As governments on opposite sides of the world redraw the boundaries between technology, regulation, and corporate power, two seemingly unrelated decisions are revealing how fragile the global digital order has become. In the United States, a warmer regulatory climate is pushing one of the world’s biggest professional services firms deeper into cryptocurrency. In India, a sweeping proposal could force smartphone makers to open their software to government scrutiny, igniting fears of surveillance and intellectual property exposure.
Together, the two moves highlight a central tension of the digital era: innovation is accelerating, but so is the desire of states to control the systems that now underpin finance, communication, and daily life.
In Washington, the signal is clear: crypto is no longer being treated solely as a speculative experiment. PwC, one of the Big Four accounting firms, is expanding its involvement in digital assets after years of cautious distance from the sector. The shift follows a major change in U.S. policy, capped by the passage of the GENIUS Act in mid-2025, which created a federal framework for stablecoin payments and opened the door for banks to issue their own digital tokens.
For large corporations and financial institutions, the message is that crypto is moving closer to the core of the regulated economy. Stablecoins, once viewed as a niche product of the blockchain world, are now being positioned as a legitimate payment rail that could sit alongside traditional banking infrastructure.
That change is already reshaping the advisory and auditing business. PwC has begun taking on more crypto-related work, including audit mandates from companies directly involved in bitcoin mining and digital asset operations. Inside the firm, leadership has acknowledged that tokenization and blockchain-based financial products are no longer optional areas of expertise. They are becoming part of the mainstream toolkit.
This is not just a story about one firm. Deloitte has audited Coinbase for years, and KPMG is aggressively marketing its crypto compliance services. The difference now is momentum. With regulators offering clearer rules instead of vague warnings, the Big Four are no longer merely “exploring” crypto. They are positioning themselves as gatekeepers of a new financial layer.
Behind this shift is also a changing posture at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Under new leadership, the agency is working on more predictable approaches to custody, token issuance, and market structure. The goal is to reduce uncertainty without abandoning oversight—a balancing act that, if successful, could draw even more institutional money into digital assets.
But while the U.S. is lowering barriers for parts of the crypto economy, India is moving in the opposite direction when it comes to consumer technology.
New Delhi is considering a far-reaching set of rules that would fundamentally change how smartphones are certified and monitored in the country. The draft framework would require manufacturers to submit their software source code to government-approved laboratories for inspection. It would also impose dozens of technical obligations, from long-term log storage to mandatory malware scanning and prior notification of system updates.
India’s stated goal is to curb fraud, improve cybersecurity, and protect user data in a market that now counts roughly 750 million smartphones. But for global manufacturers, the proposal cuts to the heart of their business model.
Companies like Apple, Samsung, Google, and Xiaomi build their devices on tightly controlled software ecosystems. Source code is among their most closely guarded assets, not only for commercial reasons but also for security. Forcing that code into government hands, they argue, creates new risks rather than reducing them.
Industry groups have warned that no major Western market requires anything comparable. They also point out practical concerns: continuous malware scanning could drain batteries, year-long system logs could consume storage, and requiring pre-approval for updates could delay critical security patches at moments when speed matters most.
The tension is not theoretical. Apple has historically refused similar demands in other countries and has even resisted such requests from U.S. authorities. For many in the tech industry, India’s proposal crosses a line that turns security regulation into structural access.
Yet India has shown before that it is willing to push through controversial tech rules, even in the face of heavy lobbying. With the country representing one of the world’s most important growth markets for smartphones, manufacturers face an uncomfortable choice: accept deeper state oversight or risk losing access to hundreds of millions of consumers.
Seen together, the U.S. and Indian cases illustrate two very different regulatory instincts. In America, the priority is to integrate new technology into the existing financial system and bring it under formal supervision. In India, the priority is to assert sovereignty over digital infrastructure that has become too important to leave entirely in private hands.
For global companies, this creates a strategic dilemma. On one side, opportunities are opening in areas like tokenized assets, stablecoins, and AI-driven finance. On the other, governments are demanding unprecedented visibility into how devices and platforms actually work.
The PwC example shows how quickly corporate behavior shifts when regulation becomes supportive instead of hostile. The India case shows how quickly markets can become more complicated when regulation moves in the opposite direction.
What ties both stories together is a deeper transformation: technology is no longer just a product category. It is now infrastructure. And once something becomes infrastructure, governments inevitably want more control over it.
In the coming years, the most important battles in tech may not be about which product is better or which platform grows faster. They will be about who gets to set the rules, who gets to inspect the systems, and how much power private companies are willing—or forced—to share with the state.
Whether it is the future of digital money or the software inside a smartphone, the direction is clear. The age of lightly regulated global tech is ending. What comes next will be more structured, more political, and far more contested.
