Americans remain highly skeptical about putting cryptocurrency into workplace retirement plans, according to a new survey by the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS). The findings arrive as federal regulators and the Trump administration move in the opposite direction—seeking to broaden what employers may offer inside 401(k) and other defined-contribution accounts.

In the NIRS survey, 77% of respondents said crypto in workplace retirement plans is risky, including 46% who called it “very risky.” At the same time, 53% opposed employers offering crypto as an investment option. The results also point to wider anxieties about retirement readiness: 80% said the US faces a retirement crisis (up from 67% in 2020), and 61% expressed concern about achieving financial security in retirement.

Key takeaways

• 77% of Americans view crypto in workplace retirement plans as risky, with 46% calling it very risky.
• 53% oppose employers including crypto in retirement-plan investment menus.
• Retirement insecurity is rising: 80% report seeing a retirement crisis, up from 67% in 2020.
• Policy direction is shifting toward alternatives in 401(k)s, including assets exposed to digital assets.
• Regulatory changes are still contested, with lawmakers warning about volatility and safeguards.

What the NIRS survey suggests about investor psychology

The NIRS report captures a public mood that is not simply about crypto—it is tied to fear about retirement outcomes more broadly. While the survey found substantial resistance to crypto as a retirement holding, it also shows that many respondents believe the underlying system is failing them. According to the report, 61% of respondents are worried they won’t achieve financial security in retirement, and 80% say the US faces a retirement crisis.

Affordability pressures appear to compound that anxiety. The survey found that 68% say it is becoming harder to prepare for retirement, while 77% reported that debt prevents them from saving enough. In that context, skepticism toward crypto may reflect not only risk concerns specific to digital assets, but also a lack of confidence that retirement accounts can reliably deliver stability—especially for people already constrained by debt and household budgets.

The survey was conducted by Greenwald Research between Oct. 24 and Nov. 14, 2025, and included 1,203 Americans aged 25 and older. NIRS states the results were weighted by age, gender and income.

For readers tracking retirement-plan policy, the most important takeaway is the mismatch between public sentiment and the direction of travel in Washington: Americans perceive crypto as an outsized risk inside retirement structures, even as regulators explore mechanisms meant to make alternative assets easier to include.

US regulators step back from “extreme care” language

The broader policy shift began with a change in how regulators frame fiduciary duty for retirement-plan decisions. In May 2025, the US Department of Labor rescinded guidance that had advised 401(k) fiduciaries to exercise “extreme care” when considering cryptocurrency investments. The department replaced that with a more neutral stance, one that neither endorses nor discourages adding crypto to retirement plan investment menus.

The legal and compliance implications of that earlier “extreme care” posture mattered because it could have increased hesitation among plan sponsors and fiduciaries. By moving away from that emphasis, the DOL reduced one potential barrier to offering crypto or crypto-linked products—while keeping fiduciary obligations and plan-level considerations in focus.

The DOL’s subsequent actions continued that shift. In August 2025, the department rescinded 2021 guidance that had discouraged 401(k) fiduciaries from considering alternative assets. It said investment decisions should instead be handled using a neutral, principles-based approach.

Then, in March 2026, the Labor Department proposed rules on how 401(k) fiduciaries could include alternative assets in investment lineups. The proposal included safe harbors intended to reduce litigation risk, while also requiring consideration of factors such as fees, liquidity, valuation and performance. These are precisely the categories lawmakers and critics tend to focus on when arguing that retirement savers may not be adequately protected against under-disclosed risk.

Readers should note that “neutral” fiduciary language does not eliminate responsibility; it changes how regulators expect decisions to be evaluated. Still, the policy tone shift is significant for employers and recordkeepers that must balance compliance risk with the desire to expand plan menus.

Executive order expands access to alternative assets

While the DOL’s guidance changes helped set the stage, the policy momentum accelerated with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Aug. 7, 2025. The order was aimed at expanding access to alternative assets in defined-contribution retirement plans, including investment vehicles that hold digital assets. It directed the Labor Department and the US Securities and Exchange Commission to consider regulatory changes that could facilitate that access.

