Reason to trust
How Our News is Made
Strict editorial policy that focuses on accuracy, relevance, and impartiality
Ad discliamer
Morbi pretium leo et nisl aliquam mollis. Quisque arcu lorem, ultricies quis pellentesque nec, ullamcorper eu odio.
TL;DR: A BCG study commissioned by Ripple argues that banks’ custody choices shape the digital asset services they can offer. Its modeled earnings opportunity is an illustration, while the report’s adoption estimate excludes assets on centralized exchanges.
For a bank planning to move into digital assets, the custody decision can determine which products it is able to build.
That is the argument in research announced by Boston Consulting Group on October 22. The study, commissioned by Ripple, estimates that more than 30% of digital assets outside centralized exchanges are held through institutional custody models.
The exclusion matters: the figure is not a claim that institutions hold 30% of the entire crypto market through third-party custodians. BCG’s category also includes enterprise self-custody and wallet-as-a-service arrangements, which involve different degrees of control and outsourcing.
The Choice Goes Beyond Who Holds The Keys
BCG identifies several custody models and argues that banks may need a combination, depending on the services they intend to offer. The research emphasizes governance, integration and the ability to work across providers.
In Ripple’s account of the findings, large banks are increasingly licensing self-custody technology and building client products on top, while wallet-as-a-service is gaining traction among payment and retail fintechs. The company also highlights demand for common controls across multiple custodians.
That helps explain why custody is a product-design decision as well as a security decision. Holding assets for long periods is a different workflow from moving collateral between venues or settling a stream of payments. The same key-management technology can support either, but approval policies and operational processes will differ.
Consider a bank using a stablecoin for payments. A secure signing system still needs to establish who is allowed to instruct a payment, how limits apply and what happens when instructions conflict. Security at the cryptographic level cannot, by itself, answer those business questions.
A Business-Case Estimate With Clear Limits
BCG’s illustrative analysis suggests a regional bank with $200 billion to $300 billion in assets could generate $80 million to $100 million in profit-and-loss upside by combining custody choices with five digital asset use cases. That is a modeled opportunity, not reported earnings or a forecast that every comparable bank will achieve it.
The sponsorship also belongs in the picture. Ripple sells custody infrastructure and commissioned the work. The report can offer a useful framework while still reflecting a commercial interest in expanding the market.
There is an established supervisory backdrop. In a July 2025 joint statement, US banking regulators reminded banks that crypto safekeeping must meet existing safety, soundness and legal requirements. They said the statement created no new supervisory expectations.
For banks considering tokenized assets, the practical question is therefore which controls, integrations and liabilities accompany the proposed revenue. The strongest business case would show how a specific service earns money after its operating costs and risks, rather than relying on an industry-wide adoption number.
Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
