What crypto decisions has the Fidelity CEO made over the past ten years?

Compiled by: Bibi News

This interview was recorded at A16Z’s recent Founders Summit and was hosted by Anthony Albanese, CEO of A16Z Crypto, with guest Abigail Johnson, Chairman and CEO of Fidelity Investments. The conversation focused on key topics such as Bitcoin and early mining, crypto custody, stablecoins, innovative investment models, and the “build vs. buy” debate.

At a time now called the “Year of Institutional Adoption,” this dialogue exemplifies how traditional finance is reimagining and embracing crypto assets from an entirely new perspective, making it especially representative.

Anthony: Good morning, everyone. I’m very pleased to welcome Fidelity’s CEO, Ms. Abigail Johnson, here today. Abby, welcome.

Abby: Thank you, everyone. I’ve heard a lot of people have been looking forward to this conversation, so I’m glad we finally get to sit down together.

Anthony: Let’s get straight to it. As you know, my background is in traditional finance. Before joining A16Z, I was at the NYSE. I know firsthand how difficult it was to get a large financial institution involved in crypto. But you led Fidelity to take that step a decade ago.

Why did you do it? And how did you make it happen?

Abby: Honestly, it all started with “curiosity” and “learning.” Fidelity has always emphasized a learning culture, and when we first heard about Bitcoin, like many people, we only had one question: What is this thing? How does it work? Is it real?

In 2012 and 2013, there weren’t many people who could answer those questions. So a group of colleagues and I started meeting regularly to discuss and research. Eventually, we realized there was something real and important happening here.

We brainstormed possible business impacts of Bitcoin, even listing 52 potential use cases. Later, we assigned these projects to different teams for validation, and only one direction really worked—but it was critical.

Someone pointed out that Bitcoin had created a lot of new wealth, and those people needed a channel to use crypto assets for charitable donations. Fidelity has its own charitable donation fund, so we became one of the first institutions willing to accept Bitcoin donations. At the time, no other large institution was willing to do this. That helped us build credibility in the early crypto ecosystem and made more people aware of Fidelity.

At the same time, I insisted that to enter this field, we had to start with the basics—like mining. We did the analysis, and mining looked like a pretty good business. If you started mining in 2013, the returns were indeed quite impressive (laughs). When I proposed spending $200,000 on early Antminers, some people tried to veto it, but it ended up being one of our highest-return projects.

That’s how the story began.

Anthony: How did things develop after that? When did you start offering trading services to clients?

Abby: We kept exploring those use cases, and although most didn’t materialize, they pushed us to keep learning and experimenting.

The first client-facing business that really took off was—custody.

Honestly, that surprised me. Custody is one of the oldest businesses in traditional finance, and it seems almost at odds with the “crypto spirit.” However, advisors and clients had huge demand for custody services. Many early holders wanted to plan for the future: if something happened to them, how would their families inherit these assets? That requires a reliable custodian.

So we entered the custody business. As an institution that highly values security, we built extremely rigorous cybersecurity and traditional security systems, which further strengthened our credibility in the crypto space.

With these foundational capabilities in place, our crypto business is now distributed across multiple divisions at Fidelity: custody alongside traditional brokerage; digital asset management driving crypto ETPs; incubation and lab teams exploring new crypto technologies; and innovative projects scattered throughout the company. This distributed innovation keeps Fidelity ahead.

Anthony: You just mentioned the “Genius Act,” which is a significant breakthrough in crypto policy this year. For the past few years, we’ve been pushing for regulatory clarity, and now we’ve finally taken a big step. What’s your view on its impact for Fidelity and your clients?

Abby: In the previous regulatory environment, the budding crypto industry got almost no attention. Many people just saw it as some strange, outlandish new technology. When you went to Washington, you’d often get that “what are you even talking about” look. They either didn’t get it or didn’t like it, and most of the time, they simply didn’t understand.

As crypto’s voice got louder but understanding didn’t keep pace, that lack of understanding actually increased their resistance. And as crypto grew larger, it triggered all kinds of “negative immune reactions.” Some old, even obviously outdated, regulatory rules were reverse-applied to crypto. Even though these rules didn’t fit or really hold up, they still created an extremely unfavorable regulatory atmosphere.

