JPMorgan Chase allows institutional clients to pledge Bitcoin or Ethereum as collateral against U.S. Dollar loans. This puts cryptos on the same ledger with Treasuries, blue-chip stocks and other assets. The bank’s CEO, who spent years labeling Bitcoin as a scam, has now reversed his position, putting crypto on the same ledger with Treasuries and blue-chip equities.
You can read more about it here:
- JPMorgan Chase began a pilot program that allowed institutional clients in March of 2026 to pledge Bitcoins and Ethereums as collateral on its Kinexys platform for U.S. dollars loans.
- Banks apply estimated haircuts between 30% and 50% to crypto collateral. This means that a client who pledges $100,000 worth of Bitcoin could receive financing for only $50,000 or $70,000. Real-time feeds, such as those from Chainlink, adjust valuations constantly.
- The move comes after JPMorgan filed structured notes backed by bitcoin and tied to BlackRock’s IBIT ETF. These notes offer leveraged returns up to 1.5x, with potential gains as high as 16% in the event that IBIT reaches predetermined goals before December 2026.
- Goldman Sachs and Citigroup are launching a tokenized deposits network in 2027. JPMorgan’s program of collateral is just the start of the integration of Wall Street.
- It is a cultural revolution: Jamie Dimon, CEO of J. Dimon & Co. once called Bitcoin “a “hyped-up fraud” The a “pet rock,” The bank has now treated Bitcoin the same as stocks, gold and bonds on its schedule of collateral.
These assets are never removed from cold storage by third-party custodians like Fidelity Digital Assets or Coinbase Custody. But the dollars that they release can be as real as a credit line secured with government paper. JPMorgan Chase began the program on March 20, 2026 with its Kinexys Digital Assets Platform. The competitive cascade that it started has already changed the face of the banking sector.
You can also find out more about us on our website. “pet rock” Pledgeable Asset
Jamie Dimon has publicly disapproved of Bitcoin since 2017, and his public disdain is a regular feature on earnings calls. The CEO compared Bitcoin to tulipmania and said that traders would face termination if they traded the cryptocurrency. JPMorgan’s institutional clients continued to ask for more exposure and, in response, the bank quietly built infrastructure. Kinexys, previously known as Onyx platform, processes over $5 billion per day in transaction volume, and it has settled more than $3 trillion cumulatively since its launch. It was a logical step to add crypto collateral to a platform that is already designed to handle tokenized values at large scale.
JPMorgan’s internal history is nuanced and more interesting than what the public has been told. Dimon’s shareholder letter claiming Bitcoin to be a fraud was accompanied by the JPMorgan technology division hiring blockchain engineers and filing patents for tokenized settlements. They were also building Kinexys, which would later become Kinexys. While the CEO was still expressing skepticism, the digital assets team had a certain degree of autonomy which allowed them to create production-grade software. It is not unusual for large financial organizations to have a dynamic where engineering takes precedence over executive messaging. This happened in the 80s with derivatives, then in the 90s with electronic trading, and in the 2000s with algorithmic markets-making. The private investment usually catches the public’s attention when an opportunity for revenue becomes too great to ignore.
Eric Trump and the Irony of Consensus Miami, 2026 pointing out that JPMorgan had gone from “crapping all over bitcoin” to offering mortgage products backed by crypto holdings The timeline is roughly 18-months. This timeline is important because analysts had expected a long-term adoption curve. Instead, it’s more like a sprint. If the Wall Street bank sets the standard for Wall Street loans, accepting an asset as collateral sends a strong signal to compliance departments, boardrooms and risk committees in every major financial organization.
What is the collateral program?
Most observers were surprised to learn that the mechanics of traditional securities lending are more similar than they thought. Hedge funds or corporate treasurers deposit Bitcoin or Ethereum at a third party custodian. This is usually Fidelity digital assets or Coinbase Custody. JPMorgan will never take possession of these tokens. Kinexys’ permissioned blockchain records the pledge instead of the bank receiving a confirmation receipt. Clients receive a U.S.-dollar loan with their crypto assets as collateral.
