Pierre Rochard, CEO of The Bitcoin Bond Company, has formally cautioned US banking regulators that their sweeping overhaul of bank capital rules leaves a significant gap: how activities related to Bitcoin should be treated under the new framework. In a comment submitted on March 29, Rochard addressed the US Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. He argued that agencies cannot finalize rules that effectively determine capital treatment for Bitcoin-related activities without clearly explaining the framework and evidence underpinning that treatment.
The regulators’ March 19 proposals, which would comprehensively overhaul the existing US bank capital framework, did not reference Bitcoin, crypto, or digital assets a single time. The package covers credit risk, market risk, operational risk, and counterparty exposures for the largest US banks. However, it leaves unresolved how existing capital categories apply to Bitcoin holdings, lending, custody services, and derivatives.
The omission carries practical consequences because the Basel Committee‘s crypto asset framework, known as SCO60, already assigns a 1,250% risk weight to unbacked crypto assets including Bitcoin. Rochard stated that US regulators must clarify whether they intend to adopt that standard, apply elements of it selectively, or rely on existing domestic capital categories instead. Without that clarification, the economics of Bitcoin-related banking activities remain uncertain for institutions considering entering the space.
Rochard also warned that a final rule that quietly imposes or preserves a capital treatment for Bitcoin-related activities without explicit explanation could face legal vulnerability. He drew a contrast with how the same agencies recently handled a related issue. On March 5, the regulators issued a tokenized securities FAQ stating that eligible tokenized securities should generally receive the same capital treatment as their non-tokenized counterparts and that the capital framework is “technology neutral,” providing banks with clear guidance on that front.
No comparable explanation currently exists for how Bitcoin exposures should be treated, leaving banks to interpret on their own how the rules apply to direct holdings, Bitcoin-collateralized lending, custody arrangements, and derivatives exposure. Rochard argued this ambiguity increases uncertainty across the industry and could create legal risk if regulators do not address it before finalizing the rules. Prior to the proposal’s release, some analysts had anticipated the re-proposal might ease capital requirements and potentially open up liquidity for Bitcoin-related activities.
Rochard also commented publicly on the matter, stating that the fiat system should stop undermining itself and that clear Bitcoin banking rules would improve bank net interest margins and lower borrowing costs for consumers. The comment reflects a broader debate among Bitcoin advocates over what they describe as unfavorable regulatory treatment of the asset within international capital standards. Cointelegraph reached out to Rochard for further comment but had not received a response by the time of publication.
Originally reported by CoinTelegraph.
