In February 2026, under Eastern Standard Time, the large U.S. mortgage lender Newrez officially recognized the asset attributes of cryptographic assets such as BTC and ETH for the first time in mortgage loan reviews. This recognition allows these assets to be included in the borrower's asset-liability proof without the need for prior liquidation. This initiative is limited to specific conditions, such as the assets needing to be custodied with U.S. regulatory agencies (according to a single source), reflecting a delicate balance between regulatory compliance and business innovation. It also aligns with the backdrop of the SEC's previous approval of spot ETFs and the gradual loosening of the industry regulatory environment. When the traditional mortgage model's preference for stable cash flows and high-quality, predictable assets encounters the price volatility and potential "flash crashes" of cryptographic assets, the conservative paradigm of mortgage risk control meets the high volatility gene of the crypto market. Therefore, Newrez's move appears to be a bold trial conducted within strict boundaries.
U.S. Mortgage Giant Opens Door to Cryptographic Assets in Approval Process
As one of the top 25 lenders in the U.S., Newrez's inclusion of BTC, ETH, certain SEC-approved spot ETFs, and dollar-denominated on-chain assets in the mortgage asset review process (according to a single source) effectively moves what was previously viewed as "speculative chips" into the asset column of traditional mortgage approvals. The more critical change is that holders are no longer required to sell off their positions in advance; instead, they can directly include these positions in their asset-liability proof without selling, altering the previous path of "selling coins for fiat currency and then applying for a loan with bank statements."
However, this acceptance is not without conditions. According to a single source, the relevant cryptographic assets must be custodied with U.S. regulatory agencies to ensure the verifiability and compliance of the assets, reducing the anti-money laundering and auditing challenges posed by exchanges or self-custodied wallets. This combination of "pre-custody + asset recognition" aligns with the regulatory framework and, to some extent, alleviates traditional institutions' concerns about technical barriers and operational risks. Industry media National Mortgage News described this as "an important step for the U.S. mortgage industry in integrating cryptographic assets," highlighting the breakthrough significance of the event from the perspective of the traditional mortgage industry: this is not just a minor adjustment by a single institution but the first time a mainstream lender has systematically included cryptographic assets in the mortgage process.
Collision of Risk Control Red Lines and Price Roller Coasters
From the perspective of mortgage institutions, traditional risk control has long favored predictable, stable cash flows and asset quality: borrowers' continuous salary income, robust corporate profits, financial assets with limited volatility and easy valuation, and properties with relatively smooth historical performance together form a "modelable" risk foundation. Credit departments prefer variables that can be placed into Excel and regulatory reports rather than price curves that can deviate from historical volatility ranges at any moment.
However, when high-volatility assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum come into view, the issue immediately shifts to a different logic. Their prices can multiply in the short term but can also experience steep declines; leverage and derivatives further amplify the liquidation risks. These assets may seem "highly liquid and quickly convertible" during a bull market, but in times of liquidity tightening or policy shocks, sharp price drops can quickly erode the apparent "net asset thickness," making the originally stable loan safety margins precarious. Therefore, traditional institutions are more likely to adopt conservative recognition and discount approaches when accepting such assets, recognizing only a portion of the market value, setting limits on identifiable scales, or requiring higher other assets or income to hedge potential risks. However, the specific valuation models and hedging tools used have not been disclosed in public information and should not be speculated upon.
Amidst this conflict, some analysts remind us that traditional institutions are increasingly viewing politics and macro policies as key variables when assessing risks related to cryptographic assets. The viewpoint that "the impact of politics and macro policies on prices is surpassing on-chain factors like halving" implies that from the bank's risk perspective, Bitcoin is no longer just a "technology and consensus-driven" asset but is included in the macro game of global monetary policy, sanction risks, and regulatory stances. Rather than focusing solely on on-chain data and halving cycles, mortgage institutions are more concerned about whether future regulations will tighten, whether the monetary environment will change dramatically, and how these macro changes will translate into price volatility and borrowers' repayment capabilities.
Chain Reaction Following ETF and Loosening of Mortgage Regulations
To understand the background of Newrez's decision, it is difficult to overlook the SEC's approval of the Bitcoin spot ETF. This regulatory action gradually pushes Bitcoin from being an "off-market floating asset" into the sequence of compliant financial products, providing a clearer framework for accounting treatment, custody, and reporting obligations. For traditional institutions, the existence of a spot ETF means they can hold and value it through familiar fund share forms without directly facing the complexities of private key management, on-chain transfers, and compliance reviews. This effectively constitutes an "identity upgrade," bringing Bitcoin closer to an asset class that can be written into risk control manuals.
On this basis, Newrez's inclusion of spot ETF shares as identifiable assets is both a responsive move to regulatory signals and a clear symbolic message: once cryptographic assets are "packaged" through ETFs, they become easier to incorporate into institutional asset pools and mortgage approval systems. For compliant funds, this form is more convenient for valuation and auditing and is more readily accepted by accounting and compliance departments, reducing internal negotiation costs.
Almost simultaneously with developments in the U.S., Belgium's KBC Bank launched BTC and ETH trading services, allowing customers to buy and sell these two major assets directly through their channels, further indicating that the global banking industry is attempting to embed cryptographic assets into everyday business systems: in the U.S., they are recognized as mortgage assets, while in Europe, they are starting to be part of retail trading and wealth management menus. Behind these seemingly scattered cases is the process of politics and macro policies continuously reshaping the risk premium and mainstream acceptance of cryptographic assets. As regulation shifts from a blanket rejection to "controlled acceptance," and as monetary and inflation environments accelerate the demand for diversified asset allocation, the pace at which cryptographic assets move from the margins to the financial system's core naturally quickens, making Newrez's step a new node on this path.