The valuation of pledged assets is continuously updated by real-time feeds sourced from Oracle providers, including Chainlink. When the value of collateral falls below the predetermined threshold the system automatically issues a call for margin. Clients must pay a portion of their loan or provide additional collateral. The custodian may liquidate crypto positions to make up the difference if neither occurs within the time frame specified. From pledge through margin calls to possible liquidation, the entire lifecycle runs on rails powered by blockchains. This is a significant upgrade to the batch processing cycles used in traditional collateral management.
This program is different from the crypto-native lending platform because it separates custody and credit. The collateral pool and smart contract are part of the same system on platforms such as Aave or Compound. The protocol bug can reveal both at the same time. JPMorgan deliberately fragments its structure to separate these functions: The bank is responsible for underwriting the loan while the custodians hold the tokens. And the oracle provides pricing. The fragmentation creates firebreaks, while adding operational complexity. The failure of one layer will not affect all the layers.
Initial targets are high-networth clients and institution players. The current rollout does not include retail access, but internal JPMorgan documents cited by Bloomberg indicate that the bank may be evaluating an expansion phased to include qualified retailers by mid-2027.
The haircut question
The details of a bank’s treatment of an asset class are revealed by the collateral haircuts. U.S. Treasuries are usually subjected to haircuts ranging from 1% to 5 %, which reflects the low volatility of these bonds and their deep liquidity. Investment grade corporate bonds are usually priced in a range of 5% to 15 percent. Gold can be subject to a 10% to 25% discount depending on its form and the custodian.
JPMorgan reported Bitcoin collateral haircuts between 30% and 50%. This range is based on Bitcoin’s actual volatility which, over the last five years has been averaging between 50% and 70% annually. However, the asset remains pledgable. Clients who deposit $1,000,000 in Bitcoin will get between $500,000-$700,000 as loan proceeds. This spread is likely to depend on several factors, including the creditworthiness of the customer, the length and type of loan, as well as the current market conditions.
By historical standards, these numbers do not represent a punishment. The numbers do not represent a punishment by any historical standard. Goldman Sachs and other tier-one banks first explored Bitcoin-backed lending Models internal to the company suggested that haircuts could reach 70% in tri-party arrangements. Over a short period of time, the compression has gone from 70% down to about 40%. This is due both to falling realized volatility and increasing confidence in custody infrastructure. The haircuts are likely to tighten if Bitcoin’s volatility is reduced annually, like it has been with every successive cycle of halving. Within the next 3-5 years, Bitcoin collateral could receive a similar 20% haircut to corporate high-yield bonds.
What will change when Bitcoin is included in the balance-sheet?
As the shift occurs from speculation to pledgeable assets, incentive structures are rewired throughout the financial sector. Take a look at three immediate implications.
It gives Bitcoin holders a new reason to keep it, and that doesn’t have anything to do with the price. Corporate treasurers who hold $50 million worth of Bitcoin may now be able to borrow from that amount in order to finance operations, acquisitions or working capital, without having a tax event. After interest rates and haircuts are taken into account, the cost of borrowing may be comparable to that for unsecured corporate loans for most mid-tier companies. Bitcoin is now a liquidity tool, and not a way to bet that the number will go up.
The second is that it creates a whole new category of forced sellers. Margin calls on crypto-collateralized loans create liquidation pressure that did not exist when Bitcoin sat entirely outside the banking system. JPMorgan or its future competitors may be forced to make widespread margin requests if there is a sudden drop. The market could then experience an unprecedented level of selling. Cascading liquidations are also made possible by the same plumbing which makes collateral possible.
The third is that it puts pressure on the accounting standards. Companies can use fair value for Bitcoin under the U.S. GAAP updated rules in 2024. The changes will flow through to earnings. Auditors and regulators may face increased pressure if banks treat Bitcoin as collateral for loans. This gap in how corporate lenders account for Bitcoin and banks value it as collateral creates friction.
Fourthly, it alters the mindset of Bitcoin miners as well as large investors when they think about managing their treasury. MARA Holdings has used Bitcoin for debt refinancing through cryptocurrency-native lenders like Arch Lending. JPMorgan entering this market will give these borrowers cheaper capital with longer term and reputational benefits of borrowing through a bank of systemic importance. The interest rates on JPMorgan’s crypto-collateralized loans have not been publicly disclosed, but the bank’s cost of funding is significantly lower than any crypto-native lender. The cost advantage of JPMorgan will drive more borrowing from decentralized platforms into traditional banks, which is ironic since the asset class was built to disintermediate.
