Young affluent Americans are abandoning financial advisors who overlook Bitcoin.

Wealthier, younger Americans appear to be redefining the guidelines of wealth management.

They favor broad equity indices, allocate cash to T-bills, and continue to invest in real estate and private ventures. However, they also anticipate seeing Bitcoin, Ethereum, and a select few other digital assets integrated into the same dashboard as their other investments.

For this demographic, cryptocurrency is a standard component of their portfolios. Conversely, for many of their advisors, it remains a compliance challenge and a potential career risk.

The divide between young investors and their advisors is evident and continues to expand. Zerohash’s recent report, “Crypto and the Future of Wealth,” surveyed 500 investors aged 18–40 in the US, with household incomes ranging from $100,000 to over $1 million.

The majority of these individuals already collaborate with a financial advisor or private wealth manager. Yet, regarding cryptocurrency, a significant portion manages a separate array of applications, exchanges, and wallets because their advisory firms either cannot or choose not to engage with it.

Over the next two decades, tens of trillions will transition from older Americans to younger heirs and charitable organizations. Those poised to inherit this wealth already consider a 5–20% allocation to cryptocurrency as typical, and they are now evaluating advisors based on their ability to accommodate this reality without compromising fiduciary responsibilities, tax strategies, or fundamental cybersecurity.

Younger affluent clients face a straightforward decision: if you are unwilling to manage the segment of my portfolio that I prioritize, I will seek someone who will.

The demand signal Wall Street attempted to overlook

The findings from Zerohash’s survey are clear: approximately 61% of affluent individuals aged 18–40 already possess cryptocurrency. This figure rises to 69% among the highest earners in the group, and most do not view cryptocurrency as a mere gamble. Among high-income investors, 58% allocate 11–20% of their portfolios to digital assets.

For all these investors, cryptocurrency occupies the same mental category as real estate and core equity funds, rather than being seen as a speculative side investment. The study indicates that 43% of young investors allocate 5–10% of their portfolios to cryptocurrency, 27% allocate 11–20%, and 11% allocate over 20%. Additionally, Zerohash reports that 84% of cryptocurrency holders intend to increase their allocations in the coming year.

These statistics reflect the demand side.

On the supply side, the advisory sector is largely unresponsive. The survey revealed that 76% of cryptocurrency holders invest independently, outside their brokerage or wealth management firm. Only 24% hold cryptocurrency through an advisor.

These are not merely BTC maximalists utilizing cold storage; they are individuals who already pay a fee for advice yet still feel compelled to manage a separate portfolio in another browser tab.

Funds are already shifting, as 35% of affluent investors in the sample report reallocating assets away from advisors who do not offer cryptocurrency services.

Among the top-earning segment with incomes from $500,000 to over $1 million, this figure rises to 51%. More than half of those who departed moved between $250,000 and $1 million each.

Yet, the same dataset illustrates how straightforward it would be for wealth managers to retain these clients. Approximately 64% of respondents indicate they would remain with an advisor longer or transfer more assets if that advisor provided access to cryptocurrency; 63% would feel more at ease investing through an advisor if digital assets were included on the same portfolio dashboard as their stocks and bonds.

The key takeaway is that the expectations for advisors are quite low. The requirement is not to “become a crypto hedge fund,” but rather to “acknowledge that this asset class exists and can be integrated into the same reporting framework.”

When combined with the Great Wealth Transfer, the implications become significant very quickly. Cerulli and RBC estimate that the total wealth transitioning from older Americans to younger generations and charities will be in the range of $84–$124 trillion through the 2040s.

This influx of inheritance and business proceeds is heading toward cohorts that already consider cryptocurrency a standard part of their portfolios.

The advisory framework is designed for everything except on-chain

If the demand is this evident, why do so many advisors still default to “we can’t engage with that”?

Part of the explanation lies in product design. For an extended period, the only means for an advisory firm to incorporate cryptocurrency exposure into a model portfolio was through unconventional closed-end funds, trust structures, or offshore vehicles that few wanted to clarify during a compliance review.

