The Federal Reserve is about to decide whether Bitcoin belongs on bank balance sheets.
The next major Bitcoin policy fight may hinge on a technical Federal Reserve capital proposal rather than new laws or ETFs, setting up a quiet but consequential test for how banks treat the asset.
The issue centers on whether large banks will continue to treat Bitcoin as a balance sheet risk or begin integrating it into core services. Meanwhile, the Fed is expected to vote next week on a revised Basel framework for large banks. Reuters reported on Mar. 12 that the central bank will then open a 90-day public comment period.
Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman said the proposals covering Basel III and the G-SIB surcharge would arrive within days. However, most crypto investors rarely track these prudential rules. They tend to focus instead on price, ETFs and regulatory headlines.
That gap matters because capital rules dictate what banks can do economically, not just legally. Consequently, the proposal could shape whether banks expand Bitcoin custody, trading and financing services. It could also influence whether crypto firms secure stable banking relationships.
The current Basel framework places strict limits on how banks handle crypto exposure. Under the rules, banks must divide cryptoassets into two groups with different capital treatments. Group 2 assets, which include most unbacked crypto like Bitcoin, face the toughest standards.
Additionally, Group 2 assets default to a punitive category known as Group 2b unless banks meet strict hedging criteria. These exposures carry a 1250 per cent risk weight. That calibration effectively forces banks to hold capital equal to the full value of the exposure.
Read more: U.S. regulators pledge joint approach to cryptocurrency policy under new agreement
Read more: Abra plans public debut as crypto IPO pipeline begins to reopen
Regulatory structure affects how banks approach crypto
Basel also imposes tight exposure caps tied to Tier 1 capital levels. Banks are expected to keep total Group 2 exposure below 1 per cent of Tier 1 capital. If exposure rises above 2 per cent, regulators apply the harshest treatment to all of it.
For example, a bank with USD$100 billion in Tier 1 capital would aim to stay below roughly USD$1 billion in crypto exposure. If it exceeds USD$2 billion, all such exposure faces the highest capital charge. Consequently, banks have little incentive to scale large Bitcoin positions.
However, Basel does offer a narrower pathway called Group 2a for certain hedged exposures. Banks must demonstrate access to regulated derivatives or ETFs and meet liquidity thresholds. In that case, the framework applies a 100 per cent risk weight on net positions.
That difference is significant because it lowers the capital burden compared with the default treatment. Nevertheless, many banks struggle to qualify for that category in practice. As a result, direct Bitcoin exposure remains expensive under current rules.
This regulatory structure shapes how banks approach crypto services. If capital costs stay high, banks will likely avoid holding Bitcoin inventory or providing balance sheet-heavy services.
Instead, banks may limit themselves to lower-risk activities such as custody or agency execution. Basel itself notes that segregated custody services do not trigger the same capital requirements as direct exposure. However, they still involve operational and supervisory risks.
Meanwhile, U.S. regulators have started easing legal barriers around crypto banking. In March 2025, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reaffirmed that banks can provide crypto custody and certain stablecoin services. It also removed a prior non-objection requirement.
Read more: Circle tests stablecoin treasury transfers with USD$68M in internal payments
Read more: Ripple builds full-stack payments system as stablecoin adoption accelerates
Broader debate reflects two competing visions for Bitcoin
In addition, the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation withdrew earlier guidance that discouraged crypto activity. They stated that banks may engage in permissible crypto activities if they manage risks appropriately. That shift reopened parts of the banking system to crypto.
Further, the OCC said in December 2025 that banks could act as intermediaries in riskless principal crypto transactions. That allows banks to facilitate trades without holding significant exposure. Consequently, the policy bottleneck has shifted from permission to capital treatment.
The broader debate now reflects two competing visions for Bitcoin within the banking system. One view sees Bitcoin as an asset banks should handle only at the margins. The other envisions it as infrastructure integrated into financing, trading and custody operations.
Global regulators have acknowledged the limited scale of bank involvement so far. The Basel Committee said in November 2025 that it would accelerate a targeted review of its cryptoasset rules. Subsequently, it reported progress on that review in February 2026.
A Bank for International Settlements speech in December 2025 said bank crypto exposure stood just above €14 billion at the end of 2024. That level remained small enough that banks avoided major impacts from crypto volatility. However, it also reflected limited integration.
The upcoming Fed proposal could tilt that balance in the United States. If regulators soften the capital framework or clarify a workable path for lower-risk treatment, banks could expand services around Bitcoin. That would likely focus on custody, financing and market infrastructure rather than large speculative holdings.
Read more: Mastercard unveils program connecting blockchain with global payments network
Read more: Bitcoin supply passes 20 million milestone with fewer than one million coins left
Upcoming Fed proposal could tilt balance in the United States
Conversely, a strict interpretation of Basel could reinforce existing constraints. Banks would face clear but rigid rules that discourage meaningful balance sheet exposure. In that scenario, institutional adoption may continue to rely on ETFs rather than direct bank involvement.
Additionally, the 90-day comment period could become a battleground for industry groups and policymakers. Crypto firms may argue that harsh capital rules keep Bitcoin outside the banking core. Regulators may counter that prudential safeguards remain necessary given volatility and operational risks.
There is also a more extreme possibility that broader concerns shape the outcome. If national security or anti-money laundering debates intensify, regulators could adopt an even stricter stance. Consequently, Bitcoin could remain largely at the edge of the regulated banking system.
The Fed’s vote will offer the first clear signal of direction. It will indicate whether U.S. regulators intend to make Bitcoin more bankable or maintain its current treatment as a high-cost exposure.