Cascade of competition
JPMorgan does not often move first when competitors are looking. Goldman Sachs is working on a crypto-collateralization program using tri-party repos. Citigroup has built custody rails that can handle tokenized assets worth $30 trillion. Bank of America is building a joint custody rail with Wells Fargo and Citigroup. tokenized deposit network The system will be launched in the first quarter of 2027. It would enable round-the clock transfers for corporate funds. These initiatives are all prerequisites for the acceptance of crypto collateral on a large scale.
It is similar to the pattern of prime brokerage services offered by hedge funds during the 1990s. As soon as one bank began offering a complete package, competitors had no choice but to follow suit or lose clients. This dynamic also applies to crypto services. JPMorgan has already filed to issue bitcoin-backed structured notes BlackRock IBIT, a leveraged ETF that offers conditional protection of principal and returns. Goldman Sachs will announce products similar to these before the third-quarter end. It is not a question of whether or when traditional banks are going to offer financial products backed by crypto, but rather how soon the entire menu will be made available.
Regional banks face a different calculus. The regional banks do not have the resources or regulatory connections to develop platforms of Kinexys’s caliber from scratch. They will likely rely on the same infrastructure providers, such as custodians, oracles, and other service providers, that JPMorgan relies upon, in order to offer white label versions of crypto-collateral services. This creates a market with tiers where the biggest banks provide bespoke crypto loans directly while mid-tier banks work in partnership with fintechs and smaller institutions refer their clients to other providers. This tiering is already in place for derivatives and foreign exchange. Crypto also follows a similar organizational structure.
This is the opposite case.
Each structural change is accompanied by scenarios that can reverse it. A regulatory crackdown is the most immediate threat. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency does not have definitive guidance regarding bank-held cryptocurrency collateral. A change of administration, or major crypto losses at systemically important banks could result in restrictions which make the economics impossible.
The fundamental problem is volatility. Bitcoin’s 30 day realized volatility spiked at over 100% in the March 2021 crash. It also exceeded 80% when the sell-off occurred in May of that year. The new collateral regime could trigger margin calls of a magnitude that the system had not yet been tested. In the event of a sudden crash, if custodians are unable to process liquidations fast enough, banks may be forced to abandon crypto collateral.
Dark scenario: Custodial Risk Even large and seemingly reputable crypto-custodians are susceptible to failure. JPMorgan minimizes risk by using segregated, third-party accounts with regulated custodians. But the risk still exists. An operational or security failure, hacking, breach at a large custodian, could cause collateral to be frozen and cascading defaults.
If any G-SIB suspends their crypto collateral program in the next 18 month due to regulatory actions or losses, then the competition cascade described earlier will stall. Two or more banks suspending their crypto collateral programs at the same time will invalidate the whole thesis and return the asset to its previous status of a pure speculative class.
Ethereum and altcoins: the parallel paths of Ethereum
JPMorgan accepts Ethereum along with Bitcoin. However, the assets are positioned differently in the institution hierarchy. JPMorgan’s own analysts have argued that Bitcoin has pulled decisively ahead As the base institutional layer, spot Bitcoin ETFs recovered roughly two thirds of October 2025’s outflows, while spot Ethereum ETFs only clawed about a one-third.
It is crucial to consider the divergence when calculating collateral risk because banks use it as a basis for their models. Bitcoin’s relationship with equities (including gold), real interest rates and the price of gold is more well-understood and more stable. Risk committees assessing Ethereum collateral should also take into account smart contract risks, network upgrade risks, and whether DeFi activity will continue to decline on Ethereum, which would reduce the demand for tokens. The factors above justify a wider cut on Ethereum compared to Bitcoin. Internal bank models reflect this asymmetry.
Altcoins as a whole are not eligible for collateral. For the near future, tokens that have lower liquidity, shorter histories, or less clarity in regulation will not be eligible for collateral. With the development of institutional infrastructure, there is a widening gap between Bitcoin on one hand and Ethereum and other tokens on the opposite. Solana isn’t on the schedule for collateral, even though it processed JPMorgan’s first commercial-blockchain paper issue. Stablecoins and wrapped tokens are not included in the collateral schedule. In the traditional banking system, the criteria for eligibility for collateral is much higher than that for listing on an exchange. This distinction will continue to influence capital allocation in years to come.