Even now, with spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs available, many RIAs and broker-dealers regard those tickers as novelties.

Moreover, there is the issue of paperwork. Investment Policy Statements drafted in the last decade often categorize Bitcoin as a “prohibited speculative instrument” alongside penny stocks and options. Modifying that language necessitates committee meetings, E&O reviews, and legal memos. The path of least resistance for a mid-level compliance officer is typically to state “not approved at this time.”

Underlying this is custody law. According to SEC regulations, registered advisors must hold client funds and securities with a “qualified custodian,” which generally refers to a bank, broker-dealer, or similar institution that adheres to stringent safeguards.

For years, cryptocurrency did not fit neatly into these categories, and the sought-after SAB 121 (Staff Accounting Bulletin 121) complicated matters further by requiring public banks holding digital assets to record corresponding liabilities on their balance sheets.

That bottleneck has begun to ease. In early 2025, the SEC introduced new guidance and no-action relief that simplified the process for state-chartered trust companies to act as qualified crypto custodians, effectively retiring SAB 121. While the regulatory landscape may still appear daunting to many, it no longer categorizes digital assets as hazardous.

However, in practice, a new array of partners is rushing to fill the void. Fidelity Crypto for Wealth Managers provides custody and trade execution through Fidelity Digital Assets, seamlessly integrated into the same Wealthscape interface that an RIA already utilizes for stocks and bonds.

Eaglebrook Advisors manages model portfolios and SMAs focused on BTC and ETH for wealth managers, with portfolio reporting and billing integrated into standard RIA systems. BitGo has developed a platform tailored for wealth management that connects qualified custody to a TAMP-style overlay.

Anchorage Digital positions itself as a regulated digital asset custodian with reporting, reconciliation, and governance controls specifically designed for RIAs.

In theory, a mid-sized advisory firm could now add a crypto component with partners it already recognizes from the institutional sector. However, in practice, the internal systems of many firms remain entrenched in outdated processes. OMS and PMS systems do not always accommodate staking yield, and the billing logic struggles with on-chain positions.

Consequently, advisors resort to what they know: they delay.

The structural gap is evident in the Zerohash data regarding behavior: 76% of cryptocurrency holders in the survey manage their digital assets independently. This indicates they are already familiar with transferring funds through exchanges, hardware wallets, and on-chain applications. For this group, advisors become largely irrelevant for acquiring Bitcoin, Ethereum, or any other cryptocurrencies ranging from XRP to DOGE. Their value lies in tax, estate, and risk management for transactions the client has already executed.

This is where the concept of the “crypto-competent advisor” becomes significant. A serious client under 40 today does not require their advisor to recite the Nakamoto consensus section of the Bitcoin whitepaper. They are more concerned with whether that advisor can:

• Translate a 5–15% BTC/ETH allocation into an IPS that an investment committee and E&O carrier can accept.
• Establish parameters for rebalancing to prevent the position from silently expanding to 40% during a bull market.
• Determine when to utilize ETFs for ease of tracking and when to hold coins directly for long-term conviction or on-chain activities.
• Incorporate these holdings into estate plans, including how heirs can inherit multisig or hardware wallets without locking themselves out.

None of this is speculative anymore. It is simply standard financial advisory work. And it is work that younger, wealthier investors have begun to use as a benchmark.

Track the assets

Zerohash’s survey indicates a gradual exodus from traditional investment platforms.

To begin with, 35% of affluent investors in the 18–40 age group have already transferred assets away from advisors who do not offer cryptocurrency access. Among the highest-earning segment, this figure is 51%. More than half of those who departed had household incomes between $250,000 and $1 million.

Translating this into revenue terms, a $750,000 account charged at 1% yields $7,500 annually. Losing ten of these relationships due to an unwillingness to accommodate a 5–10% Bitcoin allocation results in a loss equivalent to a junior advisor’s salary. Losing fifty could lead to a situation where “we used to have an office in that city.”

