Once a meme of hoodies and message boards, crypto bros today are a constituency, a client base, and a compliance challenge. In 2025, U.S. Bancorp restarted institutional bitcoin custody with NYDIG sub‑custody—timed to ETFs whose flagship, BlackRock’s IBIT, holds over $80 billion—after an SEC accounting bulletin was repealed, a concrete pivot from exclusion to participation [1]. Meanwhile, the industry moved into the center of U.S. politics, with token launches and campaign spending reframing the regulatory balance of power [2]. This 2013‑to‑2025 shift is measurable.

Key Takeaways

– shows a 12-year arc from 2013’s fringe forums to 2025’s bank custody, with IBIT surpassing $80 billion and U.S. Bancorp re‑entering. – reveals regulatory pivots: SEC accounting bulletin repeal in 2025 and EU stablecoin rules effective December 30, 2024, reshaping risk, reserves, and custody. – demonstrates ETF mainstreaming: BlackRock’s IBIT above $80B AUM, with banks prioritizing support for spot‑bitcoin ETFs and institutional channels over retail hype. – indicates politics’ embrace in 2025, from a $TRUMP token to firms buying influence, marking what analysts call a “dramatic recalibration” of power. – suggests culture matured: post‑ETF, crypto pros swap shorts for suits to win institutional capital, with leaders insisting that “people grow up” in finance.

From 2013 fringe to 2025 finance: how crypto bros changed

Compared with 2013’s DIY ethos, 2025 is defined by distribution pipes only Wall Street can provide. U.S. Bancorp revived institutional bitcoin custody on September 3, 2025, naming NYDIG as sub‑custodian and emphasizing support for spot‑bitcoin ETFs after the SEC repealed an accounting bulletin that deterred balance‑sheet exposure [1]. It marks a return of household‑name banks to a market once kept at arm’s length.

Industry leaders say the tone has changed too—post‑ETF approvals, crypto professionals are trading shorts for suits to court institutional allocators, admitting that “people grow up” as the sector seeks reputational repair [4]. The wardrobe shift is shorthand for new priorities: due diligence rooms, audit trails, and sober compliance calendars.

The conversation also moved from online forums to primetime politics. By May 2025, The Economist described crypto’s sudden centrality in American campaigns, from Donald Trump’s $TRUMP coin to firms buying tokens to gain influence—“a dramatic recalibration” between markets and regulators [2]. In other words, the archetype evolved from outsider to stakeholder.

For practitioners, the change is not cosmetic. Banks re‑entering custody and politicians courting crypto voters signal a feedback loop: regulated pipes invite larger allocators, larger allocators demand policy clarity, and policy clarity attracts more mainstream actors [1][2]. That loop is the defining break from 2013.

Institutional muscle: custody, ETFs, and the $80B signal

U.S. Bancorp’s custodial relaunch is the clearest institutional tell. The bank tied its move to “renewed regulatory clarity,” named NYDIG as sub‑custodian, and highlighted support for spot‑bitcoin ETFs—aligning with an environment where BlackRock’s IBIT alone holds more than $80 billion in bitcoin [1]. The message: ETF demand and bank‑grade custody are converging.

The sequencing matters. The SEC’s accounting bulletin was repealed in 2025, removing a balance‑sheet friction that had kept big banks on the sidelines; custody is re‑emerging as a regulated service rather than an exotic exception [1]. When accounting treatment improves, capital can follow policy rather than dodge it.

Sub‑custody is also a tell. Banks are leaning on crypto‑native specialists for key management while layering familiar controls on top. That split—the crypto rails handled by NYDIG, the client interface and risk framework handled by a national bank—is how new asset classes get normalized in legacy workflows [1]. It’s the same pattern that helped ETFs mainstream equity and bond exposures two decades ago.

Traditional banks re‑entering custody complements ETF inflows, closing a loop from asset creation to safekeeping and reporting. For allocators, the ability to buy a spot ETF, custody with a familiar bank stack, and audit within existing systems is the bridge from speculation to portfolio policy [1]. In 2025, crypto bros aren’t just trading; they’re sitting in investment committees.

Politics now courts crypto bros

Politics has stopped ignoring crypto—and now actively courts it. The Economist reported in May 2025 that national campaigns embraced tokens and that corporates bought them to curry favor, with Donald Trump’s $TRUMP coin emblematic of the moment [2]. Campaign spend and token‑based signaling have become tactical levers.

The briefing called it “a dramatic recalibration” of power between markets and regulators, warning that political embrace converts crypto from fringe to mainstream—and raises new governance questions [2]. When parties mint tokens, the line between advocacy, fundraising, and market manipulation blurs.

On the ground, organizers describe a distinct voter bloc shaped by distrust of legacy institutions and a preference for crypto‑aligned messages. The New Yorker reported campaign operatives tailoring outreach to these voters, citing mobilizers who see crypto users as a cohesive constituency with meaningful contributions and attention to match [5]. That perceived bloc is now part of the 2025 electoral math.

This political turn feeds back into markets. If campaigns and companies buy tokens to signal alignment, then price and policy are no longer independent variables. That entanglement raises both the stakes and the need for transparent rules [2][5].

Regulation recalibrates expectations

Tempered expectations underpin 2025. Bloomberg’s Andy Mukherjee argued on January 3 that hopes may be overstated, pointing to Europe’s stablecoin rules that took effect on December 30, 2024 and to Asia’s more strategic, state‑guided blockchain plans [3]. Regulatory ambition, not just market enthusiasm, will set the pace.

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino flagged reserve requirements as a key constraint, and the analysis warned that traditional banks could capture market share as rules harden—a “potentially tumultuous” year for crypto firms facing higher compliance costs [3]. If banks can meet requirements at scale, independent issuers may feel margin pressure.

In the

Image generated by DALL-E 3