The reliability threshold: Why the next phase of bank-led crypto and equities depends on money movement

A quiet shift in what customers actually reward

The narrative around digital assets in banking has, for years, centred on access, on whether an institution offers crypto or stocks* at all. That framing is now evolving. As real-time rails have matured across Europe, the presence of a new asset class is no longer remarkable in itself. What increasingly shapes whether an offering earns lasting engagement is something less visible: whether money moves as promised, at the moment a customer acts. Increasingly, that question is a question about institutional crypto infrastructure, the rails, controls, and settlement logic beneath the offering.

A recent Visa Direct study points to this shift. Its central finding is notable for an industry that spent a decade competing on speed: when fintech leaders were asked what builds customer trust most, reliability ranked first (31%), while speed ranked third (21%). The study describes the moments where this trust is tested — a funding event, a settlement, a withdrawal — as "loyalty moments." Each is a verifiable proof that the infrastructure does what it claims, and a single failure can undo goodwill built over time.

For banks and neobanks considering expansion into crypto and stocks*, this reframes the strategic question. The challenge is not whether to offer new asset classes. It is whether the underlying money movement can carry the weight of the trust that expansion places upon it.

The demand is real and it is directed at incumbents

There is a clear appetite. Research conducted with GWI indicates that many retail investors are interested in accessing digital asset services through their own banks rather than through standalone platforms. This suggests that incumbents may hold an advantage rooted in existing trust, and that institutions well positioned to meet digital asset demand are often those customers already rely upon.

That advantage is conditional. The Horváth study on retail banking transformation documents how digital advancement and evolving customer expectations are reshaping client relationships. Trust is inherited but not fixed, it is re-earned each time an institution asks a customer to place capital somewhere new. When a client moves money into an unfamiliar asset class for the first time, they are, in part, evaluating whether the institution executes as expected.

Why fragmentation quietly undermines the proposition

The most instructive insight from the money movement research is architectural. Institutions often encounter difficulty in expansion not because of a flawed product decision, but because the institutional crypto infrastructure beneath it was assembled piecemeal. New asset classes tend to be added corridor by corridor, a provider here, a rail there, each with its own settlement logic, FX layer, and compliance regime. The consequence is measurable: only 10% of surveyed fintechs describe their money movement setup as fully unified, with an estimated distributed cost of $2.8M across integration, compliance, and escalations.

This is why the mechanics beneath an offering matter as much as the offering itself. The reliability of deep liquidity at the moment a customer acts, the assurance of institutional-grade custody safeguarding those assets, and the integrity of the payment rails carrying funds in and out are the operational realities on which trust is either confirmed or eroded.

For a regulated institution, fragmentation is not only an efficiency question — it can also carry compliance implications that grow with each new asset class. It is notable that in Europe, 47% of fintech leaders cite fraud risk as the top trust breaker — the highest of any region, suggesting that European customers weigh control and assurance heavily. An expansion approach that multiplies rails also multiplies the surface where assurance can break.

There is a constructive reading of Europe's regulatory complexity. The KPMG x ADAN study discusses how maturing frameworks are opening the sector to broader institutional participation. As Bitpanda CEO Lukas Enzersdorfer-Konrad has noted, regulation "requires significant investment into compliance, governance and operational resilience," but "is also creating more clarity and confidence in the market over time" — becoming "a much more important part of long-term scalability and institutional adoption." On this view, regulatory rigour is a foundation for durable trust rather than an obstacle.

The strategic reframe: from distribution to institutional crypto infrastructure

The broader industry data points in a consistent direction. The 2026 State of Fintech in Europe report observes that the market has moved beyond the notion that fintechs and traditional financial institutions compete directly. Increasingly, in areas such as digital assets and embedded finance, institutions look for partners that can help bring new products to market efficiently, because building these capabilities internally is often time-intensive and operationally complex.

The deeper conclusion is that competitive positioning in this next phase is likely to depend less on distribution or the novelty of an asset class, and more on institutional crypto infrastructure, the ability to move capital reliably, transparently, and compliantly across the assets a customer holds. This applies to an investment-as-a-service proposition delivered to a retail base as much as to the emerging frontier of programmable stablecoin rails and the tokenisation of real-world assets, where the reliability of settlement becomes increasingly visible to the end customer. In the same study, where institutions had adopted unified frameworks, surveyed leaders perceived likely benefits including improved customer satisfaction and reduced regulatory friction — perceptions reported by respondents rather than assured outcomes.

Every funding event, settlement, and withdrawal is a moment where trust is either confirmed or eroded. Institutions engaging with the next chapter of digital assets are increasingly those that treat reliability not as plumbing to be outsourced and forgotten, but as a strategic foundation for the customer relationship.

At Bitpanda Enterprise, this is the conviction that shapes how we think about the institutional crypto infrastructure underpinning bank-led expansion into digital assets and equities.

Disclaimer

This article does not constitute investment advice, nor is it an offer or invitation to purchase any digital assets.
This article is for general purposes of information only and no representation or warranty, either expressed or implied, is made as to, and no reliance should be placed on, the fairness, accuracy, completeness or correctness of this article or opinions contained herein.

Disclaimer

This marketing information is distributed for informational purposes, and it is not to be construed as an offer or recommendation. It does not constitute and cannot replace investment advice.

Investing in crypto-assets involves risks, including high volatility and the potential loss of capital. Carefully assess the risks before investing. Crypto-asset services are provided by Bitpanda GmbH (FN 569240v), authorised by the Austrian Financial Market Authority (FMA) in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCAR). Stella-Klein-Löw-Weg 17, AT-1020 Vienna. Execution-only service. Bitpanda Financial Services GmbH does not provide investment advice. Investing involves risk of loss, and past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Consider your circumstances and consult an independent adviser.

Don’t invest unless you’re prepared to lose all the money you invest. This is a high-risk investment and you should not expect to be protected if something goes wrong. Take 2 mins to learn more.