Institutional investor digital assets survey 

Regulated access becomes the default as ETFs/ETPs become preferred vehicle for crypto access

The way that institutions want to access the asset class shows a clear evolution from prior years. Registered spot vehicles have become the institutional on ramp: 66% of respondents report exposure via spot crypto exchange traded (ETFs) and exchange traded products (ETPs) compared to 64% in 2025, and 81% prefer spot exposure through a registered vehicle (up from 60% in 2025). This preference reflects more than product popularity; it also reflects governance reality. In an environment where company boards, investment committees and compliance teams are navigating volatility and reputational scrutiny, registered structures can simplify operational due diligence, reporting and risk ownership relative to customized direct holdings. The result is a market where “access” and “comfort” increasingly travel together, as institutions can express views while staying inside familiar oversight rails.

Risk, regulation and custody security moved from “considerations” to “decision drivers”

The most important tonal shift in 2026 is the prominence of risk and regulation, along with the speed at which custody security rose as a gating factor. Nearly half of respondents said recent volatility strengthened their firm’s emphasis on risk management, liquidity and position sizing. That response is consistent with the more two-way market environment since October 2025 highs, in that institutions are continuing to build and increase allocations, but doing so with greater emphasis on risk management and governance as volatility remains a defining feature of the asset class.

In that context, it is not surprising that institutions' stated concerns elevated sharply. Regulatory uncertainty and custody security sit at the top of the concern set for investors and prospective investors in 2026, and custody evaluation criteria also undergoing meaningful reprioritization as regulatory compliance and security/key signing protocols became decisive differentiators. Put simply, institutions are not just asking “who can custody?” but “who can custody under scrutiny?”, considering scrutiny from regulators, auditors, clients and internal risk committees. With risk reduction in mind, the majority of investors are currently employing a multi-custodian model (61%) rather than a single custodian (36%) when investing in digital assets or crypto.

Firms are progressing into the “execution” stage of their digital assets journey, including building internal capabilities and operating models 

Institutions are not only adjusting how they access digital assets, but also increasingly investing in the capabilities required to operate in the asset class over time. Over the next two years, respondents point to a clear set of build priorities, with trading, custody and asset tokenization consistently emerging as the capabilities institutions want to have “ready to scale” as participation deepens.

This build-out is also showing up in how firms want to run digital assets day-to-day. Slightly over half of respondents (53%) prefer a traditional finance platform with crypto capabilities (e.g., custody, trading) reinforcing a “convergence” direction of travel where digital assets are integrated into its existing portfolio, risk and operating stacks rather than managed in a separate workflow. In parallel, capability-building is not purely internal, as 68% of respondents report preferring to partner with a crypto-native firm to augment existing capabilities, signaling a pragmatic approach to accelerating maturity while maintaining governance and control expectations. 

As these capabilities take shape, the focus naturally expands beyond investment exposure toward utility, where digital assets can enable faster settlement, 24/7 workflows and more efficient movement of value.

Stablecoins are increasingly viewed as settlement and treasury infrastructure — not just trading convenience

As the industry matures, institutions are drawing a sharper line between speculative exposure and operational utility. Stablecoins sit at the center of that distinction, with 86% of respondents either already using or interested in stablecoins, and interest concentrated in institutional workflows like T+0 securities settlement (88%) and internal cash management/money movement (85%). This aligns with the broader regulatory arc, given the GENIUS Act created a federal framework for payment stablecoins (reserves, disclosures, oversight) and helping move stablecoins into a more institutionally legible category. 

The implication is that stablecoins are increasingly being evaluated like infrastructure, with attention to counterparty risk, custody, liquidity management and integration, rather than as a niche crypto instrument. Institutions appear to be leaning into a future where “always on” markets and faster settlement are not just features, but competitive requirements.

Tokenization expectations remain high, but institutions are candid about what must change to scale

Tokenization remains one of the most consistent “next horizon” themes in institutional digital assets, not because it is novel, but because it directly targets structural pain points including settlement speed, market efficiency, and access to new assets. In 2026, 63% of respondents note their firm is very interested in tokenized assets (up from 57% in 2025), and over 60% expect significant integration of blockchain rails into trading, clearing and settlement over the next 3–5 years. Further, 64% of asset managers are very interested in tokenizing their own assets in 2026, a considerable uptick from 40% in 2025.

However, compared with earlier cycles of enthusiasm, institutions are more explicit about constraints. Regulatory uncertainty (67%), integration challenges (59%), and insufficient secondary liquidity (38%) stand out as the most cited hurdles when investing in or holding tokenized assets. That realism is important: it suggests tokenization is moving from “conceptual interest” to “implementation planning,” where the bottlenecks are not marketing or imagination, but interoperability, marketplace depth, and rule clarity. In other words, tokenization is no longer waiting on belief; it is waiting on rails and rules.

Perspective on the future

Looking ahead, 2026 may be remembered less for any single product milestone and more for the institutionalization of operating standards. The next phase of growth is likely to be led by firms that can combine regulated access with institutional grade controls, including governance that satisfies clients and regulators, custody frameworks built around compliance and security, and infrastructure that integrates digital assets into existing environments rather than isolating them in parallel stacks. Stablecoins and tokenization points to where this convergence is headed, given faster settlement and more continuous markets, but scaling will depend on converting regulatory progress into implementable rules and buildout of interoperable rails with sufficient liquidity to support institutional size. In a market that has just experienced months of drawdown and renewed volatility, the winners are likely to be those who treat digital assets not as a tactical trade, but as a strategic capability, built to last through the cycle. 

Summary

The 2026 survey suggests institutions remain committed to increasing participation in digital assets, but that commitment is now inseparable from expectations around regulated access, risk discipline and custody security. At the same time, stablecoins and tokenization are increasingly framed as infrastructure plays, with pathways to faster settlement and more efficient market structure, even as regulatory clarity and integration hurdles continue to shape the pace of adoption.

Thank you to the following contributors of this report: 
- Yusuf Azizi, Senior, Ernst & Young LLP 
- Brandon Kim, Senior, Ernst & Young LLP 
- Morgan Wright, Senior, Ernst & Young LLP 

Download previous institutional investor digital assets surveys: