A new national survey has found that 53% of Americans oppose employers offering cryptocurrency in workplace retirement plans, while 77% consider such investments risky.

The National Institute on Retirement Security reported in its survey that 46% of respondents considered cryptocurrency in workplace retirement plans “very risky,” contributing to the 77% who expressed some level of concern.

Crypto retirement plans face resistance from US savers

Opposition to workplace crypto options extended beyond respondents who viewed digital assets as risky. According to the institute, 53% did not support employers offering cryptocurrency as an investment choice within their retirement plans.

Public concern about digital assets emerged alongside deeper anxiety over the condition of the US retirement system. The survey found that 80% of Americans believed the country faces a retirement crisis, compared with 67% in 2020. Another 61% said they were worried about achieving financial security during retirement.

Household costs and debt also affected how respondents viewed their ability to save. According to the report, 68% said preparing for retirement had become harder, while 77% said debt prevented them from putting aside enough money.

Researchers gathered the findings as part of a national survey conducted by Greenwald Research from Oct. 24 through Nov. 14, 2025. The poll included 1,203 US residents aged 25 and older, with the results weighted by age, gender and income to represent the country’s adult population.

The findings indicate that resistance to crypto inside retirement plans is not limited to people who reject digital assets altogether. A May Federal Reserve survey found that 10% of US adults used or held cryptocurrency in 2025, up from 7% in 2024. Roughly 7% held crypto as an investment, while fewer respondents used it for payments or transfers.

Retirement concerns grow as debt limits savings

Financial pressure formed a central part of the National Institute on Retirement Security’s findings. With more than three-quarters of respondents saying debt hurt their ability to save, the survey placed the crypto question within a retirement system already under strain.

According to the institute, concerns over retirement security have increased even as workplace plans remain one of the main savings tools available to US employees. Respondents cited affordability problems alongside uncertainty about whether their savings would support them after they stopped working.

The institute’s separate research on retirement preparedness has also found large gaps in workplace plan access and accumulated savings. Its February 2026 analysis, based on US Census Bureau data, said the median retirement savings balance across the American workforce was below $1,000 and that many employees lacked access to an employer-provided plan.

Social Security supplied about 52% of retirement income for older Americans, according to the same analysis, while approximately 17% of workers had access to a defined-benefit pension as of December 2022. Unlike a traditional pension that promises a defined payment, a 401(k) generally places investment decisions and market risk on the employee.

Crypto can expose a retirement account to sharper price changes than many traditional plan investments. The US Government Accountability Office has previously described digital assets as having unique volatility and said reliable methods for projecting their future returns remain limited, according to a congressional letter citing the agency’s research.

US regulators have removed barriers to crypto in 401(k)s

Federal policy has moved in the opposite direction from the caution expressed by many survey respondents. In May 2025, the Department of Labor withdrew its crypto guidance, which had instructed retirement-plan fiduciaries to exercise “extreme care” before adding cryptocurrency to investment menus.

The department said the earlier standard departed from its usual neutral approach to investment types. After the rescission, officials said fiduciaries should make decisions based on their duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act without the government either endorsing or discouraging cryptocurrency.

President Donald Trump added another policy directive on Aug. 7, 2025, by signing an executive order on alternative assets. The order covered digital-asset investment vehicles as well as private equity, private credit, real estate, and other assets that are not commonly found in defined-contribution plans.

Under the order, the Labor Department was instructed to review its guidance on fiduciary duties and consider changes that could make alternative assets available to retirement savers. The Securities and Exchange Commission was also directed to consult with the department and examine regulatory changes for participants in employer-sponsored plans.

Five days later, the Labor Department rescinded a 2021 statement that had discouraged fiduciaries from considering private equity and certain other alternative investments. Officials said the statement had departed from a neutral, principles-based approach by treating one type of asset differently from others.

Removing the two pieces of guidance did not require employers to offer crypto. Plan sponsors and fiduciaries remained responsible for assessing each investment under ERISA, including whether its costs, risks, and structure were suitable for participants.

Labor Department proposal sets conditions for alternative assets

In March 2026, the Labor Department proposed a new rule explaining how fiduciaries could evaluate alternative assets for workplace retirement plans. The proposal included regulatory safe harbors intended to reduce litigation exposure for fiduciaries that follow specified review standards.

As crypto.news reported in March, the proposed framework covered more than 90 million retirement savers and required fiduciaries to examine performance, fees, liquidity, valuation, redemption terms, and participants’ ability to understand an investment.

Plan sponsors would not have to add cryptocurrency, private equity or private credit to their menus under the proposal. Employers choosing to include such products would need to document an objective review and show that the options met ERISA’s prudence requirements.

Department officials said the proposal would not provide unrestricted access to crypto or private funds. Instead, the rule would replace restrictions based on asset type with individual reviews by fiduciaries responsible for selecting and monitoring plan investments.

Political opposition followed the proposal. In June, three Democratic lawmakers—Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Rep. Bobby Scott asked the Labor Department to withdraw it.

In their letter, the lawmakers argued that cryptocurrency could expose workers to price volatility, fraud, and weaker safeguards than those available for public securities. They also questioned whether fiduciaries could assess certain digital assets using established methods for measuring value and expected returns.

“The application of securities laws to crypto assets is rapidly evolving,” the lawmakers wrote, adding that some protections available to investors in public securities “may not be available for crypto.”

Their request covered other alternative investments, including private equity and private credit, which the lawmakers said could carry high fees, limited liquidity and difficult valuation methods. The Labor Department’s proposal remained subject to the federal rulemaking process, under which the agency could revise, finalize or withdraw the framework after reviewing public comments.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has begun moving toward a major update to custody rules that govern how investment advisers and investment companies hold client assets, a change that could directly affect institutional crypto custody.

