In October 2025, S&P Global assigned Strategy a B- credit rating. Not despite a balance sheet anchored in Bitcoin, but because of it. That single event confirmed what a handful of institutions had already concluded: Bitcoin meets traditional credit metrics. The dam broke from there.
On January 23, 2025, the SEC rescinded SAB 121, the guidance that had required custodians to record client crypto as both an asset and a liability on their own balance sheets. That accounting treatment had made Bitcoin custody economically punishing for banks. Its removal was not a philosophical endorsement of Bitcoin. It was a correction of a rule that had placed an artificial cost on an otherwise bankable activity. JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Cantor Fitzgerald, Tether, and Morgan Stanley all launched or expanded Bitcoin credit products in the months that followed.
The Business Case Is Not Ideological
Banks earn money on the spread between what they borrow and what they lend. They need collateral that is liquid, globally priced, and not subject to counterparty risk. Bitcoin clears all three criteria. It trades 24 hours a day across jurisdictions. Its price is continuously discoverable. It has no issuer who can default.
Cantor Fitzgerald moved first at scale, announcing a $2 billion Bitcoin financing business in July 2024, subsequently partnering with Anchorage Digital and Copper.co for institutional custody. The structure is straightforward: a borrower pledges Bitcoin, receives USD liquidity, pays interest. The lender holds hard collateral against a dollar loan. This is not innovation. It is the oldest transaction in banking applied to a new asset.
The OCC formalized the framework. In May 2025, the agency clarified permissible bank activities for crypto-asset custody and execution. In December 2025, Interpretive Letter 1188 confirmed that national banks may engage in riskless principal crypto-asset transactions and foreclose on crypto collateral under standard lending authority. The legal infrastructure is in place.
The Arithmetic of BTC-Backed Lending
Industry LTV ratios for Bitcoin-backed loans currently range from 30% to 70%, depending on borrower profile and platform. Conservative institutional lenders operate at 40% to 50% LTV, meaning a borrower posting $1 million in Bitcoin receives $400,000 to $500,000 in cash. The collateral haircut absorbs significant price drawdown before the lender is at risk.
At 50% LTV, Bitcoin must fall more than 50% before the loan is undercollateralized. At 40% LTV, the buffer is 60%. Banks applying these ratios to volatile assets are not taking outsized risk. They are applying standard secured lending discipline to an asset that happens to be more liquid than most real estate.
The fee income is structural. A bank that custodies Bitcoin for a client already holds the asset. Lending against it generates net interest margin on collateral that would otherwise sit idle. The incremental cost of the credit desk is low. The revenue is recurring.
The bearish case is real and should not be minimized. Bitcoin's historical drawdowns exceed 70% from peak to trough. A bank running a BTC lending book without robust margin call and liquidation protocols is not a bank. It is an unhedged speculator. The institutions moving carefully understand this. Cantor's structure routes custody through Anchorage Digital Bank N.A., the only federally chartered crypto bank in the U.S. JPMorgan allowing institutional clients to post Bitcoin and Ether as collateral in October 2025 came with strict LTV and liquidation frameworks. The infrastructure is being built to absorb volatility, not ignore it.
What Comes Next
Banks that custody Bitcoin for clients have an inventory they are not deploying. Lending against that inventory is the logical extension of the custody relationship. Credit products follow custody. Custody generates client stickiness. Client stickiness generates fee revenue across the platform.
The question for the next 24 months is not whether banks will lend against Bitcoin. Several already do. The question is which banks will build the credit infrastructure at scale, and how the FDIC and Federal Reserve update their guidance to reflect the post-SAB 121 environment. The OCC has moved. Pressure on the remaining regulators is mounting.
A hard asset with 24-hour global liquidity, no counterparty risk, and a continuously discoverable price is not a liability on a bank's balance sheet. It is the definition of collateral.
Follow @UTXOMacro for daily Bitcoin, macro, and AI breakdowns.