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

bitcoinistОпубликовано 2026-01-13Обновлено 2026-01-13

Введение

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

Связанные с этим вопросы

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.

Похожее

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

On the night of February 9th, GitHub suffered a major outage caused by a simple configuration change—reducing a cache refresh interval from 12 to 2 hours—that triggered a cascade of failures. This was not an isolated event, but part of a broader pattern. In early 2026, GitHub experienced at least 8 major incidents, failing to meet its promised 99.9% availability. These outages stemmed from structural issues: explosive growth in load, tight service coupling, and insufficient protection against abnormal traffic. This unprecedented load is driven by AI Agents. In 2025, GitHub handled ~1 billion commits. By 2026, weekly commits reached 275 million, projecting to ~14 billion for the year—a 14x increase. AI tools like Claude Code now contribute 4.5% of all public repository commits, with weekly submissions surging 25x in just three months. AI-generated pull requests jumped from 4 million to 17 million per month in half a year. Unlike human developers, AI Agents work continuously, generating commits at a scale that overwhelms infrastructure designed for human rhythms. The surge also shattered GitHub's business model. Copilot's flat-rate pricing, based on assisting human developers, became unsustainable as Agentic AI sessions consumed resources worth hundreds of dollars for a few dollars in fees. In response, GitHub imposed usage limits and, by June 1st, shifted to a pay-per-use "AI Credits" system. Facing this new reality, GitHub realized a 10x scaling plan was insufficient. It announced a need to *redesign* its architecture for 30x current scale—decoupling services, adding fault isolation, and improving change management to prevent cascading failures. Other platforms like Stripe and AWS are facing similar challenges with AI Agents. Fundamentally, GitHub is transitioning from a human collaboration platform to an "exhaust pipe" for automated AI workflows. Its detailed post-mortem reports aim to maintain trust during this turbulent rebuild. The February outage was not just a technical glitch, but a signal of the software industry's entry into a new, AI-driven era.

marsbit22 мин. назад

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

marsbit22 мин. назад

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit29 мин. назад

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit29 мин. назад

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbit41 мин. назад

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbit41 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片