According to the SEC’s regulatory filings, the agency submitted “Amendments to the Custody Rules” to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on Aug. 25 as part of the federal review process. The proposal would then return to the SEC for internal consideration before potentially being released for public comment.

Key takeaways

• The SEC has sent proposed custody rule updates to OIRA for review under White House regulatory procedures.
• The changes target how investment advisers and investment companies hold client assets, including crypto, under the Investment Advisers Act and Investment Company Act.
• The stated goal is to reduce uncertainty for institutions trying to comply with existing federal securities rules while holding digital assets.
• The draft is not yet public, and OIRA and the White House Office of Management and Budget can request modifications before it returns to the SEC.

What the SEC is trying to change

The SEC’s regulatory agenda indicates that the custody proposal could amend existing rules or introduce new requirements under the Investment Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act. Those frameworks apply to firms managing client money and other assets, including assets that may be held in custody arrangements—an area where market participants have long sought clearer guidance for digital-asset holdings.

In its description of the effort, the SEC said the intended purpose is to clarify how companies can hold crypto for clients while remaining consistent with the agency’s securities-law custody framework. The SEC emphasized that the proposal is designed to address uncertainty, but it has not yet published the rule text for public scrutiny.

Once OIRA completes its review, the draft would come back to the SEC. From there, the commission would decide whether to circulate the proposal for public comment.

How the OIRA process could shape timing and scope

The custody rule effort is currently in a pre-publication stage. As reported by Bloomberg, the SEC sent the proposal to OIRA, which sits within the White House Office of Management and Budget, on Aug. 25. That step matters because it is not merely administrative: the White House can ask for changes before the proposal returns to the SEC.

Only after that review cycle would the SEC determine whether to release the proposal for public comment—an important milestone for institutions because public comments can influence how custody obligations, compliance expectations, and operational constraints are ultimately written into regulation.

At present, the main practical takeaway for affected firms is that the proposal is moving, but the actionable details remain unavailable. Custody providers and asset managers will likely be watching for the published draft text and any adjustments that occur during OIRA’s review.

Why this fits the SEC’s broader digital-asset direction

Bloomberg linked the custody rule initiative to the SEC’s wider effort to support the Trump administration’s digital asset agenda, even as a separate piece of market-structure legislation remains stalled in Congress.

The article noted that the broader goal is occurring while the CLARITY market structure bill is still pending in the Senate. According to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting, the bill is expected to face a cloture vote after lawmakers return from the August recess in September, suggesting continued legislative uncertainty around digital-asset rules at the federal level.

In that environment, rulemaking inside the SEC becomes particularly consequential for institutional participants. Custody is not just a compliance checkbox; it affects how funds and advisers structure client asset handling, choose custody models, and document safeguards—core concerns for asset managers considering or already providing crypto exposure.

From enforcement to rulemaking: institutional impact

Crypto market participants have closely tracked the SEC’s shift in posture under Paul Atkins, who became chair in 2025. Multiple reports in the crypto industry described a move away from what critics called “regulation through enforcement” toward formal rulemaking.

Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph has said Atkins pledged to end the SEC’s prior approach and to pursue policy development through established rulemaking channels. That shift is reflected in reported enforcement decisions as well: Cointelegraph previously reported that the SEC dismissed several cases against prominent crypto companies in 2025, including its lawsuit against Coinbase, as it sought to reshape how it regulates digital assets.

The SEC’s custody-rule proposal fits into that broader pattern. Even though the SEC has been less aggressive in some enforcement areas, institutions still need regulatory clarity for the mechanics of custody and client asset protection—areas where existing uncertainty can slow adoption or increase compliance risk.

For investors and intermediaries, a clearer custody framework could translate into better-defined standards for eligibility, controls, and operational practices. It may also reduce the reliance on case-by-case enforcement logic when deciding how to hold and safeguard client assets that include crypto.

What to watch next

Readers should watch for the custody proposal to be published after the OIRA/OMB review and for the SEC’s decision on whether to open a public comment period. The key uncertainty remains the draft’s contents—especially how it will address crypto custody within established custody rules under the Investment Advisers Act and Investment Company Act.

Cathie Wood’s flagship fund has spent more than a decade failing to beat her two most obvious benchmarks.

Her multi-billion dollar ARKK fund, which launched on October 31, 2014, has trailed the S&P 500’s total return, and BTC, since inception.

Even investors who might have tried to time their entries and exits out of Wood’s funds would have had a difficult time finding a slice of outperformance, as Ark Invest also underperformed most calendar years across that timespan.

It was easy for ARKK to outperform BTC during particularly bad years for the asset. For example, it crashed 73% in 2018 or -67% in 2022.

However, Wood’s pro-Tesla, pro-BTC, pro-AI, and pro-gene editing fund failed to beat its benchmarks over the long haul.

Cumulative returns over the full stretch, October 31, 2014 through yesterday’s close, are 318% for ARKK, 23,214% for BTC, and 367% for the S&P 500 with dividends reinvested.

Trailing the market despite a decade of work

Although it’s embarrassing for any fund manager to work full-time for a decade only to trail a passive, labor-free investment in the S&P 500, ARKK’s 49% shortfall actually fails to illustrate how bad the past five years has felt for investors in Wood’s ETF.

On February 16, 2021, ARKK peaked at $159.70 per share, a price it’s never reattained. Since that date, ARKK has lost 46% of its value whereas the S&P 500 has gained 65%.

From the start of 2022, ARKK has trailed the S&P by 80%. Since the start of 2023, 60%. Since 2024, 8%.

Over the past five years, ARKK’s has declined 28% while the S&P has rallied 72%.

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.