When Wall Street Stops Saying No: Schwab, Vanguard and Bank of America Pull Crypto Into the Mainstream

For much of the last decade, crypto existed in a parallel universe. On one side of the wall sat Bitcoin, Ethereum and a sprawling on-chain ecosystem of stablecoins, DeFi protocols and new token models. On the other side sat traditional finance (TradFi), dominated by household names like Charles Schwab, Vanguard and Bank of America—firms that managed trillions of dollars, but kept a cautious distance from digital assets.

Over the past few weeks, that wall has started to crack in a very visible way. Schwab is preparing to let clients trade Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) directly on its platform. Vanguard, historically one of the loudest critics of crypto as an investable asset class, is opening its marketplace to regulated digital asset ETFs. And Bank of America’s wealth arm is telling its affluent clients that a modest 1–4% allocation to crypto can be reasonable within a diversified portfolio.

None of these shifts, by themselves, guarantee that prices will rise in a straight line. What they do signal, however, is something deeper: the institutional gatekeepers of US savings and retirement capital are no longer treating crypto as a fringe topic. They are building it into their product shelves, guidance frameworks and long-run business strategies.

1. Schwab Moves From Watching to Building: Bitcoin and Ethereum Trading on the Horizon

Charles Schwab is not a small niche broker. It is one of the core pillars of US retail investing, advising and custody, with client assets measured in the tens of trillions of dollars. For years, Schwab’s stance on crypto was deliberately cautious: it offered access to crypto-focused equities and funds, but stopped short of enabling direct BTC or ETH trading on its own rails.

That stance is now shifting. Company leaders have confirmed that Schwab is testing internal infrastructure to support Bitcoin and Ethereum trading, with a phased rollout plan that begins with internal pilots, moves to a limited client group, and then expands more broadly in 2026 if the systems perform as expected. The goal is simple but ambitious: allow clients to access BTC and ETH from the same interface they already use for equities, ETFs and mutual funds, without needing to open separate accounts on specialist platforms.

Several details are worth noting from an educational perspective:

• Client demand is already present. Schwab executives have pointed out that their clients already hold a sizeable share of crypto-related exchange-traded products across the industry. In other words, the firm is not trying to create demand from nothing; it is responding to behaviour that has already emerged.

• Crypto starts as one product line among many. BTC and ETH trading will sit alongside millions of other securities, not as a replacement for them. That framing matters for risk: digital assets may be offered, but they are not being presented as a one-way ticket to outsized returns.

• Integration changes who can realistically participate. Many long-term savers are comfortable with Schwab’s interface, reporting tools and support channels, but reluctant to wire funds to unfamiliar platforms. Bringing BTC and ETH into the existing environment lowers that barrier—not just psychologically, but operationally and from a compliance standpoint.

From a market-structure angle, Schwab’s move effectively extends the on-ramp from the traditional brokerage world directly into large-cap digital assets. Over time, that can change the mix of participants in BTC and ETH markets: a higher proportion of retirement accounts, long-horizon investors and professionally advised portfolios, and fewer purely speculative accounts using isolated platforms.

2. Vanguard’s U-Turn: From Public Critic to Crypto ETF Distributor

If Schwab’s shift was a matter of "when, not if," Vanguard’s decision to open its platform to crypto ETFs marks a more dramatic reversal. For years, the firm associated its brand with low-cost index funds, long-term discipline and scepticism toward assets that did not produce cash flows. Executives repeatedly questioned whether Bitcoin had any intrinsic value, and the firm initially refused to offer spot Bitcoin ETFs on its brokerage platform even after they were approved.

That barrier has now come down. Vanguard will allow its tens of millions of clients to buy and sell regulated crypto ETFs—including products backed by Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, XRP and other approved underlying assets—using the same brokerage accounts they use for stocks and bond funds. In practice, this means:

• Access widens dramatically. Many investors who use Vanguard as their primary brokerage and retirement platform were previously effectively locked out of spot crypto ETF exposure. They could only participate by opening accounts elsewhere. Now, they can obtain that exposure within their familiar Vanguard interface.

