Pierre Rochard, the CEO of The Bitcoin Bond Company, has issued a severe warning to US banking regulators that their latest overhaul of capital rules under the Basel framework leaves a glaring hole when it comes to Bitcoin.
In a detailed public comment filed on March 29, Pierre Rochard urged the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to address this omission head-on before finalizing any new standards.
The core issue, as Rochard sees it, is straightforward yet critical.
The regulators released a sweeping proposal on March 19 aimed at revamping how big US banks calculate and hold capital against various risks, covering everything from credit and market exposures to operational challenges and counterparty dealings.
Your completely free resource hub designed to boost your knowledge of cryptocurrencies
Yet nowhere in the lengthy document did the words Bitcoin, cryptocurrency, or even broader digital assets appear. That silence creates real uncertainty for institutions trying to figure out how to treat BTC holdings, lending against it, custody services, or related derivatives.
Pierre Rochard stressed that transparency is essential for sound policy
Pierre Rochard argues that regulators simply cannot move forward without spelling out their thinking. Letting banks do the guesswork on existing capital categories applicable to Bitcoin-related activities invites confusion, inconsistent practices across the industry, and potential legal headaches down the line.
A final rule that quietly locks in or maintains a particular treatment for Bitcoin without clear justification and evidence could easily be challenged in court. Rochard stressed that transparency isn’t optional but essential for sound policy.
At the international level, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision already has guidelines in place through its SCO60 framework. This assigns an extremely conservative 1,250% risk weight to unbacked crypto assets, including Bitcoin.
The question Pierre Rochard puts to US authorities is whether they plan to import that harsh standard wholesale, adapt parts of it, or instead lean on longstanding domestic rules for different asset classes. Without explicit guidance, banks face tough decisions on the economics of everything from safeguarding client Bitcoin to offering loans collateralized by it or handling derivatives tied to its price.
This gap stands in major contrast to how the same agencies have handled other digital innovations recently. Just weeks earlier, on March 5, they put out a clear FAQ on tokenized securities. The message was that eligible tokenized versions of traditional assets should generally receive the same capital treatment as their non-digital counterparts.
The framework, they emphasized, is meant to be technology-neutral. Rochard highlights the inconsistency and questions why such straightforward clarity has not been granted for BTC.
For the banking sector, the stakes are high
Some market watchers had hoped the Basel III rewrite might actually lighten certain burdens and open the door to more liquidity in Bitcoin-related business lines.
Instead, the proposal’s omissions leave everyone in limbo. Banks might err on the side of caution, holding far more capital than necessary, which raises costs and limits their willingness to engage with the asset. That caution could ripple outward, affecting everything from corporate treasuries exploring Bitcoin strategies to everyday borrowers who might otherwise benefit from more efficient banking.
Pierre Rochard doesn’t shy away from broader implications. In comments shared on X, he said, “The fiat system should stop sabotaging itself.”
He believes sensible Bitcoin banking rules could strengthen bank net interest margins while ultimately helping bring down interest rates for borrowers across the economy. By treating BTC more rationally and recognizing its unique properties as a scarce, decentralized asset rather than lumping it with speculative tokens, regulators could unlock genuine value for the traditional financial system instead of holding it back.
The letter from The Bitcoin Bond Company lays out these points methodically, backed by references to the existing Basel crypto framework and recent US regulatory actions on other digital assets.
Rochard calls on the agencies to provide the same level of detail and reasoning for Bitcoin exposures that they’ve offered elsewhere. Without this, the rewritten text is likely to cause more problems than it solves, leading to uncertainty that stifles both innovation and risk management.
This is not the first time that Rochard has taken to the policy stage to discuss the role of Bitcoin in the world of finance. As a longtime advocate and leader of The Bitcoin Bond Company, he has always been at the forefront of encouraging frameworks that are grounded in reality.
This latest entry comes at a time when the interest in Bitcoin among institutions is rising, with the cryptocurrency sitting at around the $67,000 mark as the debate about its inclusion in the overall financial landscape continues.
The message being put forward by Pierre Rochard is one of common sense. As the regulators look to bridge the Bitcoin gap, they are presented with the opportunity to do so in a way that ensures transparency around their framework, the reasoning behind it, and how it fits in with the overall goals of the financial system.
As they fail to do so, they are not simply failing to manage the legal implications; they are failing to instill faith in the rules that are designed to keep the stability of the system.
