Bank of America Chief Operating Officer Tom Montag says he does not view cryptocurrency as a direct competitive threat to the banking industry. Instead, he sees it as another asset class, a framing that reflects how large financial institutions are increasingly trying to position digital assets within traditional market structures rather than treating them purely as a disruptive alternative.
Montag made the remarks during an interview with Chainalysis CEO Michael Gronager at a conference hosted by the blockchain analytics firm in New York. In the discussion, he suggested that crypto appeals to investors for a wide range of reasons, which is why he prefers to think about it through the lens of investable assets rather than as a head-on challenge to bank business models.
A Traditional Banking View Evolves
Montag is not a marginal voice inside Bank of America. In addition to serving as COO, he is also president of the bank’s Global Banking and Markets division and a member of the executive management team. His responsibilities include businesses serving companies and institutional investors, making his comments especially notable given the importance of institutional sentiment in shaping the broader adoption of digital assets.
When discussing crypto, Montag compared the sector to derivatives in their early days. The comparison suggests that, in his view, digital assets are still moving through an early phase of market understanding, product development, and institutional acceptance. Such a perspective does not amount to a full endorsement of every part of the crypto ecosystem, but it does indicate that senior banking executives increasingly see the sector as part of modern finance rather than an external anomaly.
At the same time, Montag made clear that his acceptance of crypto as an asset class does not eliminate concerns or confusion. He openly said that he does not understand stablecoins as well as many people in the room and raised a basic but important question: is there really a dollar behind a stablecoin? That comment underscores a broader point often echoed across traditional finance: even as digital assets gain legitimacy, stablecoin reserves, transparency, and structure remain central issues for institutional observers.
“I Don’t View It as Competition at All”
Asked directly whether banks are competing with crypto, Montag gave a clear answer. He said, “I don’t view it as competition at all. I view it as just another asset class … and people like it for all sorts of different reasons.” The statement is significant because it captures a shift in tone from major financial institutions. Rather than framing crypto as a force designed to replace banks outright, some large incumbents now appear more willing to place it alongside equities, commodities, bonds, and other investable categories.
This distinction matters. Calling crypto an asset class does not necessarily mean banks are embracing decentralization as a philosophy, nor does it imply that every token or product has equal legitimacy. But it does signal a practical recognition that investor demand exists, that capital continues to flow into the sector, and that institutions need a framework for discussing and potentially servicing that demand.
Bitcoin as a Possible Global Store of Value
Montag also addressed one of the most debated questions in digital asset markets: whether bitcoin can function as a store of value. On that issue, he said he had come around to the idea that bitcoin could have value as a global store of value. He added that Americans, who are accustomed to living with a relatively stable currency, may find it harder to appreciate why such a feature matters so deeply in other parts of the world.
That observation is notable because it moves beyond speculative trading and touches on bitcoin’s macroeconomic narrative. In markets where local currencies are unstable or confidence in monetary systems is weaker, the idea of a non-sovereign store of value can look much more relevant. Montag’s comment does not claim that bitcoin has already fully established itself in that role, but it does show that this thesis has gained traction even among senior figures at major banks.
Stablecoin Questions and CBDC Expectations
Although Montag sounded increasingly open to crypto’s role in finance, his skepticism toward stablecoins remained visible. His question about whether a stablecoin is truly backed by dollars highlights one of the persistent points of tension between traditional finance and digital-asset innovation: institutions want clarity, auditability, and confidence in reserve structures. Without those features, widespread institutional comfort can remain limited.
On central bank digital currencies, Montag said a U.S. CBDC would be inevitable and that it would be “fine.” His view aligns with the idea that public-sector digital money is likely to emerge as policymakers continue evaluating the future of payments and monetary infrastructure. The article notes that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell had previously said the Fed was proactively evaluating whether to issue a CBDC and, if so, in what form.
Montag’s comment suggests that, from the perspective of a large bank executive, the eventual arrival of a CBDC does not necessarily represent a crisis for the financial system. Instead, it may be seen as another stage in the modernization of money and payment rails, even if key design and policy questions remain unresolved.
Part of a Wider Wall Street Shift
Bank of America’s stance does not stand alone. Other major U.S. financial institutions have also moved toward describing crypto in asset-allocation terms. Goldman Sachs said in May that bitcoin is an investable asset. JPMorgan said in July that many of its clients view crypto as an asset class they want exposure to. Together, these comments reflect a broader repositioning by Wall Street firms that once approached the sector with greater hesitation.
Bank of America itself had already taken concrete steps in this direction. The bank established a dedicated crypto research team in July and later launched crypto research coverage, saying that digital assets were “too large to ignore.” That phrase captures the current institutional mood well: even where skepticism remains, the market has reached a scale that demands serious analysis.
What Montag’s Comments Really Indicate
Montag’s remarks do not amount to a blanket approval of the entire crypto industry. He expressed uncertainty about stablecoins, did not suggest that banks are being replaced, and framed crypto primarily through the language of asset markets. Still, his comments are meaningful because they show how the conversation has changed inside traditional finance.
For years, the debate was often framed as banks versus crypto. Now, at least among some top executives, the framing appears more nuanced. Crypto is increasingly discussed as something that can coexist with the banking system, attract investor interest, and serve specific functions such as diversification or global value storage. That does not resolve the regulatory questions surrounding the sector, nor does it remove concerns about transparency and market structure. But it does point to a more mature institutional dialogue.
In practical terms, when a senior executive at one of the largest U.S. banks says crypto is not competition but an asset class, it suggests that digital assets have crossed an important threshold in mainstream finance. They may still be debated, regulated, and scrutinized, but they are no longer easy for large institutions to dismiss.