A proposed US Labor Department rule could allow smaller cryptocurrencies into 401(k) retirement plans, but the experts quoted by Cointelegraph describe a substantial gap between eligibility and actual inclusion. Bitcoin and Ether may have a clearer path; neither regulatory permission nor a large market capitalization would automatically make an asset suitable for retirement savings.
Source publication time: November 7, 2026, at 04:04:27 UTC+08:00. The proposal and forecasts below reflect the reporting at that time, not a completed rollout.
What the proposal would—and would not—do
According to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the rule reached the White House for final review on the Thursday preceding publication. It aims to make it easier for retirement plans to offer alternative investments, including crypto, while providing greater legal protection for employers and plan managers.
The Labor Department’s March proposal does not name eligible digital assets or impose a minimum market capitalization. Instead, it directs plan managers to consider six factors:
- Performance
- Fees
- Liquidity
- Valuation
- Benchmarks
- Complexity
That leaves room for altcoins in principle. It does not guarantee that any particular token will appear in a retirement plan.
An open door still has a fiduciary checkpoint
Teresa Goody Guillén, managing partner at Bellementis PLLC, said Bitcoin and Ether would likely be offered first because of their 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.
But Guillén argued that size should not decide suitability on its own. Plan managers would need to demonstrate that their selections meet standards of prudence, liquidity, valuation and investor protection.
“Big doesn’t mean suitable, and small doesn’t mean disqualified,” she said.
Bernardo Brites, co-founder and CEO of Trace Finance, offered a more restrictive assessment. In his view, Bitcoin clearly meets the proposal’s criteria and Ether also passes, while other tokens fall short on track record or benchmarks before market capitalization becomes decisive. That is his assessment—not an exclusion list written into the proposal.
Brites said a practical question for a plan committee would be whether it can document a reliable daily price through a regulated investment wrapper. Smaller tokens’ limited histories, liquidity constraints and other risks could make that case harder to establish.
Funds may arrive before direct holdings
The proposal does not restrict crypto exposure to exchange-traded funds or managed funds. Nevertheless, both experts expected existing investment structures to lead adoption.
Guillén said ETFs and managed funds fit current custody and recordkeeping systems. Direct crypto holdings would introduce additional storage, cybersecurity and pricing concerns, although she said those risks should not automatically disqualify them.
Brites anticipated a gradual sequence: existing brokerage options first, followed by standalone ETFs and funds holding small crypto allocations. He forecast some crypto investment options becoming available in 2027, ETFs reaching larger employers later that year, and broader availability in retirement funds by 2028. These were forecasts, not confirmed implementation dates.
“The rule changes the legal risk, not the plumbing, and the plumbing is slower,” Brites said. He noted that White House review can take up to 90 days, followed by publication and an effective date typically 60 days later.
Legal protection is not immunity
Brites also cautioned that the proposal’s protections would not prevent lawsuits over investment decisions. The possibility of a future administration reversing the rule could further discourage employers from making long-term commitments.
He pointed to the reversal of the 2022 guidance in 2025 and said the weight a safe harbor would carry in litigation remained unsettled, particularly as courts give agencies less deference.
The distinction matters for the altcoin narrative: a rule that leaves assets eligible is not the same as a plan manager deciding to offer them. Investment standards, operational constraints and unresolved legal risks would still stand between a token and a retirement-plan menu.