For mature companies like us, we have core businesses and long-term responsibilities to existing clients. Even so, we kept getting client inquiries: “When is Fidelity going to do crypto investing? I want in, but most of my assets are with you. I’d rather go through Fidelity than open an account elsewhere.”

We even tracked how many clients kept calling about crypto. More surprisingly, many colleagues internally also spoke up: “I want to get involved in this.” That spontaneous enthusiasm was inspiring.

So we set up a small internal team—entirely made up of volunteers—who were willing to engage in all the then Bitcoin-centric conversations. We started building foundational capabilities, maintaining current business while watching and waiting for the regulatory environment to change. But regulation didn’t improve; at times, it got stricter and more hostile.

That’s why, now that policy clarity is finally arriving and we can “catch up,” it’s especially exciting for us.

Anthony: I really liked Fidelity’s recent stablecoin report. With the passage of the Genius Act, stablecoin discussion is hotter than ever. Where do you see the real promise of stablecoins? Why is everyone talking about them now?

Abby: My first impression of stablecoins was a few years ago—I can’t recall exactly when. At first, I thought stablecoins seemed almost the opposite of custody; I wasn’t sure they made sense.

But when I realized Fidelity’s natural advantage in “bridging assets,” I really got excited about it. If more smart people join us in this direction, that’s even better.

We fought hard for a long time for the possibility of having stablecoins pay interest. That triggered heated debate internally because it challenged our business logic. We’ve always aimed to generate returns for investors—either capital gains or interest. If we take clients’ money and give no return, that contradicts Fidelity’s values.

So, up until the last moment, we insisted on the possibility of interest. Frankly, if we kept pushing, the project might have stalled. I eventually stepped in, disappointed but knowing a compromise was needed.

But the important thing is: it moved forward, and that’s a good thing. So we started thinking, “Is there an alternative?” We didn’t want to just stop there.

I think we found a solution: we launched an on-chain tokenized money market fund, with yields matching our traditional money market funds, which have long led the industry. This design was modeled on the stablecoin ecosystem from the start.

The idea is simple: you can park funds in a tokenized money market fund to earn leading liquidity returns and, when needed, switch to stablecoins with one click. It’s a great combination.

The process didn’t follow my ideal path exactly, but this evolution is really exciting.

Anthony: In the banking system, crypto has always been controversial. But I appreciate your correct understanding of it. Yesterday, we released our latest “State of Crypto” report—one edition per year. One of this year’s conclusions is that 2025 will be the year crypto assets see true large-scale institutional adoption.

Over the past year, we’ve met with many large institutions, including Fidelity—your team included. We keep hearing the same thing: many institutions want to enter crypto but are torn between “build or buy”—do they develop the tech themselves, or just acquire or source it externally?

Abby: This is a topic we debate constantly internally. Sometimes it’s build vs. buy, sometimes buy vs. partner. Compared to other large financial institutions, we lean more toward building, but no company can do everything itself.

The key is to identify which capabilities are truly strategic differentiators and make sure you can control them for the long term.

That’s what really determines long-term viability.

Anthony: There are many entrepreneurs here hoping to work with Fidelity. What advice would you give them?

Abby: We actually have several team members in the audience.

First, we’re always happy to hear your ideas and welcome you to visit Fidelity. Internally, we have a very active “BITS Club” (the Tinkerers Club) with 4,500 members. We host tons of events to facilitate exchange, with participants ranging from crypto industry professionals to any Fidelity employee interested in the space.

We also regularly hold executive forums, inviting external partners to share the latest developments; and within each business line, there are many technical or product exchanges.

So the answer varies by context, but we do partner with many teams. Crypto is fundamentally about open collaboration—everyone contributes a piece and connects together.

We want to maintain that open dialogue. Fidelity doesn’t have rigid partnership rules; we’re highly flexible here.

Anthony: In your nearly ten years as leader, president, and CEO, what’s the most important lesson you’ve learned about leadership?

Abby: I’ve learned a lot along the way. First is to stay curious and never stop learning. If I stopped learning, I couldn’t do my job.

Organizationally and culturally, it’s a continuous process. One important system I pushed for is internal “forced mobility,” so employees rotate roles periodically and can’t stay in one place forever.