• ETF structures remain central. Vanguard’s move does not mean it suddenly endorses self-custody or direct on-chain activity. It is leaning into what it knows best: regulated, exchange-listed funds that hold underlying assets in professional custody on behalf of shareholders.

• The conversation shifts from "if" to "how much". Once an asset is available on a platform like Vanguard, questions change. Instead of debating whether Bitcoin is investable at all, advisors and clients focus on sizing, time horizon and fit within a broader asset-allocation plan.

From the perspective of crypto history, this is significant because Vanguard has long been used as a rhetorical example of sceptical institutional capital. When a firm with that reputation begins distributing crypto products, it suggests that digital assets have crossed an important psychological threshold in mainstream asset management.

3. Bank of America Puts a Number on It: 1–4% Crypto Allocation Guidance

If Schwab and Vanguard determine what you can buy, Bank of America’s wealth division plays a major role in shaping what many affluent households feel they should consider. For many clients of Merrill, Bank of America Private Bank and Merrill Edge, investment strategy starts with a model portfolio: a mix of stocks, bonds, cash and alternatives that serve as a reference point.

Against that backdrop, Bank of America’s recent guidance is notable. The firm now suggests that, for some clients, allocating 1–4% of their portfolio to crypto can be appropriate, depending on risk tolerance and time horizon. A few aspects stand out:

• It is framed as a satellite, not a core holding. A 1–4% range positions crypto as a complement to traditional assets, not as a replacement for them. That sizing reflects the asset class’s volatility as well as its potential diversification benefits in certain environments.

• Risk appetite matters. More cautious investors might consider the lower end of the range, while those comfortable with higher volatility may explore allocations closer to 4%. The message is that crypto is not "one size fits all."

• The guidance is linked to regulated vehicles. Bank of America’s strategists emphasise crypto ETFs and similar instruments, rather than unsecured arrangements, margin-heavy products or unregulated platforms.

At the same time, Bank of America is exploring its own role in digital asset infrastructure, including the possibility of issuing a bank-backed stablecoin in the future. That reinforces a broader theme: large institutions are no longer approaching crypto purely as observers or critics, but as participants thinking about how to integrate these technologies into their existing business models.

4. Why These Three Moves Matter Together

Each of these developments—Schwab’s testing of BTC/ETH trading, Vanguard’s opening to crypto ETFs, and Bank of America’s 1–4% allocation guidance—could be analysed in isolation. The more interesting story emerges when they are viewed as a coordinated shift in market plumbing.

Consider how a typical path might look for a mainstream investor in 2026:

1. They hear about Bitcoin or Ethereum not from a niche forum, but from a conversation with their advisor or from official research published by their bank.

2. That advisor is now able to say, "Yes, our firm supports a small allocation if it fits your risk profile," rather than responding with a blanket "no."

3. When the investor decides to take the next step, they can execute through Schwab, Vanguard or another familiar brokerage, buying a regulated ETF or, in some cases, direct BTC/ETH exposure.

4. All of this happens within the same reporting, tax and planning framework that covers the rest of their portfolio.

From the perspective of crypto market structure, that sequence has several implications:

• Flows are more likely to travel through ETFs and brokerages. Even if on-chain volumes fluctuate, regulated fund structures may capture a larger share of new capital from traditional investors.

• Holding periods may lengthen. Allocations held in retirement accounts or long-term plans are less likely to be adjusted frequently than positions on short-term trading platforms.

• Risk conversations become more formalised. Instead of ad hoc decisions driven by social media or peer pressure, allocations are more likely to be discussed in terms of diversification, drawdown tolerance and long-run objectives.

In short, the "on-ramp" to crypto is being rebuilt with institutional concrete. That does not eliminate all risk, but it changes who is driving the flows and how decisions are made.

5. What This Means for Crypto-Native Platforms and On-Chain Activity

A natural question is whether this wave of institutional access will weaken the role of crypto-native exchanges and on-chain applications. The answer is nuanced.

On the one hand, competition clearly increases. If a retiree can obtain Bitcoin exposure via an ETF in their existing brokerage account, they may see less reason to learn how to manage private keys, navigate multiple wallets or use specialised interfaces. That can draw part of the potential user base away from direct on-chain interaction.

