BCG: Digital assets bring $100M upside to regional banks

Boston Consulting Group announced a study on October 22 estimating that a regional bank with $200 billion to $300 billion in assets could generate $80 million to $100 million in profit-and-loss upside by integrating digital asset custody solutions. The research, commissioned by Ripple, argues that custody architecture is a primary determinant of which digital asset services a bank can successfully deploy.

Custody Models Shape Product Capability

The study estimates that more than 30% of digital assets held outside of centralized exchanges are currently managed through institutional custody models. BCG clarifies that this figure excludes assets on centralized exchanges and includes a broad category of institutional arrangements, such as enterprise self-custody and wallet-as-a-service (WaaS) setups. These models vary significantly in the degree of control and outsourcing involved, meaning the 30% metric does not represent a single uniform market share for third-party custodians.

According to the research, the choice of custody model is a product-design decision as much as a security one. BCG identifies multiple custody architectures and suggests that banks may need to combine different models depending on the specific services they intend to offer. The report emphasizes the importance of governance, system integration, and the ability to operate across multiple providers.

In its account of the findings, Ripple noted that large banks are increasingly licensing self-custody technology to build proprietary client products. Conversely, wallet-as-a-service is gaining traction among payment and retail fintech firms. The company also highlighted a growing demand for common controls that can be applied across multiple custodians to maintain operational consistency.

Operational Workflows And Regulatory Context

The study distinguishes between different operational workflows, noting that holding assets for long periods requires different approval policies and processes than moving collateral between venues or settling payment streams. For example, a bank using stablecoins for payments requires a secure signing system that defines who can instruct a payment, how limits are applied, and how conflicting instructions are resolved. BCG argues that cryptographic security alone cannot answer these business-level questions regarding payment authority and risk management.

The financial estimates provided by BCG are illustrative. The $80 million to $100 million profit-and-loss upside is a modeled opportunity for a regional bank with $200 billion to $300 billion in assets, assuming the bank combines specific custody choices with five distinct digital asset use cases. The report explicitly states that this is not a forecast of reported earnings nor a guarantee that every comparable bank will achieve similar results.

The sponsorship of the study is a relevant factor in its interpretation. Ripple, which sells custody infrastructure, commissioned the work. While the report provides a framework for evaluating custody decisions, it reflects a commercial interest in expanding the market for institutional digital asset services.

The research is set against a specific regulatory backdrop. In July 2025, U.S. banking regulators issued a joint statement reminding banks that the safekeeping of crypto assets must meet existing safety, soundness, and legal requirements. The regulators stated that the joint statement did not create any new supervisory expectations for financial institutions.