That’s hugely valuable. It gives people multi-dimensional perspectives instead of locking them into a single mindset.

Also, we’ve spent a lot of time building a culture that encourages people to bring “bad news” quickly. I often say: “Don’t just tell me good news, or I’ll have nothing to do.” Building that culture takes real effort.

Anthony: Looking back, is there anything you wish you’d known from the very start?

Abby: Too many things. But if I had to pick one, it’s to trust your gut. Everyone has an inner voice that got them here. Learn to listen to it and follow it.

Now we’ll move to the Q&A. We have a lot of enthusiastic audience members with questions. Please keep them brief so more people can ask. Hello, everyone.

Q&A Session

Audience: Hi, I’m Abby Banks, formerly of IDEO. Actually, in 2015 you started the IDEO crypto co-lab, and Fidelity also set up a related team that year. Thank you for all you’ve done for the industry over the past ten years.

I was especially interested in yesterday’s discussion: people talked about how the “Genius mechanism” could drive stablecoins and institutional adoption, and the market structure bill is coming soon. If it passes this year or next, what new chapter will it open? What’s your outlook?

Abby: Our team is closely tracking the market structure bill. Honestly, every time I get an update, the content is almost completely different. So I often tell my colleagues, “Maybe I don’t need to hear so often—just let me know once it’s settled.”

Of course, I’d like to start the deep discussions before the legislation is finalized. But we still need consensus on some key issues. Right now, I’m in a bit of a “wait and see” mode, but we have professional teams closely following it. And if both sides haven’t connected yet, they’re definitely willing to.

Audience: Thank you for all you do. In the crypto-native community, some believe all future financial systems will be rebuilt on brand-new infrastructure. In traditional finance, some used to say “it’ll never happen.” But there’s also a middle view: that traditional finance will adopt and integrate these technologies. Which path do you see for the future?

Abby: We can now completely rule out the “never happen” path—because it’s happening. Ten years ago, when we did those 52 use cases, I did lean toward your first option: how could these technologies replace all the cumbersome processes in today’s systems?

If you look at traditional finance, it’s almost entirely made up of a web of incredibly complex reconciliation systems. From a macro view, it’s actually kind of scary. No one would design a system like this on purpose—it’s just the result of decades of technological layering, each built with the best tech of its time, and the interconnectivity now locks everyone in at the lowest common denominator.

This is an existential challenge for the industry. Large institutions want to accelerate infrastructure upgrades, but the industry is “democratic”—smaller players often can’t participate. So it’s not “if,” but “how does it evolve.”

The end result will definitely be a compromise path—step by step, driven by competition and regulatory standards together.

For us, we focus more on projects that let the company try new ways and create new opportunities that didn’t exist before.

Anthony: That’s so true—financial industry inertia is huge, and ironically, it’s because everything is so interconnected.

Audience: Thank you for your sharing, and for bringing legitimacy to this field since 2013. Back when I was at MIT, most colleagues thought I was “crazy” for working on crypto. When Fidelity came to our seminar, people realized, “Oh, Fidelity’s here, this is real.”

My question is about Bitcoin. You’ve witnessed new asset classes emerge and driven many financial products. Where do you see Bitcoin’s next role—not in terms of price, but its place in your broader asset system?

Abby: I don’t know if it’s because I entered early, or because as I get older I get more “old school”—but I really like Bitcoin. I don’t hold a lot of digital currencies, but Bitcoin is the one I’ve always kept.

I think Bitcoin will continue to play an important role in many people’s savings systems. It’s the “gold standard” of the entire crypto world—long-lasting, very stable, and has weathered all kinds of cycles and still stands strong.

Long term, I feel very comfortable with Bitcoin. I believe it will remain an important asset we need to consider in our overall product lineup. And I really hope we can help make Bitcoin more accessible and usable for people. Because as genius as its design is, if it had had some IDEO user experience input back then, maybe more people could have joined in earlier, and more easily.

Audience: I got my first internship paycheck from IDEO CoLab, so this is special for me. Thank you. As a CEO, you have to balance risk-taking and day-to-day management. When you face internal resistance, how do you build conviction in a new direction?

Abby: That’s a great question. As I mentioned, we rotate employees and mix teams to bring together different perspectives and beliefs. A natural side effect is lots of internal debate, which I think is essential for a healthy organization.

