A bank can get permission to offer crypto and still lack a service worth using. In March 2025, the FDIC clarified that its supervised banks could undertake permissible crypto-related activities without prior FDIC approval. That removed a procedural barrier. It did not make every activity permissible or remove supervision.

The Fed and FDIC also withdrew two joint crypto statements in April. The change made the regulatory direction less restrictive than it had been. Calling it the end of regulatory uncertainty would still go too far.

Banks bring established customer relationships and compliance teams. A customer who already uses a brokerage may find crypto access there more convenient than opening another account. That distribution advantage says little about how safely the bank handles keys, records, transfers, and third-party providers.

The agencies’ July 2025 safekeeping statement addressed those risk-management obligations. A regulated institution still has to build and verify the operation behind its offer.

My interest is in how the customer sees the boundaries. The account should explain who holds the assets, which protections apply, what transfers cost, and what happens if a provider fails. A familiar bank name is useful distribution. It should not substitute for those answers.

I would judge adoption by services customers can actually use and controls the banks can demonstrate. A less restrictive policy can start the work. It cannot finish the custody system.