A New Channel for Buying Homes with Cryptocurrencies as Credit Credentials
From the perspective of ordinary holders, the most intuitive benefit of this policy is that there is no need to sell BTC, ETH, and other positions, while also having the opportunity to improve mortgage approval rates. In the past, to appear "more asset-rich" in the eyes of banks, many had to choose to sell part of their holdings during bull markets or rebounds, converting them into fiat deposits or financial products, and then applying for loans with bank statements and account statements. Now, if the held assets meet custody and compliance conditions, they can be directly counted in the asset-liability proof in "holding status," reducing the pressure to sell.
However, this "not selling coins but being recognized in a pledged form" model is not without costs. The opportunity cost first manifests in that if the market continues to rise, the portion of positions "locked" to enhance credit may not be flexibly liquidated to participate in other high-yield opportunities. On the other hand, in extreme market conditions, if prices drop significantly, borrowers may psychologically bear pressure similar to "margin calls"—although current public information does not indicate a substantial margin call mechanism, the shrinkage of asset market value will make holders more sensitive to overall debt levels and the safety margins of their household balance sheets, forcing them to make selling or refinancing decisions at worse price ranges.
In light of the current market environment, several institutions have pointed out that while the on-chain structure of Bitcoin has improved, there is still insufficient incremental funding, and the pace of new capital entering the market is relatively moderate. Against this backdrop, some holders are more willing to treat their existing chips as collateral or credit endorsements rather than actively selling when there is a lack of sufficient buying support. Newrez's policy just happens to provide a systematic outlet for this mentality. Upgrading cryptographic assets from "hedging tools" to "credit credentials recognized by banks" is not a first on a global scale. Previously, in regions with high inflation and continuous currency depreciation, for example, residents of Iran have been reported to accelerate their shift to cryptographic assets to hedge against declining purchasing power (according to a single source). The difference is that the usage scenarios there are more focused on wealth preservation and cross-border payments, while Newrez's case is the first to push this "hedging asset" into traditional mortgage contracts, further expanding the role of cryptographic assets in personal financial life.
Will Peers Follow or Observe the Banking System's Trial-and-Error Trajectory?
As the first among the top 25 lenders willing to explore this path, Newrez is likely to trigger a typical "wait-and-see—small-scale pilot—broader acceptance" trajectory within the industry. On one hand, peer institutions will closely monitor changes in default rates, regulatory feedback, and public opinion trends during the actual implementation of this policy; on the other hand, internal risk control and compliance teams will reassess their tolerance for exposure to cryptographic assets. As data and regulatory feedback gradually accumulate, some institutions may choose to conduct small-scale pilots in specific regions or among specific customer groups, validating risk models through trial products before deciding whether to expand the scope.
However, achieving large-scale replication in a short time is not easy. Other financial institutions need to carefully weigh capital constraints, compliance pressures, and reputational risks when assessing whether to follow suit. Capital adequacy requirements limit the risk weights that balance sheets can bear, and due to high volatility, cryptographic assets are often assigned higher risk factors by regulators and internal models; compliance departments are concerned about anti-money laundering, sanction compliance, and cross-border capital flow issues; while branding and reputation teams must consider whether the media will focus on "using Bitcoin as mortgage assets" as a point of criticism if the market experiences a sharp correction. These practical considerations collectively determine that even though Newrez has taken the first step, it will be challenging for more institutions to follow suit in the short term.
At the same time, the current policy may still need to undergo further communication with regulatory agencies and potential additional reviews before it can be truly implemented on a large scale, with specific details awaiting subsequent announcements and official statements for verification. In the medium to long term, if more banks choose to follow suit, not only in mortgage loans but also in consumer loans, credit loans, and even some small business financing, the path for cryptographic assets to be "financialized" could be opened. They could serve as supplementary collateral or become auxiliary indicators for assessing individual or corporate risk preferences. As the banking system incorporates these assets into a broader product line and risk management framework, the boundaries between cryptographic assets and traditional credit systems will become increasingly blurred, and the transmission of financial cycles to the crypto market will become more direct.
When Bitcoin Enters Loan Contracts: A Footnote to the New Financial Order
In summary, Newrez's inclusion of BTC, ETH, and related ETFs in mortgage asset reviews marks a shift of these assets from being merely "speculative targets" to assets partially recognized by the traditional credit system. In previous financial narratives, cryptographic assets were more often placed in the categories of high-risk investments, inflation hedges, or cross-border transfer tools. Now, they are beginning to appear in mortgage contracts, asset-liability proofs, and the internal systems of traditional banks, becoming a new variable influencing household asset allocation and long-term debt structures.
In the short term, this resembles a risk control experiment with strict boundaries and cautious assumptions: assets need to be regulated and custodied, can only be counted within a certain range, and have not yet been widely replicated across the industry. Any sharp correction or change in regulatory direction could quickly tighten the parameters. The medium to long-term trajectory depends on three key factors: the price volatility of cryptographic assets themselves, whether the regulatory pace continues to loosen or periodically tightens, and how the broader macro environment—including interest rates, inflation, and geopolitics—reshapes the market's pricing of risk premiums.
In a world where traditional finance and cryptographic assets are increasingly intertwined, individual investors are also forced to rethink their positions: the way they hold assets not only concerns "gains and losses" but also begins to affect the credit conditions they can obtain; risk management is no longer just about "whether there will be a liquidation," but must also consider the household balance sheet, income stability, and leverage usage; and leverage itself extends from the multiple figures in trading accounts to long-term commitments in mortgages, consumer loans, and even corporate financing. When Bitcoin is written into loan approval logic, every individual who chooses to hold assets or leverage must redefine their risk boundaries and asset roles within the new financial order.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
