Amy Oldenburg, who leads digital asset strategy at Morgan Stanley, said Wall Street is not turning its back on Bitcoin. In her view, the slower institutional rollout has far more to do with regulation, balance-sheet treatment and education inside large financial firms than with hostility toward the asset itself.
Speaking on a podcast, Oldenburg said Morgan Stanley operates as a bank holding company under Federal Reserve oversight, which leaves it with tighter constraints than standalone asset managers. She said the firm’s asset management arm has already launched a Bitcoin ETP, while spot crypto trading is being rolled out in stages. According to her, customers will eventually be able to buy spot Bitcoin through E*Trade.
Allocation guidance exists, but advisor adoption is lagging
Oldenburg said Morgan Stanley is not recommending Bitcoin across the board. The guidance is aimed at moderate to more aggressive portfolios rather than every client account. For some portfolios, the suggested exposure is 0% to 2%, while more aggressive mandates can go to 2% to 4%.
She described advisor education as the main bottleneck. Many financial advisors, she said, still do not fully understand Bitcoin, let alone more advanced digital-asset products. Price action has not helped. Oldenburg noted that since the bank introduced its allocation guidance, Bitcoin briefly moved above $100,000 but later fell back toward the range seen when ETP products were launched, leaving advisors and clients still debating where the asset belongs in a portfolio.
MSBT drew strong demand with a 14-basis-point fee
Discussing Morgan Stanley’s MSBT launch, Oldenburg said it became one of the best first-day ETF debuts in the firm’s history. She said that result showed demand was already present, even in a market with more than 20 Bitcoin ETPs competing for flows.
To stand out, Morgan Stanley entered the market with a 14-basis-point management fee. Oldenburg also pointed to the custody structure, saying the product works with Coinbase and BNY. For the bank, having a global systemically important bank involved in issuance and custody matters because larger digital-asset products will require much more institutional infrastructure.
Why banks still hesitate to hold Bitcoin on balance sheet
Oldenburg said banks are not avoiding Bitcoin because they dislike it. The issue, she argued, is capital treatment. A bank will favor assets that are more efficient from a regulatory and capital perspective, and Bitcoin still carries heavier constraints in that framework. She said broader adoption by banks would likely require an environment where Bitcoin can be used more efficiently as collateral and supported more directly across trading and financing activity.
She also rejected the idea that one simple factor explains why Bitcoin has not reached $200,000. Commodity trading, AI-related investing and even debate over quantum computing have all competed for investor attention and portfolio space. In her telling, these overlapping narratives have diluted momentum that might otherwise have gone into Bitcoin.
Her view through 2030: steady growth, not a vertical breakout
On the outlook for the next several years, Oldenburg said adoption should keep rising through 2030, but in a measured way. She does not expect a dramatic J-curve where everything changes in a very short window. She was also cautious on extreme price calls, saying she is not making bold forecasts such as Bitcoin reaching $1 million.
Oldenburg added that Bitcoin should not be casually grouped together with Ethereum, Solana and XRP as if all crypto assets serve the same purpose. She said the differences between them are substantial. At the same time, she stressed that self-custody and financial sovereignty remain central to Bitcoin’s appeal. In a crisis, she said, holding an ETP means owning price exposure, not actually holding Bitcoin itself.