultimately, “institutional-grade” means having the capability to pass rigorous audits from asset consultants and meet the stringent requirements of foundations, endowments, and pension funds. These institutions conduct deep due diligence, requesting extensive information across all aspects of operations. Firms that cannot provide this level of documentation and operational sophistication face significant barriers to institutional adoption. Meeting these standards is now the entry requirement for accessing institutional capital.

The regulatory environment for digital assets continues evolving rapidly, particularly in the U.S. How is Hilbert navigating this landscape, and what infrastructure or governance standards have you put in place to meet institutional investors’ due diligence requirements?

We’ve already established a strong foundation for meeting institutional due diligence requirements, but we recognize that operating in the U.S. regulatory environment will require additional infrastructure and processes.

Hilbert is currently undergoing comprehensive audits to ensure full compliance with U.S. regulatory standards. A key component of our strategy is proactivity in engaging a top law firm to guide us through the regulatory framework and ensure we meet all filing requirements in a timely manner.

The U.S. reporting environment differs from what we’re accustomed to in Sweden, with distinct timelines and filing protocols. While I wouldn’t characterize the U.S. requirements as necessarily more burdensome, they are structured differently and require specialized expertise to navigate effectively.

There remains some regulatory ambiguity regarding oversight jurisdiction, specifically whether the CFTC or SEC will have primary authority over certain aspects of digital assets, but we expect this to become clearer as the regulatory framework continues to develop.

Our commitment is straightforward: we’re dedicating the necessary resources to ensure full compliance with all infrastructure and governance standards expected of a publicly listed company. This investment in compliance infrastructure is fundamental to maintaining the trust of institutional investors and positioning Hilbert for long-term success in U.S. capital markets.

As U.S. and global regulators refine digital-asset frameworks, what shifts in regulation or market structure do you believe will have the biggest impact on institutional adoption?

In terms of the U.S. market I would argue there are no significant regulatory barriers preventing institutional adoption of Bitcoin in the United States. Pension funds now have clear pathways to invest, Bitcoin ETFs are well-established, and we’re looking at a $1.7 trillion Bitcoin market. The regulatory framework has evolved substantially, particularly since November of last year.

The expansion of the existing Digital Asset Stockpile, as discussed by the administration, could be transformative. However, even without that development, institutions like university endowments that might have faced concerns about Bitcoin exposure a year ago now operate in a fundamentally different environment. The barriers today are less about regulation and more about education, investment philosophy, and portfolio construction.

It’s worth noting that traditional 60/40 portfolios are under pressure, with increasing correlation between bonds and equities driving allocators to seek alternatives. For Bitcoin specifically, institutions have multiple avenues for exposure: direct holdings, ETFs, or working with regulated firms like Hilbert that can generate yield on Bitcoin holdings. The infrastructure and regulatory clarity are in place.

The picture is entirely different for alt coins, decentralized exchanges, and DeFi protocols. Those areas lack the regulatory clarity necessary for broad institutional participation, and that’s not our focus.