As of now, the price of Bitcoin has maintained a high-level oscillation range stimulated by recent news, with 24-hour fluctuations mainly concentrated within a few percentage points. The market has not seen a significant unilateral surge similar to the phase of ETF approvals. The core trigger of this round of sentiment is that Charles Schwab has clearly planned to launch Bitcoin and Ethereum spot trading tests and pilots in the first half of 2026, shifting the narrative from "whether it will happen" to "when and how it will be implemented." Short-term traders are more focused on whether this news will evolve into a "traditional institution FOMO" market amplifier, while medium to long-term funds are assessing how the configuration pattern will be rearranged after a trillion-dollar level asset management infrastructure truly opens the channel from fiat currency to BTC/ETH.
Core of the Event
In early December, Eastern Eight Zone time, multiple media outlets cited Charles Schwab CEO Rick Wurster stating that the company plans to launch Bitcoin and Ethereum spot trading in the first half of 2026, with the path being "first internal employee testing, then a pilot for select clients," and it will serve as an extension of existing brokerage and asset management services. Unlike the claims circulating on social media that "BTC trading services will be fully launched this year," the existing public information points to a phased and gradual advancement timeline.
On social media, the account The Bitcoin Historian posted content stating, "Charles Schwab, with an asset scale of $138 billion, will launch Bitcoin trading and transaction services this year," accompanied by emotional expressions like "IT'S COMING🚀," sparking further speculation in the market about the launch time and capital scale. However, based on public financial reports and industry coverage, the client asset scale (AUM) managed by Charles Schwab is generally recognized to be over $10 trillion, not $138 billion, indicating a significant discrepancy in the data circulating on social media.
Meanwhile, Schwab has accelerated its layout in crypto-related derivatives over the past few months: it launched futures products related to Solana in December 2025 and has repeatedly mentioned since July 2025 that it is "responding to client demand for exposure to Bitcoin and Ethereum" and evaluating how to provide related services within a compliance framework. From a timing perspective, the planning of the "2026 first half spot trading pilot" is a natural extension of its existing path, rather than a sudden shift from a blank starting point.
Incentive Analysis: News, Capital, and Sentiment
On the news front, the core increment is not about "whether Schwab will do BTC/ETH," but rather "the timeline and execution path being further solidified." The combination of "first half of 2026 + employee testing + client pilot" mentioned by the CEO marks the transition of this plan from strategic intention to execution preparation stage. Compared to the scattered reports in July 2025 about "considering providing related services," this information more clearly outlines the direction and rhythm of implementation.
In terms of capital, Schwab manages a total client asset scale exceeding $10 trillion, with its business spanning multiple sectors including retail brokerage, wealth management, and institutional services. Even if only 0.1% of AUM is ultimately allocated to Bitcoin and Ethereum in various forms, it would still represent a potential incremental pool measured in tens of billions of dollars for both the spot and derivatives markets. It is important to emphasize that this is a concept of a medium to long-term "allocable" upper limit, rather than an actual influx of funds that will surge in the short term. In the early stages of ETF launches, hundreds of billions of dollars in net inflows were attracted in a short time, but the pace gradually smoothed out afterward. Schwab's related business is more likely to present a "slow ramp-up" pattern.
On the sentiment front, claims on social media like "launching this year" and "assets of $138 billion" amplified the excitement and uncertainty surrounding this news, creating a situation where FOMO and skepticism coexist. The bullish narrative emphasizes "another trillion-dollar institution aligning with BTC," while the bearish side focuses on "the timeline being pushed back to the first half of 2026" and "the official product form not yet being announced," among other real constraints. The rapid dissemination by KOLs has led to a short-cycle trading treatment of long-cycle structural benefits, with expectations highly concentrated on short-term price fluctuations rather than the slow variable of asset management structure migration.
Deep Logic: Regulatory Window and the Path of "Derivatives First, Then Spot"
To understand the deeper logic of this event, it needs to be placed in the larger context of regulatory and institutional actions in 2025.
