Bitcoin Bond CEO Rochard urges clarity on Basel III bank Bitcoin rules

Pierre Rochard, chief executive of The Bitcoin Bond Company, filed a formal comment on March 29 urging the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to clarify how Bitcoin-related activities will be treated under their Basel III capital overhaul.

Rochard told the agencies they should not finalize capital rules that affect banks’ Bitcoin exposures without a clear framework and supporting evidence. His filing points out that the March 19 proposals, which revamp credit, market, operational and counterparty risk standards for large U.S. banks, did not refer to Bitcoin, crypto or digital assets, leaving banks uncertain about how to classify direct holdings, Bitcoin-collateralized lending, custody and derivatives.

He warned that a final rule that sets or preserves capital treatment for Bitcoin without an explicit rationale could face legal challenge. The comment asks regulators to state whether they plan to adopt the Basel Committee’s crypto asset standard known as SCO60, apply portions of it, or rely on other domestic rules.

Under the Basel framework, exposures to unbacked crypto assets such as Bitcoin carry a 1,250% risk weight, the most severe category. The U.S. proposals did not indicate whether that treatment would carry over to Bitcoin-related activities at U.S. banks. Rochard wrote that the answer will shape the economics of custody, lending, derivatives and any direct holdings because capital requirements influence pricing and feasibility.

“The fiat system should stop sabotaging itself,” he wrote on X, adding, “Bitcoin banking rules would improve bank net interest margins and lower interest rates for borrowers.” His filing asks the agencies to provide concrete examples addressing common use cases, including how to risk-weight loans secured by Bitcoin, how to treat custodial holdings where the bank has no market exposure, and how to measure counterparty risk for Bitcoin derivatives.

He contrasted the omission with the agencies’ March 5 guidance on tokenized securities. In that document, the agencies said eligible tokenized securities should generally receive the same capital treatment as their traditional versions and described the capital framework as technology neutral. Rochard argued that banks need similarly direct guidance for Bitcoin so they are not left to interpret categories on their own.

The March 19 package aims to comprehensively update the U.S. capital framework in line with Basel III standards for the largest institutions. Because the text does not reference digital assets, it remains unclear whether existing or revised categories would capture Bitcoin exposures and on what terms.

Rochard’s letter requests that, if the agencies align with SCO60, selectively apply it, or diverge from it, they explain their reasoning and cite any data used. He wrote that transparent justification is necessary, given the material impact on how banks participate in Bitcoin markets.