The Bitcoin Policy Institute is urging supporters to submit public comments to U.S. banking regulators over capital rules that it says would make Bitcoin-related services uneconomic for regulated banks. The campaign, promoted through FixBasel.org and amplified by Conner Brown, managing director at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, focuses on the Basel cryptoasset framework’s 1,250% risk weight for Bitcoin and the ongoing comment process at the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
BPI Pushes Back on Basel’s Bitcoin Risk Weight
The Bitcoin Policy Institute has launched a public campaign aimed at changing how U.S. bank capital rules treat Bitcoin exposure. Brown announced the effort on X, writing that BPI is launching “a new BPI campaign at http://fixbasel.org to stop the shadow ban on Bitcoin,” framing the Basel approach as a constraint on the Bitcoin products and services that U.S. consumers can access through banks.
Brown argued that the issue is not simply technical bank regulation, but a question of whether regulated financial institutions can participate meaningfully in Bitcoin markets. “Right now, Bitcoin financial services are severely limited due to guidance from central banks called ‘Basel’ that treat bitcoin as a toxic, high risk asset. Basel serves as a backdoor way for global central banks to limit what Bitcoin products and services Americans have access to.” He added that U.S. regulators are considering revisions and are accepting public comments until June 18, 2026.
FixBasel.org, the campaign site, directs comments to the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC as they review proposed changes to U.S. bank capital rules. The site states: “Tell the Fed, OCC, and FDIC: Bitcoin deserves risk-based capital treatment, not a blanket penalty that keeps American banks out of Bitcoin. The Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are currently accepting public comments on proposed changes to U.S. bank capital rules.” BPI’s position is that the Basel standard imposes a blanket treatment that fails to reflect Bitcoin’s specific risk profile.
US regulators have a rule on the books that effectively bans banks from holding Bitcoin — and the window to fight it closes June 18.
We built https://t.co/jEheX0sthz so you can submit a comment in *minutes*.
This is your chance to stand for Bitcoin in the federal record. Make… pic.twitter.com/u47YByiuGf
— Bitcoin Policy Institute (@bitcoinpolicy) May 8, 2026
Why the 1,250% Capital Rule Matters for Banks
At the center of the campaign is Basel’s 1,250% risk weight for cryptoassets, including Bitcoin. FixBasel.org says that, in practice, this can require a bank to hold capital equal to the full value of its Bitcoin exposure before additional buffers are applied. The site argues that this treatment makes Bitcoin services “economically impractical” for regulated banks, rather than making those services safer.
The campaign contrasts Bitcoin’s treatment with other asset categories listed on the site: U.S. dollar cash, gold, and U.S. Treasuries at 0%; A-rated corporate debt at 50%; unrated corporate debt at 100%; speculative equity at 400%; and Bitcoin at 1,250%. FixBasel.org states: “Placing Bitcoin in this category means that for every dollar of Bitcoin on a bank’s balance sheet, banks must fully offset that Bitcoin with another dollar in reserve. This treatment makes providing Bitcoin products and services extremely expensive for banks compared to all other asset classes.” The campaign argues that this affects not only balance sheet holdings, but also the range of services banks may realistically offer.
BPI’s campaign says the rule could deter banks from offering custody, settlement, secured lending, treasury services, payment infrastructure, market-making support, hedging tools, and risk-management services for Bitcoin users and businesses. FixBasel.org argues that Bitcoin should be distinguished from issuer-backed tokens, stablecoins, DeFi instruments, and other cryptoassets because it has “no issuer,” “no borrower,” “no management team,” and no redemption promise or defaulting counterparty. The site’s proposed alternative is a risk-sensitive framework that applies market-risk capital rules to Bitcoin price exposure, operational-risk standards to custody and cybersecurity, and recognition for hedging or risk mitigation where banks can demonstrate reduced exposure.
The public comment window gives Bitcoin users, bank customers, investors, and businesses a formal channel to argue for or against the Basel treatment before U.S. regulators finalize their approach. BPI is asking supporters to submit respectful, specific comments by June 18, 2026, with the core request that Bitcoin be regulated through a measured, risk-based capital framework rather than a blanket 1,250% penalty.
AI Transparency Note: This article was prepared with the assistance of an AI system based on the sources listed and was reviewed, edited, and approved by a human editor before publication. All quotes, data points, and factual claims are intended to be grounded in the cited source material; however, errors cannot be ruled out entirely.