On one hand, the new regulations introduced by the CFTC in December 2025 provide a clearer compliance framework for derivatives of certain crypto assets, including Solana. Coupled with the marginal relaxation of regulatory practices by the SEC on certain non-security tokens, traditional financial institutions have significantly reduced their concerns when designing futures and structured products. Schwab's launch of Solana futures in December 2025, followed by the planning of BTC/ETH spot trading tests in 2026, is a typical path choice of "starting with derivatives that have relatively clear regulations and controllable risks, then gradually approaching spot exposure."
On the other hand, from the perspective of product systems, the dual-line advancement of "spot + derivatives" has become a consensus model for traditional finance's layout in crypto in 2025. The true upgrade of traditional brokerages is not just adding another price index or fund share, but directly incorporating BTC/ETH into the standardized trading and investment service menu, making it an asset option alongside stocks, bonds, and ETFs. This differs from the logic of Bitcoin spot ETF listings: the ETF listing is "adding a new product within the existing brokerage system," while the brokerage's own layout of spot trading is "changing the asset accessibility at the funding entry level."
From a temporal perspective, a clear acceleration curve can be seen in the second half of 2025: starting in July, multiple institutions began publicly discussing crypto allocation plans, launching Solana futures in December, and subsequently providing a timeline for BTC/ETH spot testing in 2026. In just six months, traditional finance rapidly transitioned from "watching and researching" to "pilot products and determining paths," with a pace significantly faster than the institutional entry processes in previous cycles.
Bull-Bear Game: Long-term Structural Benefits vs Short-term Trading Benefits
Surrounding Charles Schwab's actions, the divergence between bulls and bears is very clear, corresponding to two different timelines.
On the bullish side, the core view is that "the comprehensive access of mainstream asset management infrastructure will systematically elevate the long-term allocation demand for BTC/ETH." The reasons are mainly threefold: first, an AUM level of $10 trillion means that even a very small allocation percentage would represent a considerable absolute amount; second, once traditional brokerage accounts are connected with crypto exposure, the friction cost for users to "open an additional account to buy BTC and transfer across platforms" significantly decreases, lowering the behavioral threshold; third, the risk control, compliance, and custody capabilities of institutional brokerage platforms have a natural appeal to risk-averse funds, facilitating the introduction of incremental investors who were previously blocked by safety and regulatory concerns. Thus, bulls deduce that in the long term, the volatility of BTC/ETH may gradually decrease amid high-level oscillations, exhibiting behavior more akin to "high beta risk assets" rather than completely disconnected marginal assets.
On the bearish side, three major uncertainties are emphasized: first, time delays. The public statements point to testing and piloting starting in the first half of 2026, rather than a full opening that can happen soon; the current price has already accumulated a lot of expectations driven by ETF, halving, and multiple rounds of institutional entry narratives, and such medium to long-term benefits may have been reflected to varying degrees in advance; second, product form limitations. Although the regulatory environment is marginally relaxed, what ultimately materializes may be indirect exposures such as limited thresholds, brokerage-distributed products, structured notes, or fund shares, rather than a completely free spot direct trading model, which will affect the real capital inflow rhythm and scale; third, competitive landscape. Native crypto platforms like Coinbase have on-chain native services, a rich selection of tokens, and a high-frequency trading ecosystem, and the entry of traditional brokerages does not mean that all incremental funds will only enter the market through one channel; some funds may simply migrate their entry rather than represent a net increase.
From a neutral perspective, a more reasonable approach is to break this event down into two timelines: "structural benefits" and "trading-level benefits." Structural benefits are reflected in traditional asset management and brokerages incorporating BTC/ETH into their standard product catalogs, representing an institutional migration path that spans at least several years; trading-level benefits, on the other hand, are that each update of the timeline, advancement of tests, and expansion of pilots may trigger a short-cycle emotional trade at the moment. Confusing the two can easily lead to an overestimation of short-term price fluctuations and an underestimation of the long-term path.
Repricing of Capital Entry: From AUM Structure to Capital Flow Path
If we shift our focus from short-term sentiment back to capital structure, we can see more clearly the long-term changes that Schwab's entry may bring.
