JPMorgan is facing renewed scrutiny from the crypto sector after shutting down accounts tied to digital asset businesses and publishing a research note that many interpreted as a shot across the bow for bitcoin-heavy public companies.
The latest flashpoint came when Jack Mallers, CEO of bitcoin payments company Strike, revealed that JPMorgan Chase had abruptly terminated his personal banking relationship in September 2025. According to Mallers, the bank cited compliance reasons but declined to provide a detailed explanation. He posted the account-closure notice, emphasizing that the decision ended a long-running relationship with the institution and raising questions about how traditional banks are treating executives and firms linked to digital assets.
Separately, JPMorgan’s research arm released a note warning that Strategy — the firm formerly known as MicroStrategy — could be exposed to significant forced outflows if index provider MSCI decides to remove “digital asset treasury companies” from its benchmarks by early 2026. Strategy has become synonymous with its massive bitcoin position, holding about 650,000 BTC according to company disclosures, and has built its corporate identity around being a leveraged play on bitcoin’s performance.
The suggestion that MSCI might exclude companies like Strategy from its indices rattled both crypto and equity markets. Strategy’s stock has long traded as a proxy for bitcoin, attracting investors who want exposure to the asset via a regulated equity. If large asset managers following MSCI indices are forced to sell, that could put downward pressure on the stock and potentially undermine the core premise of Strategy’s approach: that a listed company can function as a kind of quasi-bitcoin ETF through its treasury strategy.
JPMorgan’s note did not predict an imminent exclusion, but by explicitly flagging the risk, it underscored the uneasy position of public companies that have tied their balance sheets to digital assets. The bank’s framing suggested that regulatory, index, and policy developments could materially affect the valuations and liquidity of such firms, even if their underlying bitcoin holdings remain unchanged.
The reaction from prominent crypto figures was swift. Industry advocates including Grant Cardone and Max Keiser publicly urged customers to close their accounts with JPMorgan, casting the bank’s actions as part of a broader pattern of hostility toward bitcoin and the companies building around it. In the wake of those calls, numerous social media users claimed to have begun withdrawing funds or shutting down JPMorgan accounts in protest.
For observers of the long-running tension between traditional banking and the crypto sector, the episode fit into an established pattern often described as “de-banking” — where financial institutions restrict or terminate access for clients perceived as higher risk due to their involvement with digital assets. Critics argue that such moves frequently lack transparency and can amount to informal, backdoor financial censorship. Banks, on the other hand, typically invoke evolving compliance obligations, anti-money-laundering requirements, and regulatory expectations as justification.
So far, JPMorgan has not issued a detailed public explanation for Mallers’ account closures and has not responded directly to boycott campaigns. Without hard data on deposit outflows, it is too early to assess whether the backlash is having a measurable impact on the bank’s funding base. Trading in JPMorgan shares has remained relatively stable, suggesting that, for now, equity markets do not view the controversy as a material threat to the bank’s business.
Nonetheless, the dispute highlights how fragile the relationship remains between large banks and crypto-native enterprises. For digital asset companies, access to traditional banking services is still critical: they need fiat rails for payroll, vendors, compliance, and customer onboarding. When a global institution like JPMorgan closes accounts with limited explanation, it sends a chilling signal, particularly to founders, executives, and early-stage ventures that lack the resources to maintain multiple banking relationships across jurisdictions.
From the perspective of public companies like Strategy, the controversy over the research note touches a different but related nerve. Corporations that hold large amounts of bitcoin on their balance sheets are effectively testing a new model of treasury management and shareholder value creation. Their success depends not only on bitcoin’s price, but also on how index providers, regulators, rating agencies, auditors, and major banks choose to classify and treat these entities.
If MSCI or other index providers eventually decide that “digital asset treasury companies” no longer meet certain inclusion criteria, passive funds and benchmark-tracking vehicles could be compelled to sell their positions. That, in turn, would reduce liquidity and broaden the perception that these firms occupy a gray zone — too crypto for traditional indices, yet too centralized and regulated for hardcore bitcoin purists. JPMorgan’s decision to spotlight that scenario in a formal research note signals that such classification debates are moving from theory into mainstream financial analysis.
Investors are now forced to confront an additional layer of risk. Owning shares in a bitcoin treasury company is not only a bet on bitcoin and on corporate execution, but also on how the world’s gatekeepers — banks, indices, and regulators — decide to define acceptable exposure to digital assets. For portfolio managers, that implies a more complex due diligence process, including an assessment of potential index rebalancing, banking relationships, and policy shifts that could trigger sudden changes in demand.
The broader policy environment adds further ambiguity. Regulators in major jurisdictions are still working through how to supervise digital asset markets, set capital rules for bank exposures, and define the boundaries between securities, commodities, and payment instruments. In that landscape, banks may err on the side of caution, tightening relationships with any client perceived as creating outsized reputational or regulatory risk. The result is a patchwork of inconsistent treatment: some institutions court crypto business, while others quietly wind it down.
For the crypto industry, one likely outcome of episodes like this is a renewed push to build more bitcoin- and crypto-native financial infrastructure. That could mean banks and payment firms designed from the ground up to work with digital assets, custody providers that are not reliant on a handful of large correspondent banks, and corporate structures that reduce vulnerability to a single index or gatekeeper. At the same time, companies will need to demonstrate robust compliance programs if they want to maintain access to mainstream financial rails.
Another likely response is diversification. Crypto-focused firms and executives increasingly see the need to maintain multiple banking partners across different countries and regulatory regimes, so that the loss of one relationship does not threaten operational continuity. Larger players may adopt more sophisticated treasury strategies, splitting fiat and digital asset operations among several providers to mitigate the risk of unilateral closures.
For JPMorgan and its peers, the challenge is to reconcile risk management with the reality that digital assets are not disappearing. As institutional adoption of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies expands — from corporates holding coins on their balance sheets to payment networks experimenting with stablecoins — banks that choose to remain on the sidelines risk ceding ground to more agile competitors. At the same time, mismanaging compliance or onboarding the wrong counterparties can bring regulatory penalties and reputational damage.
What this incident ultimately underscores is that the battle lines between traditional finance and the crypto ecosystem are shifting, not disappearing. Account closures like those reported by Mallers, paired with pointed research notes on companies such as Strategy, show how major banks can influence the trajectory of the sector both through direct decisions on client access and through the narratives they promote in their research.
Whether this specific controversy fades quickly or marks a turning point will depend on several factors: how aggressively customers follow through on threats to leave the bank, whether additional crypto executives come forward with similar experiences, how MSCI and other index providers clarify their stance on digital asset treasury companies, and whether regulators step in with clearer rules for bank–crypto relationships.
For now, what remains is a clear sign of friction. Crypto advocates see JPMorgan’s actions as emblematic of legacy finance resisting a challenger. Banks frame their decisions through the lens of compliance and systemic risk. Between those positions lies a contested middle ground that will shape how easily capital, innovation, and talent can move between the worlds of digital assets and traditional money in the years ahead.