Seventy-four per cent. That is the proportion of single-family offices globally that have either invested in digital assets or are actively exploring the possibility, according to BNY’s 2025 Global Family Office Survey of 282 institutions. Twelve months earlier, the figure was 53%. The shift is not a trend. It is a structural reallocation that is quietly reshaping how multi-generational wealth is preserved and transmitted.

From Curiosity to Conviction

The trajectory of family office digital asset adoption has followed a predictable but accelerating arc. In 2022 and 2023, most family offices treated Bitcoin and digital assets as a speculative curiosity — interesting in theory, impractical for governance-constrained institutions managing intergenerational capital. By 2024, the FTX collapse had passed, Bitcoin ETFs had been approved in the United States, and institutional infrastructure had matured considerably. By 2025, the question was no longer whether to allocate. It was how.

Of family offices with assets under management above $1 billion, 38% now plan to increase their digital asset allocation. Among smaller family offices — those managing under $1 billion — the figure is 44%. The direction is unambiguous, and the pace is accelerating.

The Conservative Allocation and Why It Will Change

Current average digital asset allocation among family offices sits at approximately 1.8% of total portfolio value. That figure reflects the institutional conservatism appropriate to organisations managing capital across multiple generations — not scepticism about the asset class itself, but appropriate caution about custody infrastructure, regulatory clarity, and governance frameworks that, until recently, were immature.

Each of those constraints is now resolving. Australian and US regulatory frameworks have moved from hostile ambiguity to structured engagement. Institutional custody infrastructure — segregated, audited, insurance-backed — is available in a way it was not three years ago. And the ETF approvals in multiple jurisdictions have provided a pathway for family offices whose investment policies restrict direct digital asset ownership.

The practical implication: 1.8% is a floor, not a ceiling. As governance frameworks mature and chief investment officers become more comfortable with the asset class, allocations will increase. The family offices moving most decisively are those establishing custody and governance architecture now — before allocations grow to sizes that make retrofitting arrangements prohibitively complex.

What Family Offices Need That Retail Investors Do Not

Family office digital asset requirements are categorically different from those of individual retail investors, in ways that most custody providers have been slow to acknowledge.

Governance documentation. Investment committees and trustees require auditable records of every transaction, comprehensive proof-of-reserves, and custody arrangements that satisfy fiduciary duty requirements. A hardware wallet in a desk drawer satisfies none of these requirements.

Multi-principal access. Family office assets typically require the ability for multiple authorised principals to access and approve transactions — with appropriate controls, limits, and audit trails for each. This is structurally different from individual self-custody and requires bespoke multi-signature architecture.

Succession integration. Digital assets held by a family office must be integrated into succession and estate planning frameworks. The technical challenge — ensuring assets remain accessible across generational transitions while remaining inaccessible to unauthorised parties — is non-trivial and requires deliberate design.

Discretion. Family offices managing significant digital asset positions cannot afford to have those positions publicly visible or attributable. On-chain analytics have made pseudo-anonymity insufficient. Institutional custody arrangements that prevent direct linkage between wallet addresses and beneficial owners are increasingly important.

Regulatory compliance. With Australia’s Digital Assets Framework Bill now in force, any arrangement involving a third party holding digital assets on behalf of a family office will require that party to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence. Due diligence on custody providers must now include regulatory compliance verification.

The Custody Problem at Scale

The majority of family offices entering the digital asset space have done so through exchange-held custody — holding Bitcoin and Ethereum on platforms such as Coinbase or Binance, relying on those platforms’ security infrastructure. This approach is appropriate at entry-level allocation sizes and for initial exploration. It is not appropriate for material allocations.

Exchange-held custody introduces counterparty risk — the risk that the custodial institution itself fails, is compromised, or is subject to regulatory action. FTX was the most prominent demonstration of this risk, but it was neither the first nor the last. The structural argument for self-sovereign or segregated institutional custody — rather than exchange custody — becomes compelling when allocation size makes counterparty exposure material.

The BNY survey found that Bitcoin and Ether remain the primary entry points for family offices, often accessed through structured products including yield notes and protective puts that provide downside protection. As conviction increases and allocations grow, the inadequacy of exchange custody becomes apparent, and the transition to institutional-grade segregated arrangements becomes necessary.

The Window for Getting This Right

The family offices that establish robust custody and governance infrastructure before their digital asset allocations become material will find the transition to larger positions straightforward. Those that defer the governance work while growing their allocations will face a more complex retrofit.

The most sophisticated family offices are treating digital asset infrastructure as a foundational investment — not an afterthought. They are establishing custody architecture, governance documentation, succession frameworks, and compliance procedures now, at allocation sizes where the cost of getting it wrong is manageable. That is the appropriate approach. The other 26% should take note.