Compliance is Non-Negotiable, But Control Goes Both Ways — Interview with Kenneth Kinsella, the CEO and Co-Founder of BABB Group

We’re excited to welcome – Kenneth Kinsella, the CEO and Co-Founder of BABB Group, the UK-based fintech merging traditional finance with blockchain innovation. For the last three decades, Kinsella has worked around the world in global corporate development and architecture, transactional execution, and corporate finance for companies. He has raised over $500M+ in capital and scaled multiple technology ventures. He is a graduate of Trinity College and a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales. 

Chris: Babb talks a lot about putting control back in users’ hands. Practically speaking, what does “control” mean in a world where KYC, AML, and compliance are unavoidable? 

Kenneth: To us, control means knowing who is using our BABB/ReDeFi infrastructures and that they're not malicious actors. To our users, control means self-custody of their assets on a public and permissionless L1 anywhere in the world, and the ability to easily manage the KYC/AML requirements in their respective jurisdictions.  

We’re a British company, so we adhere to the UK’s KYC/AML regulations and rules. For the ReDeFi Layer 2 (Onchain Money), we ensure that our private, permissioned environment is occupied only by institutions that are regulated under KYC/AML regulations within their domains. Compliance determines who may enter our system. Once inside, users control how value moves, without relying on opaque correspondent banking layers. Compliance is non-negotiable, but control goes both ways.

Chris: Many fintech apps claim to be user-first, yet still monetize data. Does Babb collect behavioral or transactional metadata beyond regulatory requirements? 

Kenneth: We didn't build our business model to collect as much personal data as possible and then sell it to the highest bidder. That’s not who we are. We only collect data required for KYC/AML, risk management, and operating a payments platform. Transactional data is visible on-chain by default, but that transparency is aimed at auditability and consumer duty, never ad‑tech style profiling or data sharing. Our licenses mandate this position, and, quite frankly, we follow the rules.  

Chris: Do you believe true financial privacy is compatible with modern compliance frameworks, or are we already compromising decentralization? 

Kenneth: In a word, yes. Financial privacy and compliance can coexist when privacy is designed at the protocol level — privacy-enhanced L2 for B2B and remittances, for instance — while still giving regulators everything they require for oversight. The compromise is not about abandoning decentralisation entirely, but rather accepting selective transparency and regulated gateways over absolute anonymity. 

Chris: You combine traditional banking with crypto. What are the biggest compromises required to make that hybrid model work? 

Kenneth: To bridge crypto and traditional banking, you first need to accept regulated fiat rails and bank integrations. There's no future in which TradFi drops everything for pure crypto-only flows. Our tokenised deposits that mirror bank balances are the perfect example of this negotiation.  

You also need to design your chain around concepts like the singleness of money and stable value. Speculative volatility constrains some DeFi design patterns, but that same design has proven useful for real-world payments, remittances, and FX. Deploying modern technology does not require reinventing the wheel. 

Chris: Could Babb exist without traditional banking partners like Modulr, or are they structural dependencies? 

Kenneth: When your goal is to bridge the gap with traditional banking, traditional banking partners become essential. Our flagship tokenised deposits certainly rely on them. We currently partner with ClearBank to deliver the fiat layer and eIBANs for customers on the BABB mobile app.  We also partner with Modulr to facilitate the connection of on-chain balances to the existing fiat system and maintain 1:1 backing. Technically speaking, ReDeFi L1/L2 can exist as standalone public infrastructure, but if you want to settle in the fiat layer to pounds (or euros or any other currency), some form of licensed partner is a structural dependency. 

Chris: You emphasize serving the unbanked, but most unbanked people lack smartphones, stable internet, or formal IDs. How does Babb realistically reach them? 

Kenneth: At base, we provide low‑cost, API‑driven infrastructure. Banks, EMIs, and fintechs can use this infrastructure to serve their own customers with cheaper remittances, local currency rails, and tokenised deposits. This is far more realistic and workable than directly onboarding every unbanked individual onto the BABB app. Given enough time, our regional partners can build UI layers suited to local realities (like agent networks, shared devices, and community on‑ramps), while ReDeFi focuses on the underlying FMI and cost structure. 

Chris: ReDeFi introduces built-in compliance at the protocol level, doesn’t that fundamentally contradict crypto’s original ethos? 

Kenneth: Crypto’s original ethos can’t be our only guiding light. Too much has changed since 2009. Particularly when you’re dealing with traditional banking partners, a ‘code only, no rules’ M.O. is going to get you laughed out of the building. We’ve deliberately embedded compliance into ReDeFi’s architecture in the form of PoS‑C, regulated tokenised deposits, and institutional‑grade rails. Does this diverge from that original ethos? Definitely. Then again, it aligns with our overarching goal to integrate blockchain technology with real-world finance at scale. If you want banks, businesses, and governments using public infrastructure, then protocol‑level compliance is no great betrayal—just as long as the base chain remains public and permissionless. 

Chris: In the crypto industry, there are often debates around decentralization and pre-mined tokens. How does BABB assess the balance between decentralization, token governance, and transparency?

Kenneth: BAX powers the public, permissionless L1, with staking securing the network and paying for transaction fees. RED powers the L2 privacy network. Both are scheduled to gain on‑chain governance so holders can vote on protocol changes. Token allocations include team, ecosystem, and airdrops with lockups and linear vesting. All of this is a conscious attempt to balance incentives, avoid unchecked behaviour, and keep tokenomics transparent. 

Chris: What lessons did you learn from earlier token launches across the industry? 

Kenneth: We watched others learn the hard way that trading is no anchor. Token utility must be tightly linked to real infrastructure like fees, staking, and governance. There are also countless examples of poor communication on supply, vesting, and project milestones ending in disaster. Such stories taught us to always publish detailed tokenomics and maintain communication with our long-term supporters around structured airdrops and phased launches (L1, L2, bridges, DEX). 

Chris: Looking five to ten years ahead, where do you see Babb, and what does “success” actually look like for this project beyond market cap or user numbers?

Kenneth: For me, success would look like ReDeFi operating as a widely used public FMI layer. Banks, EMIs, fintechs, and enterprises would use the L1/L2 stack for everyday payments, FX, and remittances. Their users wouldn't need to understand the underlying blockchain—it would just work for them. For the BABB app specifically, success means materially reducing remittance costs and lowering access barriers for underserved communities around the world. I want this app to demonstrate that a compliant, on‑chain monetary system can in fact deliver financial inclusion and resilience at scale.