Standard Chartered To Launch Crypto Prime Brokerage Through VC Unit – Report

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-01-13Last updated on 2026-01-13

Abstract

Standard Chartered is reportedly planning to launch a cryptocurrency prime brokerage through its venture capital unit SC Ventures, according to a Bloomberg report. The initiative, still in early stages, would expand the bank’s digital asset offerings and operate under the previously announced Project37C joint venture, which focuses on custody, tokenization, and market access. This move aligns with the bank’s growing involvement in crypto, including backing custodians, offering Bitcoin and Ethereum trading, and partnering with platforms like OKX and Coinbase. Launching the brokerage through its VC arm may help Standard Chartered navigate strict global banking capital requirements for crypto, which impose high risk charges on direct holdings. Global regulators are currently reviewing these rules, with the US leading calls for amendments ahead of their planned 2026 implementation.

Banking giant Standard Chartered is reportedly planning to launch a prime brokerage for cryptocurrency trading amid a global push by banks to establish digital asset ventures and compete in the sector.

Standard Chartered Plans Crypto Expansion

On Monday, Bloomberg reported that London-based Standard Chartered is allegedly preparing to expand its crypto efforts with the launch of a prime brokerage for digital assets trading.

According to sources familiar with the matter, discussions are in the early stages, and an official timeline for the launch has not been defined. However, they revealed that the major global bank plans to launch the new crypto business within its venture capital (VC) unit SV Ventures.

Notably, Standard Chartered’s VC unit recently announced that it is developing Project37C, a joint venture related to digital assets, but did not specifically call the platform a crypto prime brokerage. The joint venture is set to offer custody, tokenization, and market access, and “complement the broader Standard Chartered digital asset ecosystem.”

At the time, Harald Eltvedt, Operating Member and Head of Venture Building at SV Ventures, affirmed that “as we see institutional engagement with digital assets accelerating, there is similarly a growing need for platforms that combine innovation with a high standard.”

As the report noted, the banking giant has been one of the most active global financial institutions in the digital assets sector. Notably, it has backed multiple crypto ventures, including custodians and institutional trading platforms.

In July, the institution became the first global systemically important bank to offer spot Bitcoin and Ethereum trading for institutional clients. In Q4 2025, Standard Chartered announced its partnership with crypto exchange OKX in the European Economic Area (EEA) and its collaboration with DCS Card Center as the banking partner for a credit card that enables users to make stablecoin transactions.

Last month, Standard Chartered expanded its partnership with Coinbase to develop a suite of crypto prime services for institutional clients, including trading, staking, custody, and lending.

Global Banking Rules’ Challenge

Bloomberg highlighted that Standard Chartered could benefit from launching the new business through SC Ventures, as it may help circumvent some strict capital requirements for digital assets in corporate and investment banks.

It’s worth noting that the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) released its standard for the “prudential treatment of banks’ exposures to cryptoassets” in 2022, including tokenized traditional assets, stablecoins, and unbacked digital assets.

Under Basel III rules, banks that hold cryptocurrencies face a risk charge far higher than with any other risk assets. The institutions are required to comply with a 1,250% risk charge for exposure to permissionless crypto assets such as Bitcoin and Ether. Meanwhile, some VC investments under the latest Basel capital package only face a 400% charge.

As reported by Bitcoinist, global regulators are in talks to review and potentially overhaul rules for banks’ crypto holdings, set to come into force in 2026. Senior executives stated that banks have largely interpreted the standards as a signal to avoid crypto “since they imposed a heavy capital burden on such holdings.”

However, the recent global shift toward the crypto industry has sparked debates at the BCBS regarding the suitability of these rules under the current environment, with major jurisdictions, including the US and UK, not committing to implementing them on time.

The US has been reportedly leading calls to amend these standards, arguing that the rules are “incompatible with the industry’s evolution,” particularly in the stablecoin sector. Moreover, some countries seem to agree with the US’s reasoning and favor reviewing the standards before they are widely implemented.

Bitcoin (BTC) trades at $90,695 in the one-week chart. Source: BTCUSDT on TradingView

Related Questions

QWhat is Standard Chartered reportedly planning to launch in the crypto space?

AStandard Chartered is reportedly planning to launch a prime brokerage for cryptocurrency trading through its venture capital unit, SC Ventures.

QThrough which specific unit does Standard Chartered plan to launch its new crypto business?

AThe bank plans to launch the new crypto business within its venture capital (VC) unit, SC Ventures.

QWhat is the name of the joint venture Standard Chartered's VC unit is developing, and what services will it offer?

AThe joint venture is called Project37C, and it is set to offer custody, tokenization, and market access for digital assets.

QWhat is a key regulatory challenge for banks holding cryptocurrencies under the Basel III rules?

AUnder Basel III rules, banks face a punitive 1,250% risk charge for exposure to unbacked crypto assets like Bitcoin and Ether, which is a major capital burden.

QWhy might launching the crypto business through its VC unit be beneficial for Standard Chartered from a regulatory perspective?

ALaunching through the VC unit may help the bank circumvent the strict capital requirements for digital assets that apply to corporate and investment banks, as some VC investments face a lower 400% charge.

Related Reads

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit1h ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit1h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit2h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit2h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片