First is the AUM structure. Schwab's client assets include a large number of retail investors' brokerage accounts, as well as high-net-worth and institutional custody and asset management assets. Among these, the truly high-frequency trading "available funds" are only a part of the total AUM, while long-term allocations, pensions, and passive index products tend to be more aligned with slow variables. This means that even if BTC/ETH exposure is widely incorporated into the account system in the future, the funds that truly form sustained buying pressure are more likely to be characterized by "low proportion, long cycle, regular investment, or rebalancing" passive allocation funds.
Secondly, in terms of allocation scenarios. A considerable portion of American and global investors already hold BTC/ETH on platforms like Coinbase and Binance, but still manage stocks, bonds, and fund assets through brokerages like Schwab and Fidelity. After Schwab provides crypto exposure, the first wave of "capital flow" may not necessarily be from fiat currency directly flowing into BTC, but rather "migration or integration of existing holdings": users transferring some holdings from external exchanges into brokerage custody or completing the reallocation of crypto assets within the brokerage system. This type of flow changes the "entry distribution" and "custody pattern," rather than immediately expanding the net buying pressure in the entire market.
In terms of capital flow paths, a typical future link may likely be: fiat funds entering Schwab accounts → forming BTC/ETH exposure through compliant products or spot channels → managed and settled by internal or partner custodians for on-chain assets. This link is highly abstracted and "de-chain-visible" for ordinary investors, with on-chain data reflected as changes in the balances of a few large custody addresses, rather than a simultaneous growth of numerous retail addresses.
If we take $10 trillion AUM as a base, assuming that in the medium to long term, 0.1%–1% of assets are allocated to BTC/ETH in various forms, the corresponding scale range would be approximately $10 billion to $100 billion. It is important to emphasize that this is merely a range estimate based on historical ETF penetration rates and the current pace of institutional layouts, rather than any official expectations or inevitable paths; the actual scale will be influenced by multiple variables such as regulation, product design, and market volatility.
Sentiment and Public Opinion: Dual Mismatch of Timeline and Asset Scale
From the evolution of public opinion, this event presents a typical chain of "from precise information to amplified narrative."
At the source level, media reports focus on the CEO's statement regarding "the launch of BTC/ETH spot trading tests and pilots in the first half of 2026," as well as the progression order of "first internal employee testing, then a small-scale client pilot." In terms of dissemination, KOLs and secondary market participants quickly transformed this into a simplified narrative of "launching this year" and "a brokerage with $138 billion in assets entering the market," which facilitates communication and emotional rendering on one hand, while on the other hand obscuring the uncertainties of the timeline and product form. The mismatch in timelines (2025 vs. 2026) and the misinterpretation of asset scale ($138 billion vs. $10 trillion AUM) have jointly driven a divergence in sentiment and expectations.
For some traders tracking high-frequency information, the expression "launching this year" naturally corresponds to "an imminent short-term benefit," triggering a rush to act; whereas for institutions and medium to long-term funds that pay more attention to fundamentals, the time window in the first half of 2026 aligns better with their allocation rhythm, and they are currently more focused on observing regulatory progress and product design details. This expectation misalignment will leave traces of "significant emotional fluctuations and delayed trend confirmations" in price and trading volume.
The deviation in asset scale is equally important. Describing Schwab as "an institution with $138 billion in assets" inadvertently compresses the market's imaginative space regarding its potential capital energy; when investors further understand that its actual managed asset scale exceeds $10 trillion, it can easily amplify expectations in reverse, directly associating "10 trillion × some imagined allocation ratio" with potential buying pressure. Both extreme interpretations are unhelpful in establishing rational expectations based on paths and conditions.
Deep Logic: Repricing of Financial Infrastructure
From a higher structural perspective, the accelerated layout of crypto business by traditional giants like Schwab essentially represents a redistribution of "capital entry rights." Whoever controls the main entry from the fiat currency system to assets like BTC/ETH holds greater discourse power and pricing influence.
