Source publication time: November 7, 2026, at 04:04:27 UTC+8. This article reflects the proposal and expert assessments reported at that time.
A proposed US Labor Department rule could allow smaller cryptocurrencies into 401(k) retirement plans. But permission to consider an asset is not the same as a commitment to offer it—and the proposal does not establish that any particular token is suitable for retirement savings.
According to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the rule reached the White House for final review on Thursday. The Labor Department’s March proposal aims to make alternative investments, including crypto, easier to offer while providing greater legal protection for employers and plan managers.
An open door, with investment tests attached
The proposal neither names eligible digital assets nor imposes a minimum market capitalization. Instead, it directs plan managers to consider six factors: performance, fees, liquidity, valuation, benchmarks and complexity.
Those requirements matter more than the broad claim that retirement plans could gain access to altcoins. Smaller tokens may face obstacles involving limited trading history, liquidity and other risks, according to the experts cited in the report.
Teresa Goody Guillén, managing partner at Bellementis PLLC, said Bitcoin and Ether would likely come first because they have established markets and investment products. CoinGecko data cited in the report put their market capitalizations at approximately $1.5 trillion and $273 billion, respectively, as of 20:01 UTC on November 6.
Guillén nevertheless cautioned against treating size as a verdict on suitability:
“Big doesn’t mean suitable, and small doesn’t mean disqualified.”
In her assessment, plan managers would need to demonstrate that their choices meet the same standards of prudence, liquidity, valuation and investor protection as other retirement investments.
Bernardo Brites, co-founder and CEO of Trace Finance, offered a narrower assessment. He argued that Bitcoin and Ether could meet the proposal’s tests, while other tokens would fail on track record or benchmarks before market capitalization became decisive. That is his assessment—not an eligibility ruling in the proposed regulation.
Brites framed the practical hurdle as whether a plan committee could document a reliable daily price through a regulated investment wrapper.
Funds may arrive before direct holdings
The proposal does not restrict crypto exposure to exchange-traded funds or managed funds. Nevertheless, Guillén expects those products to precede direct holdings because they fit existing custody and recordkeeping systems.
Direct ownership would raise additional storage, cybersecurity and pricing concerns, she said, while emphasizing that those risks should not automatically disqualify it.
Brites also anticipated a gradual rollout: existing brokerage options first, followed by standalone ETFs and funds with small crypto allocations. He forecast some crypto investment options in 2027, ETFs at larger employers later that year, and potentially broader retirement-fund availability by 2028. These were projections, not announced implementation dates.
“The rule changes the legal risk, not the plumbing, and the plumbing is slower,” Brites said.
He noted that White House review could take up to 90 days, followed by publication and an effective date typically 60 days later.
Legal protection would not eliminate litigation risk
The proposed protection for plan managers would not prevent lawsuits over investment decisions, Brites said. He also warned that a future administration could reverse the rule, potentially discouraging employers from incorporating crypto into long-term plans.
He pointed to the reversal in 2025 of guidance issued in 2022 and said the weight courts would give the proposed safe harbor remained unsettled, particularly with courts giving less deference to agencies.
The evidence gap is therefore between possible regulatory access and actual plan adoption. The proposal leaves room for more cryptocurrencies, but it neither guarantees their inclusion nor removes the investment, operational and legal hurdles described by the experts.