Japanese Banking Giant Cuts Crypto Bets After Q3 Profit Slump

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-02-03Last updated on 2026-02-03

Abstract

Japan's largest brokerage firm Nomura announced it will temporarily reduce its cryptocurrency trading positions following a 10% decline in net income for the third quarter ending December 31. The profit slump, partly attributed to trading losses at its European crypto subsidiary Laser Digital, prompted tighter risk controls and position limits to manage earnings volatility. Despite this short-term pullback, Nomura remains committed to its long-term digital asset strategy, with Laser Digital actively seeking to expand services internationally, including applying for a U.S. trust bank charter. The firm aims to balance immediate risk management with continued development of crypto infrastructure and institutional services.

Nomura, Japan’s biggest brokerage and banking giant, said it will temporarily trim its cryptocurrency positions after a weak quarter that dented profits and tightened its short-term risk tolerance. The pullback looks aimed at smoothing swings to earnings while the firm keeps its longer-term plans for digital assets alive.

Bank Cuts Crypto Exposure After Profit Decline

According to earnings disclosures and company remarks, Nomura’s net income fell nearly 10 percent in the third quarter that ended December 31, leaving group profit lower than a year earlier and prompting management to curb some crypto trading positions to limit further hits.

Nomura’s European crypto arm, Laser Digital, had posted trading losses during the period, which management singled out as a key factor behind the move to tighten position limits.

Reports note that executives described the steps as temporary and targeted — not an exit from the market but a way to manage volatility while other parts of the business keep growing.

Short-Term Pullback, Long-Term Play

There is a split in the timeline. On one hand, Laser Digital has recently filed paperwork to expand its services abroad, including applying for a US national trust bank charter as it seeks to offer custody and trading to institutional clients.

On the other hand, trading desks that took losses are being put on a tighter leash so quarterly results don’t swing wildly. That two-track approach is what analysts say explains the seeming contradiction.

BTCUSD currently trading at $77,858. Chart: TradingView

Investors reacted quickly. Nomura’s shares slipped after the earnings update, reflecting market concern about the hit to European operations and the extra costs tied to a large acquisition completed in the period.

Management has flagged that one-off charges played a role in the weaker profit line, alongside the trading losses.

Risk Controls Tightened, Growth Goals Kept

Reports say Nomura has tightened risk controls around digital-asset positions and is conducting stricter oversight of exposures that can swing with crypto price moves.

At the same time, executives stressed the firm’s broader commitment to building crypto infrastructure and services over the medium to long term, rather than abandoning the sector outright.

The immediate effect is clear: fewer large directional bets in the trading book and more cautious position sizing. That reduces profit volatility but can limit upside if crypto prices rebound sharply.

Featured image from The Exchange Asia, chart from TradingView

Related Questions

QWhy did Nomura decide to temporarily reduce its cryptocurrency positions?

ANomura decided to temporarily trim its crypto positions after a weak third quarter that saw a nearly 10% decline in net income, which tightened its short-term risk tolerance. Trading losses at its European crypto arm, Laser Digital, were a key factor behind this move.

QWhat was the performance of Nomura's net income in the third quarter ending December 31?

ANomura's net income fell nearly 10 percent in the third quarter that ended December 31, leaving group profit lower than it was a year earlier.

QWhat long-term plans does Nomura have for its digital assets business despite the short-term pullback?

ADespite the short-term reduction in crypto trading, Nomura remains committed to building crypto infrastructure and services over the medium to long term. Its European arm, Laser Digital, has filed to expand services abroad, including applying for a US national trust bank charter.

QHow did investors react to Nomura's earnings update and what were their concerns?

AInvestors reacted by pushing Nomura's shares lower. Their concerns were primarily about the hit to the firm's European operations and the extra costs associated with a large acquisition that was completed during the period.

QWhat specific measures has Nomura implemented to manage risk in its digital asset exposures?

ANomura has tightened risk controls around digital-asset positions and is conducting stricter oversight of exposures that are sensitive to cryptocurrency price movements. This includes reducing large directional bets and implementing more cautious position sizing.

Related Reads

Long-Divided Must Unite, Long-United Must Divide: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup, What Is Ethereum's Endgame?

"The Inevitable Cycle: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup – What is Ethereum's Endgame?" For years, the Ethereum community grappled with concerns that L2s were fragmenting the ecosystem and eroding L1's value. While L2s provided cheaper execution, they also splintered liquidity and the unified user experience of a single chain. This has prompted a fundamental reassessment of the relationship between L1 and L2. Ethereum's roadmap is evolving. The "Scale" initiative merges L1 and L2 expansion into a holistic framework. L1 itself is advancing with higher gas limits, statelessness, and zkEVM verification, no longer content to be just a low-throughput settlement layer. Consequently, the primary value proposition of L2s is shifting from merely providing cheap blockspace to offering L1 cannot easily provide: application-specific optimizations, privacy features, and flexible governance models. L2s are becoming a spectrum of execution environments with varying degrees of security inheritance from Ethereum. A critical challenge in this multi-chain future is interoperability. The vision is to make Ethereum "feel like one chain again." This relies on advancements in native account abstraction (like EIP-7702) and intent-based architectures (Open Intents Framework), where users declare desired outcomes, and solvers handle the complex cross-chain execution. Furthermore, shortening Ethereum's finality time from minutes to seconds is crucial, as it underpins trust between chains for bridges, stablecoins, and cross-chain applications. Perhaps the most provocative idea is that Ethereum L1 itself could become a form of "its own Rollup." As zkEVM and proof systems mature, high-performance nodes could execute transactions and generate validity proofs. Regular validators would then verify these proofs instead of re-executing all transactions. This blurs the traditional L1/L2 hierarchy, making "Rollup" more of a general execution-verification architecture. Native Rollup aims to integrate L2 validation more directly into the Ethereum protocol, allowing L2s to inherit L1's security more fully and move away from reliance on security councils. In the end, L2s are not destined to replace L1 or be made obsolete by it. The likely future is a unified system where diverse execution environments—each optimized for specific use cases like DeFi, gaming, or privacy—coexist. They will share a common foundation of security, liquidity, and verifiable state, seamlessly connected to restore a cohesive user experience. The next phase for Ethereum is not just about scaling through separation, but about intelligently reintegrating what was separated back into a coherent whole.