On the other hand, the underlying networks still matter. ETFs and brokerage products ultimately derive their value from the same blockchains, consensus mechanisms and economic activity that underpin self-custodied assets. Greater mainstream adoption can increase demand for:

• Reliable settlement layers. As more assets and products reference Bitcoin and Ethereum, the importance of their security and uptime grows.
• Stablecoin rails. Even if many investors access crypto through ETFs, stablecoins remain key tools for on-chain settlement, trading, remittances and treasury operations.
• Infrastructure and tooling. Monitoring, analytics, custody and risk-management services all need to evolve as institutional capital plays a larger role.

Rather than viewing TradFi access and on-chain innovation as competitors, it can be more accurate to see them as different layers of the same stack. Brokerages and banks often provide the "user interface" that mainstream investors see, while blockchains and protocols function as the underlying transaction and settlement machinery.

6. Risks and Responsibilities in a More Conventional Crypto Market

It is tempting to interpret every institutional headline as unambiguously positive. A more balanced view recognises that mainstream integration introduces new kinds of risk alongside new avenues for growth.

Some of the key considerations include:

• Concentration risk. Flows may cluster into a handful of large ETFs and brokerages, creating single points of failure. If one product has operational issues or a major provider changes its policy, the effects can ripple across a wide base of investors.

• Regulatory shifts. Because these offerings operate under financial regulation, changes in policy can affect access. A new rule or interpretation could alter how banks and brokerages are allowed to handle digital assets.

• Perception gaps. Some investors may assume that because a bank or brokerage supports a product, it is low risk. In reality, the underlying assets remain volatile, and price swings can still be substantial even when held in a regulated wrapper.

For institutions, the responsibility is to communicate these realities clearly. For individual participants, the responsibility is to treat crypto allocations with the same seriousness as any other investment decision: understand the product, the underlying exposure, and the potential range of outcomes.

7. Practical, Brand-Safe Takeaways for Readers

Given these developments, how might an informed reader approach the news—not as a signal to act immediately, but as context for longer-term thinking?

1. Recognise that crypto is entering the "normal" toolkit. When firms like Schwab, Vanguard and Bank of America integrate digital assets, it indicates that crypto is being treated as one component of diversified portfolios rather than an isolated phenomenon.

2. Separate access from allocation. The fact that a product is available on a major platform does not, by itself, determine whether it is suitable for you. Access is a doorway, not a recommendation.

3. Use percentage sizing as a risk-management tool. Guidance like "1–4%" is not a magic formula, but it does encourage thinking in terms of controlled, measured exposure rather than all-or-nothing decisions.

4. Understand the difference between ETFs and self-custody. ETFs and brokerage products can simplify reporting and compliance, but they are not the same as owning BTC or ETH directly on-chain. Each approach has trade-offs in terms of control, security and flexibility.

5. Stay aware of the macro backdrop. Institutional behaviour is influenced by interest rates, liquidity conditions and regulatory developments. Even as access improves, broader economic forces will continue to shape how digital assets behave.

Adopting this mindset keeps the focus where it belongs: on informed decision-making, diversification and long-run planning rather than short-term excitement or fear.

Conclusion: From Edges to Centre Stage

Crypto’s story has often been told as a tale of outsiders challenging incumbents. The latest chapter suggests a more complex reality: instead of a simple showdown, we are seeing a gradual blending of worlds. Charles Schwab is preparing to route Bitcoin and Ethereum orders alongside equities. Vanguard is distributing spot crypto ETFs after years of scepticism. Bank of America is telling wealthy clients that a carefully sized allocation to digital assets can have a place in a modern portfolio.

None of this guarantees smooth price action or eliminates the need for careful research. What it does change is the context. Digital assets are no longer only the domain of early adopters and specialist platforms. They are now being woven into the everyday infrastructure of savings, retirement planning and wealth management. For participants across the spectrum—from long-term holders to curious observers—that shift is worth understanding in detail, not just as a headline, but as a structural evolution in how markets connect the traditional and the digital worlds.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute financial, investment, legal or tax advice, and it should not be treated as a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any digital asset or financial product. Digital assets are volatile and may not be suitable for all investors. Always conduct your own research and consider seeking advice from a qualified professional before making investment decisions.