In recent years, this entry has primarily been in the hands of native crypto exchanges, which have undertaken the complete chain of account opening, fiat currency deposits and withdrawals, trade matching, custody, and even leverage and derivatives. The entry of traditional brokerages and asset management institutions will bring two layers of impact: first, providing a more familiar and controllable participation path for relatively conservative and risk-averse funds; second, by merging account systems, integrating "traditional assets + crypto assets" under a unified asset-liability perspective, thereby fostering new research and investment frameworks and strategy combinations.
For users, the biggest change may not be "whether they can buy BTC/ETH," but rather "seeing stocks, bonds, ETFs, and BTC/ETH all in one familiar brokerage account, with total assets and risk exposure managed together." This merging of account systems will change the starting point of asset allocation decisions in the long term, shifting BTC/ETH from "an independent speculative target" to "a standardized asset class within an investment portfolio."
Safety and trust premiums are also important variables. The brand and risk control record that Schwab has accumulated in traditional finance holds significant appeal for many high-net-worth and institutional funds that were previously reluctant to engage with crypto assets. This portion of funds may not necessarily pursue the highest returns but rather prioritize compliance, reporting transparency, and custody security, preferring entry through structured products, fund shares, or restricted spot channels. In the long run, this will drive the crypto market's evolution from "primarily high-frequency speculation" to a structure where "speculation and allocation coexist."
At the same time, the competition and division of labor between traditional finance and native crypto institutions will gradually become clearer: the former has advantages in compliance, fiat entry, and large client services, while the latter still possesses a moat in product diversity, on-chain innovation, and global liquidity. Different types of funds will make choices between these two types of entry, and capital and discourse power will be reshuffled over a longer cycle.
Outlook: Calibrating Expectations Based on Conditions and Paths Rather Than Single Point Messages
From the current standpoint, it is possible to conduct conditional projections for the next few quarters around different scenarios, rather than simply equating this event with linear benefits.
In a relatively optimistic scenario, if the regulatory environment remains marginally relaxed around 2026, and the CFTC and SEC further clarify the practical paths for mainstream tokens and their related products, Schwab successfully completes internal testing and the first round of client pilots as planned in the first half of 2026, followed by gradual expansion. If other leading institutions (such as Bank of America, Vanguard, etc.) simultaneously advance similar services, the penetration rate of mainstream asset management systems into BTC/ETH may exceed current market expectations, gradually forming a second long-term capital channel beyond ETFs.
In the baseline scenario, it is more worth noting the path of "steady progress but conservative product forms": Schwab advances according to the current timeline but imposes strict limits on participation thresholds, leverage usage, and tradable currencies based on risk control principles, providing exposure more through funds, structured products, or only supporting a few large-cap assets like BTC/ETH. The pace of capital inflow may not be very aggressive, but over time, the slow variable's allocation effect will gradually accumulate.
In a pessimistic scenario, if the regulatory attitude fluctuates or internal compliance and risk control assessments impose stricter constraints on crypto business, the testing and pilot timelines may be delayed, and the coverage may shrink. At this point, some of the optimistic expectations that have formed in the current market will face correction pressure, and short-term prices and valuations may experience a round of "retraction before expectations materialize."
From a temporal dimension, the fourth quarter of 2025 to the first half of 2026 is more likely to be a phase dominated by "narratives and expectations": the market will react to each progress update with trading-level responses; after the second half of 2026, it will enter a "data validation period": empirical data such as capital inflow scale, participant user structure, and product expansion pace will determine whether this round of "traditional finance's cryptoization" is a gradual reality or a concept that has been partially over-narrated.
For investors, a more prudent approach is to calibrate expectations around several key observation indicators: including but not limited to incremental regulatory policy documents, formal product descriptions and timeline updates released by Schwab and other institutions, changes in large on-chain buy orders and custody addresses, as well as the evolution of futures/spot basis and trading volume structures. These indicators will better reflect the real pace and substantive impact of traditional giants like Charles Schwab entering the market than any emotional KOL tweet.
Understanding this event through plans, paths, and data is more important than simply betting on a message that "will launch this year"; what truly drives the medium to long-term trend is the slow but resolute institutional migration of traditional financial infrastructure.
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。