链捕手10m ago

Long-Divided Must Unite, Long-United Must Divide: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup, What Is Ethereum's Endgame?

链捕手10m ago

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

The era of fragmented AI agents is ending. Over the past month, China's tech giants—Tencent, Alibaba, and ByteDance—have simultaneously shifted strategy: instead of launching new, standalone AI agents, they are consolidating their various agent projects into unified "super workbenches." Tencent integrated its QClaw teams into WorkBuddy, a strategic product hailed as a potential third flagship after QQ and WeChat. Alibaba is merging its QoderWork, Wukong, and MuleRun agents into a new "Qianwen Office" platform under DingTalk's leadership. ByteDance rebranded its TRAE SOLO coding agent to TRAE Work, signaling a broader focus on workflow collaboration. This convergence marks a pivotal industry consensus. The initial exploration phase, where companies rapidly built numerous overlapping agents for different scenarios, proved costly and inefficient. With open-source tools eroding technical barriers, competition has shifted from agent creation to resource consolidation and cost control. Historically, platform wars are won not by creating more products, but by simplifying them—as seen with browsers unifying web access and super-apps consolidating services. Now, the "super workbench" aims to become the unified AI entry point for work. This reflects a deeper market realization: the primary audience for AI is no longer just programmers (a market in the tens of millions) but all knowledge workers (a market of billions). The real opportunity lies in augmenting everyday tasks—managing emails, documents, data, and meetings—across the entire workday. The core battleground is becoming control over the primary AI entry point that employees use daily. Tencent's WorkBuddy leverages WeChat and Tencent Docs; Alibaba's Qianwen Office taps into DingTalk's organizational data; ByteDance's TRAE Work integrates with Feishu's workflows. Whoever owns this "super workbench" gains strategic control over orchestrating enterprise data and APIs. This shift is redefining enterprise software. Traditional SaaS applications, valued for their user interfaces, will recede into the background. Their core functionalities will be exposed as standardized "Skills" or APIs for the super workbench's agents to invoke. Software value will shift from selling user seats to charging based on API calls and outcomes delivered. The evolution of agents is moving through clear stages: first as novel standalone products, then as consolidated primary work entry points, and finally as pervasive, invisible capabilities embedded into the digital fabric. The recent moves by major tech firms signal the transition from the first stage into the second, accelerating toward the third. In the end, the most successful agent technology may become invisible—like electricity or the HTTP protocol—a fundamental, unnamed infrastructure powering work itself.

marsbit37m ago

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

marsbit37m ago

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

Michael Saylor presents 110 arguments against Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, a soft fork aimed at restricting certain non-monetary data storage uses (like inscriptions) on the Bitcoin blockchain. He acknowledges the proponents' valid concerns—such as node costs, fee pressure, and preserving Bitcoin's monetary focus—but fundamentally disagrees with the proposed solution. Saylor argues that BIP 110 represents a dangerous precedent of using consensus rules to enforce value judgments on transaction validity, moving away from Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and permissionless innovation. His key objections are organized into eleven categories: 1) It violates neutrality and hard consensus by banning currently valid transactions. 2) It fails to meet the high burden of proof required for a consensus change, lacking concrete data on the alleged crisis. 3) Its seven bundled technical restrictions are overly broad, targeting generic script functionalities and blocking future upgrade paths. 4) It sacrifices compatibility and future optionality by closing off designed upgrade hooks. 5) Its temporary rules add significant complexity (grandfathering, expiry states) without sufficient justification. 6) The economic and security impacts, particularly on miner revenue and fee markets, are uncertain and unmodeled. 7) Superior, market-based tools (fee markets, relay/mining policies) already exist to manage blockchain load. 8) It stifles innovation by creating a chilling effect for developers. 9) Its modified activation mechanism (55% threshold, forced signaling) is aggressive and risks network splits. 10) The precedent it sets—using consensus to suppress disliked but legal uses—is more dangerous than the problem it aims to solve. 11) A better path exists: improving measurements, refining resource-based policies, and allowing market forces to work. Saylor concludes that Bitcoin's strength lies in its neutral rules, open markets, and hard consensus. Changing these foundational elements to target specific use cases is an unnecessary and risky "iatrogenic" intervention. He advocates for guarding Bitcoin's neutrality rather than acting as its redeemer.

marsbit52m ago

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

marsbit52m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片