The typical progression appears as follows:

Initially, the client opens a self-directed account or a mobile application to gain exposure while their advisor hesitates. They purchase the spot BTC ETF or a combination of coins on a mainstream exchange.

As that investment grows and begins to feel substantial, they seek out someone who can treat it as part of a serious balance sheet.

Crypto-focused RIAs and multi-family offices have stepped in to fill that need, from DAiM in California to new entities like Abra Capital Management.

Throughout this process, platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Discord serve as the new discovery channels. A creator explains how they manage a 60/30/10 portfolio with T-bills, index ETFs, and a BTC/ETH allocation. A podcast features a family office CIO discussing budgeting 5% for digital assets. The message resonates: if your advisor cannot even engage in this conversation, others will.

Culture becomes a means of distribution. The prestigious image associated with mahogany offices, golf club memberships, and well-known wirehouses coexists with a screen displaying real-time P&L for a Coinbase or Binance account.

For clients under 40, trust is increasingly resembling proof-of-reserves, qualified custody, hardware wallets, 2FA, and the ability to view everything in one portal, rather than just a logo they grew up seeing on CNBC.

The Zerohash survey supports this observation: 82% of respondents state that actions taken by firms like BlackRock, Fidelity, and Morgan Stanley regarding digital assets make them feel more comfortable with cryptocurrency in advisory portfolios. This represents a new application of brand reputation: not to promote the firm’s stock-picking abilities, but to validate an asset class they already possess.

The underlying portfolio design is straightforward in the best sense. Most affluent young investors in the survey are structured within a barbell: treasuries and broad indices on one side, a 5–20% crypto allocation on the other, with some private investments or real estate interspersed.

They are not attempting to reinvent modern portfolio theory. They are simply adding another risk category and questioning why the individual managing all other aspects of their financial life cannot assist them with this one.

What constitutes a “crypto-competent” advisory practice?

On the policy front, it includes Bitcoin and Ethereum as permissible assets in the IPS, subject to a defined limit, with clear guidelines on liquidity events, rebalancing thresholds, and concentration limits.

On the product side, it provides a straightforward selection: spot ETFs for clients who prioritize convenience and straightforward tax reporting; direct coins with institutional custody for those seeking on-chain access; minimal exposure to altcoins, if any, and only in products that pass compliance scrutiny.

On the operational side, it selects partners that integrate with existing reporting and billing systems: possibly Fidelity Crypto for custody and execution, Eaglebrook or Bitwise strategies within model portfolios, Anchorage or BitGo for more sophisticated clients requiring governance features and staking.

Additionally, it addresses cybersecurity: discussing hardware wallets, key backups, SIM-swap risks, and the implications if a client loses access.

On the human side, it shifts from viewing crypto inquiries as a nuisance to recognizing them as an early warning signal. A client who discreetly transfers $500,000 to a self-directed platform due to your refusal to even discuss Bitcoin is conveying a message. Not necessarily about their risk tolerance, but significantly about how replaceable they perceive you to be.

All of this is situated atop the $80 trillion to $120 trillion wealth transfer expected to occur from boomers to their heirs over the next two decades. The beneficiaries of that wealth have grown up in an environment where spending and sending money feels as routine as wiring a bank transfer, and they are closely observing which advisors acknowledge that reality.

The opportunity is available for Wall Street, but it will not remain open indefinitely. The initial wave of crypto-competent RIAs, family offices, and fintech platforms is already establishing the foundation for integrating Bitcoin and digital assets into conventional wealth management without compromising fiduciary duties, tax strategies, or cybersecurity.

Others may continue debating whether a 5–10% crypto allocation belongs in a portfolio while their clients quietly transfer their accounts elsewhere.

The wealth transfer is occurring regardless. The question remains: who will manage the AUM when it arrives?

The post Financial advisors who ignore Bitcoin ditched by young wealthy Americans appeared first on CryptoSlate.