There is still a hint of 2021 in the term “crypto savings account”—bright app screens, “earn” buttons, and yield promises that later surfaced in bankruptcy filings. Hearing BMO associated with the idea therefore sounds different. The bank might be attempting a straightforward strategy: take a risky idea, put it in regulated custody, and see if Canadians will view digital assets more like a financial product that operates in the background than as a casino chip.
The attitude towards cryptocurrency has been shifting in tiny, useful steps in Toronto’s financial district, where winter slush is tracked into marble lobbies and security officers nod at familiar faces. The focus is more on custody, controls, and liability than it is on decentralization.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Institution | Bank of Montreal (BMO) |
| Product (Reported/Discussed) | Crypto “savings” accounts with custody handled via a regulated/qualified custodian model |
| What “Regulated Custody” Implies | Segregation, security controls, audits/attestations, clear client-asset treatment, and oversight rules for custodians |
| Why Now | Canada tightening custody expectations; stablecoin and digital-asset policy becoming more explicit |
| Relevant Canadian Rulemaking | CIRO Digital Asset Custody Framework (Feb. 3, 2026) |
| Policy Direction | Canada’s proposed/embedded Stablecoin Act framework discussed in Bill materials and legal analysis |
| BMO’s Public Tone on Crypto | Historically cautious; BMO has published educational materials and research on crypto/stablecoins |
| Key Consumer Risk | “Savings” framing vs. crypto volatility and the reality of redemption/withdrawal mechanics |
| Key Business Risk | Reputational risk plus regulatory scrutiny if marketing feels like investment promotion |
| Authentic reference | BMO Economics: “Stable(coin) Talk for Unstable Times” https://economics.bmo.com/en/publications/detail/21fb8a02-6fc9-42fb-9d34-28bb9808436b/ |
By releasing a framework that seems to be a reaction to years of hacks, clashing anxieties, and “trust us” architecture, Canada’s investment industry regulator, CIRO, has been raising the bar for how platforms and dealer members should handle digital assets.
In light of this, BMO’s purported move to offer crypto savings accounts with regulated custody seems to be more of a wager on consumer psychology than on technology. Individuals are not interested in constantly “trading.” They want to feel as though someone is keeping an eye on the doors, watch a number remain motionless, and park money somewhere.
Because they promise lower volatility and because policymakers are increasingly treating them like bank-adjacent instruments that should be governed by regulations, stablecoins in particular continue to come up in that discussion.
Even BMO has written about this change in tone. According to the bank’s economics research, stablecoins are something that policymakers have started to take more seriously because they are similar to banking in every way—reserves, redemption, consumer protections, operational risk—all of the unsightly mechanisms that prevent the financial system from imploding on a Tuesday afternoon. It seems as though BMO is attempting to adapt to the times without coming across as a meme stock chatroom.
But the words count. “Savings” is a loaded term, particularly in Canada, where the majority of consumers were raised believing that savings entails deposit insurance, steady interest, and the ability to voice grievances directly to a branch manager. Even with meticulous maintenance, it’s still unclear if a cryptocurrency savings account can ever match that emotional commitment.
Although regulated custody can improve asset segregation and lower the risk of theft, it cannot make a volatile asset a reliable store of value or eliminate the fact that cryptocurrency markets occasionally fall while everyone is asleep.
Additionally, the custody question is concealed within the custody question. Which framework, which regulator, and which organization are in control when a bank says it is “regulated”? For example, the latest CIRO guidance sets expectations for how assets are reported and protected and is directed at dealer members and crypto-asset trading platforms. BMO is attempting to position itself on the safer side of an industry that has frequently treated custody as an afterthought if it is relying on that type of model—qualified custodians, stringent controls, and clearer client-asset treatment.
One trend emerges as the banking industry moves closer to cryptocurrency: research comes first, followed by products, and risk warnings are constant. Written in a notably cautious tone, BMO’s own earlier Bitcoin education materials read like a bank attempting to comprehend the phenomenon without endorsing it. That prudence wasn’t a show. Because compliance teams frequently ask, “What happens on the worst day?” it was institutional muscle memory.
The deeper story may be what it indicates about Canada’s regulatory direction if the product is real, or at least close enough to real that rivals are getting ready for it. The system is beginning to define the parameters of what is acceptable as stablecoin frameworks are being discussed and formalized through federal bill mechanisms, and the Bank of Canada and other organizations are advocating for high-quality reserves and clarity regarding redemption in the stablecoin space. Typically, banks wait until the exits are marked before entering a room.
Still, there is a hint of skepticism. Even with regulated custody, cryptocurrency savings accounts have the potential to deceive users into believing that risk has been eliminated rather than restructured. The risk may change from “rug pulls” to the tedious process of fees and spreads, from custody chaos to liquidity constraints, and from hacks to market drawdowns. The risk to a bank’s reputation is high: years of trust-building can be destroyed by a single negative headline about frozen withdrawals or unexpected terms.
In order to prevent the product from turning into a moral panic in a suit, BMO is probably moving here with safeguards—limits, eligibility checks, conservative asset selections, and perhaps exposure to stablecoins rather than altcoins.
Crypto purists may be disappointed by this restraint, but it may be the only way for this to become widely accepted without blowing up. The true test may lie not in whether Canadians want cryptocurrency savings but rather in whether they want cryptocurrency savings that function similarly to bank products, complete with tedious regulations, a slower rollout, and a barrage of disclosures.