The political thrust of the order is straightforward: rather than limiting retirement-plan exposure to traditional asset classes, policymakers are pushing toward broader menu construction. For investors, this matters because employers control the first gate—what options exist inside a retirement plan often determines what savers can actually allocate to.

At the same time, the order and the later proposed DOL framework land in a social environment where most respondents are already wary of crypto’s fit in retirement accounts. That tension between expanded access and perceived risk is likely to shape how quickly proposals become real-world options, as well as what additional safeguards may be demanded by lawmakers and advocacy groups.

The Labor Department’s March 2026 rules proposal is now at the center of that debate, offering safe harbors for fiduciaries while imposing conditions meant to ensure alternatives are evaluated in structured ways.

Political pushback signals ongoing regulatory uncertainty

The proposed rules have drawn pushback. In June 2026, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Bobby Scott urged the Labor Department to withdraw the proposal. Their objection, as described in related coverage, centered on concerns about crypto’s volatility and what they characterized as insufficient investor safeguards.

This is where the mismatch between public sentiment and policymaking could become most consequential. If lawmakers conclude that safe harbors and evaluation requirements do not adequately address real risks to retirement savers, the rules could face delays, revisions, or additional constraints—especially for crypto-exposed products.

In practical terms, plan sponsors may treat the regulatory landscape as unsettled until the final rules clarify what constitutes compliance. Even when the DOL articulates principles-based fiduciary evaluation, the prospect of political scrutiny can influence corporate behavior—particularly where retirement-plan decisions are tied to potential enforcement or litigation risk.

According to the survey results, many Americans already expect retirement crypto to behave like a high-volatility outlier. If policymakers respond by tightening or narrowing eligibility for crypto-related investments, the final shape of retirement-plan access may end up less expansive than proponents originally aimed for.

Going forward, the key things to watch are how the Labor Department’s alternative-asset proposal evolves through the rulemaking process and whether lawmakers insist on additional limits or disclosure requirements specific to crypto-linked products. Until the regulatory framework is finalized, the gap between public skepticism and policy ambition is likely to remain a central feature of the retirement crypto debate.

How Nepal is responding to the crisis

A new OKX report has found that 90% of college students want crypto and blockchain included in financial education, even though only 28% of reviewed U.S. business schools offered related courses.

Crypto education demand exceeds course availability

In its New Money Curriculum report shared with crypto.news on Aug. 26, OKX said support for crypto education extended across both generations surveyed, with 87% of parents joining 90% of students in saying colleges should teach crypto and blockchain.

Some respondents wanted more than an optional course. According to the report, 27% of students and 32% of parents said crypto and blockchain education should be required for college students.

Formal course availability remained far below those figures. A separate 2025 study published in the Information Systems Education Journal examined 533 U.S. universities with business schools accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.

Researchers searched university websites and course catalogs in March 2024 and found that 151 institutions, or approximately 28%, offered at least one blockchain-related course. The study counted courses across business, computer science, engineering, and other departments rather than limiting its review to standalone blockchain programs.

Course depth also varied between institutions. While 151 schools offered at least one relevant class, only 76 had two or more, and two universities offered at least 10. The most common subjects included blockchain fundamentals, smart contract development, and cryptocurrency economics.

The contrast combines two separate datasets: OKX measured support among students and parents, while the academic review measured course availability at AACSB-accredited U.S. business schools. The published OKX report did not disclose the number of survey respondents, the fieldwork dates, or the method used to select participants.

Some crypto companies have started funding university programs directly. As previously covered by crypto.news, Ripple signed a five-year Kansas partnership in July that included financial literacy and digital-asset education for University of Kansas student-athletes and other members of the campus community.

The University of Kansas also operates an XRP Ledger validator through its engineering school, supported by Ripple’s University Blockchain Research Initiative. Although the arrangement adds practical blockchain exposure, it represents an industry-backed program rather than evidence of a system-wide increase in college courses.

Social media has become students’ main crypto teacher

With formal classes available at a minority of the universities reviewed, students named social media and influencers as their leading source of crypto information.

OKX reported that 33% of students considered social media or influencers their most important source, nearly five times the 7% who selected schools, teachers, or professors. Financial advisers ranked second at 17%, followed by crypto platforms and apps at 12%.

Family and friends each accounted for 10% of students’ main source of information, while traditional news ranked last at 6%. The results place most student learning outside college classrooms and professional media, based on the categories included in the survey.

Parents followed a different pattern. Crypto platforms and apps ranked first among that group at 21%, followed by financial advisers at 19% and social media or influencers at 17%. Friends or peers accounted for 12%, while 11% selected traditional news.

Students were therefore almost twice as likely as parents to depend primarily on social media for crypto information. OKX said exchanges also played a material educational role because platforms and apps ranked first among parents and third among students.

The survey did not test whether respondents understood specific subjects such as wallet security, private-key management, token valuation, taxes, or fraud. Its findings measure where participants said they learned and how they viewed their knowledge, rather than independently assessing their financial literacy.

Separate university initiatives show how some programs combine classroom teaching with applied work. In August, Ripple renewed its support for NYU Abu Dhabi’s blockchain research program through 2027.

The funding supports a hands-on fintech course, student projects built with the XRP Ledger, and research into blockchain-based economic tools. Ripple said its university program has supported more than 800 new or expanded fintech courses and 1,500 academic blockchain research projects across more than 60 university partners in 27 countries.

Students are teaching parents about crypto

Although students often learned outside college, many carried the information back into their households. 47% said they had taught a parent or guardian something about crypto or investing, while 43% of parents said their college-aged child had taught them about either subject.

About one-quarter of students said their lessons specifically covered crypto, either by itself or alongside other investing topics. Perceptions of knowledge followed the same pattern: 53% of students said college students understood crypto better than their parents, and 51% of parents agreed.

Only 14% of students and 13% of parents believed parents held the knowledge advantage. Parents also showed some willingness to rely on their children, with 56% saying they would definitely or probably allow a college-aged child to make a crypto transaction for them.

Reported activity remained much lower than stated trust. Just 9% of students said they had completed a crypto transaction for a parent.

Investment authority produced less agreement. Among students, 36% said they should have the most influence over their first investment decisions, compared with 16% who selected their parents. Parents divided almost evenly: 29% said the student should lead, while 30% assigned the main role to parents or family.

Both groups also tended to view crypto as an investment instead of entertainment. 52% of students described buying crypto as a long-term investment, nearly nine times the 6% who called it a hobby. Among parents, 48% chose long-term investment, and 9% selected a hobby.

Allocation preferences were more restrained than the acceptance figures alone suggest. While 89% of students said some crypto exposure could form part of a responsible portfolio, 11% said the appropriate allocation was zero. The report did not provide the full breakdown of allocation sizes in its published text.

Bitcoin salary interest brings U.S. tax obligations

Interest in digital assets extended from portfolios to employment, with 56% of students saying they would definitely or probably accept a job that paid 20% of their salary in Bitcoin. Parent support was higher at 62%.

For U.S. workers, receiving Bitcoin as wages would not remove the usual federal tax obligations. The IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service states that digital assets received as compensation are treated as ordinary income, while an employee’s crypto wages remain subject to federal income-tax withholding, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment taxes.

After receipt, the employee generally holds the Bitcoin as a capital asset. A later sale or exchange may create a capital gain or loss based on the difference between its value when received and its value when disposed of, according to the IRS.

Operational and tax questions have already complicated crypto payroll adoption. A September 2025 crypto payroll analysis cited a Pantera Capital compensation survey showing that the share of crypto-sector workers receiving digital assets rose to 9.6% in 2024.

Despite students’ interest in Bitcoin pay, both generations still placed real estate first when asked which asset college students might regret not owning. Real estate led among 27% of students, followed by AI and technology stocks at 23%, the S&P 500 at 20%, and Bitcoin at 17%.

Parents produced a similar result at the top but ranked Bitcoin more highly. Real estate received 26% of parent responses, while Bitcoin followed at 24%.