Of course, there’s a fine line between healthy debate and “religious wars.” In crypto, people sometimes reacted very emotionally, and for a while, it really was like a “religious war.” You’ve probably seen some traditional finance leaders vocally, but immaturely, opposing crypto.

During that time, I felt I had to stay patient and keep moving forward. The noise eventually fades, and much of the resistance is just due to lack of understanding, while seeing the trend gain momentum, which can feel frustrating. What we tried to do was avoid escalation and help the team gradually digest and adapt.

That included our exploration of Bitcoin and other crypto projects.

Structurally, we have our R&D lab—founded by my father decades ago—and the internal incubator I later institutionalized, to provide the team a “safe space” to try, fail, and even fail where failure is expected.

I often tell my team, if all our lab projects succeed, we’re not taking enough risks; we need some fast failures, or we’re not pushing far enough.

Once these mechanisms are institutionalized, they create “permission” for the team to do things not everyone agrees with, which is the core of innovation.

Anthony: That’s so interesting, and a lot like venture capital. If all our portfolio companies succeed, we’re not casting the net wide enough, and not taking enough risk. I love that. Any other questions?

Audience: If, in the future, digital and traditional assets converge, what’s your vision for that “intersection”? What will we bring from traditional finance into digital assets, and what will traditional finance learn from digital?

Abby: Simply put, both directions.

As I mentioned, I’m more excited about what new things we’ll bring to people, rather than just doing what we already do today on a new tech stack.

But it’s not that simple. If you go back to my earlier point, our industry faces long-term secular deflation, so all technology will eventually be forced to change.

A few years ago, we started moving core business to the cloud. It took years to find a way that was both highly reliable and highly secure. Luckily, we first tested in lower-risk scenarios and learned a lot.

That’s been a huge structural migration for us, and it’s still ongoing.

So you might wonder: will there be a capability that lets blockchain finally replace today’s huge, complex “reconciliation web” in finance?

Yes, you can definitely see that trend. The question is, what’s the migration path? How fast will it go? Those are things you can only observe and feel as you go.

Our current approach is to build technologies we think are most likely to land in the short term while keeping a long-term vision.

What surprised me is, we’re actually closer to the “bridging stage” than I expected—clear use cases where old and new meet.

Like stablecoins, like tokenized money market funds. You need stablecoins to participate in DeFi, but if you want to earn interest, you need a digital product version from the traditional world.

Honestly, I wish I could give a more “scientific” answer, but it’s a really tough question. It’s something everyone has to think about and push forward at the same time. In a way, we’re both the cause and the result.

Audience: You mentioned “long-term secular deflation” twice today, and as I understand it, it means technology is constantly pushing prices down. But from the outside, financial institutions seem to adopt new tech at hugely different rates. What determines whether a firm is willing to adopt new tech like crypto assets?

Abby: That’s a really good question. The answer is a mix of two factors: time horizon, and willingness to take a little bit of risk.

Not regulatory risk, but what’s commonly called reputational risk.

During the “most controversial years,” people at Fidelity often discussed, “What’s the reputation risk if we get into this space?”—even though what we were doing was very limited.

For example, when we first accepted Bitcoin donations through our charity fund, those donations all came from people who had just made money from Bitcoin. To me, that sounded a little crazy; to many people, it wasn’t just crazy, it was “untouchable.”

So I think it’s largely a personal factor. And all of you here are creative people with a healthy risk appetite. But in big companies, especially in finance, those traits aren’t naturally nurtured.

Of course, some investors, like portfolio managers or hedge fund guys, are risk-takers by nature. But their risks are within a set framework. And honestly, I’m sure they don’t really think about the technical details and infrastructure that enable their operations.

That’s where Fidelity is a bit different—we put a lot of thought into the technical details supporting our business.

What we’ve learned over the years is, the more tech we build, customize, or adapt ourselves, the more sustainable our competitive advantage becomes. That way we can keep our tech updated and have the freedom to make adjustments as we see fit.

And that’s not the mindset I often see in traditional financial services.

Anthony: Well, Abby, this has been a fantastic discussion. Thanks again for talking with us—it’s been really interesting.

Abby: Thank you for inviting me, and thank you all.