The only way to get tighter cuts on Ethereum is by proving that the network has a sustained utility. If staking rates stabilize and layer-2 activity increases, as well as real-world assets tokenization scales on Ethereum, then risk committees might eventually treat ETH securities in a manner similar to Bitcoin. The convergence of the two is not certain, as the data currently shows that the reverse trend has occurred.
The Bitcoin ETF and collateral
Spot Bitcoin ETFs are a bridge that connects crypto-native securities and traditional securities loans. BlackRock IBIT shares can be used as collateral by a bank without touching Bitcoin. ETF wrappers provide regulatory transparency, custodial convenience, and familiar risk management. JPMorgan’s IBIT-linked structured notes are a good example of this hybrid strategy.
A dynamic of arbitrage is also created by the ETF bridge. When a client is able to pledge IBIT shares for a 10% cut through a standard security lending agreement and pledge Bitcoin at a 30% haircut via the crypto collateral program the economics favor the ETF route. The early demand for crypto-collateral may be primarily driven by ETFs, rather than through spot crypto. This is at least until the haircuts of direct Bitcoin pledges are competitive.
In time, both tracks will converge. As banks gain experience with direct Bitcoin custody and the realized loss rates on crypto-collateralized loans become visible, the haircut premium for spot Bitcoin over ETF shares will narrow. In the end, Bitcoin will be treated the same way, regardless of whether it is held directly by an ETF or indirectly through a direct holding. The haircuts would reflect the volatility of the Bitcoin itself, rather than its wrapper.
This convergence is further reinforced by the regulatory aspect. JPMorgan has publicly endorsed the Clarity Act even though it reduced its estimation of passage probabilities to under 50%. It would create a federal framework that classifies digital assets. This act will remove a lot of legal uncertainty, which currently allows for higher discounts on crypto spot shares than ETFs. The SEC has approved spot Bitcoin ETFs and Ethereum ETFs, which have already established a precedent for registering the assets. It is only logical that the collateral question would be the next step in this precedent.
Watch What You Want
In the next year, we will know if JPMorgan’s collateral program represents a structural change that is permanent or merely an experiment that has to be retracted under pressure. Three key signals are most important.
First, there is the entry of competitors. This shift can be sustained if Goldman Sachs Morgan Stanley and at least 1 European universal bank implement similar programs by the middle of 2027. JPMorgan alone is a sign that something has gone wrong in the economy or regulatory environment.
A second method is to compress the hairstyle. Bitcoin is currently trading in a range between 30% and 50%, which reflects current uncertainty. In a few months, if this range shrinks from 30% to 50% to just 20% to 35% it will mean that the actual loss rate is low. It also means real-world experience has validated bank risk models. In the case of increasing haircuts, it is just the opposite.
Third, a stress-test. This program hasn’t yet experienced a real market disruption. It will become clear if the liquidation system works properly after the initial 20% drawdown on Bitcoin, while collateral has been pledged. The architecture of the program would receive the highest possible approval if the liquidation cycle was clean, that is, it processed margin calls, sold collateral, and did so without causing systemic disruption.
Be on the lookout for regulatory and accounting responses. The Financial Accounting Standards Board issuing updated guidance that specifically addresses crypto collateral within banking contexts signals the building of a long-lasting infrastructure. The OCC’s publication of interpretive letters clarifying whether crypto-backed loans are permissible for national chartered banks opens the door for those institutions who have been on the fence. In the opposite scenario, if congressional hearings or enforcement actions target only bank-held cryptocurrency collateral, this will significantly extend the timeframe for expanding. Washington’s regulatory posture over the coming year will determine the pace of the transition, more so than any individual bank.
The article should only be used for educational purposes and not as investment or financial advice. Before making financial decisions, readers should do their own research on cryptocurrency investments. Published on 16 August 2026.
“This article is not financial advice.”
“Always do your own research before making any type of investment.”
“ItsDailyCrypto is not responsible for any activities you perform outside ItsDailyCrypto.”
Source: crypto.news
