Insurance and inflation are closely connected whenever an insurer makes a promise that may not have to be fulfilled for years or even decades.
I’m excited to contribute as a speaker at the inaugural Midwest Bitcoin Summit, taking place September 23–24, 2026, at the Greater Columbus Convention Center in Columbus, Ohio.
The detailed schedule and session format are still being finalized. Whether I speak individually or as part of a panel, I hope to bring an insurance perspective to a conversation that frequently centers on technology, finance, mining, energy and monetary policy.
My perspective comes from more than three decades working in insurance and employee benefits as a partner at McCarthy Stevenot Agency, Inc.
The central question I hope to explore is straightforward:
Could Bitcoin eventually play a carefully limited role in helping insurance companies meet certain long-term obligations?
That question begins not with Bitcoin, but with the basic promise made by every insurance company.
Insurance Is a Promise About the Future
Insurance companies accept premiums today in exchange for a promise to pay covered claims in the future.
Sometimes that future is tomorrow. In other cases, the obligation may not become payable for years or even decades.
Life insurance, annuities and long-term care coverage can involve long-duration obligations. Workers’ compensation and certain liability claims can develop and remain open for extended periods. Property losses may happen suddenly, but the ultimate cost of rebuilding can be affected by labor shortages, material costs and concentrated demand following a catastrophe.
These risks are different, but they share an important characteristic: the insurer must maintain the financial capacity to deliver on a promise whose ultimate cost may not yet be known.
Why Insurance and Inflation Must Be Considered Together
Insurers use actuarial analysis to estimate the frequency and severity of future claims.
But the number of claims is only one variable.
The eventual cost of fulfilling those claims can also change. Healthcare services, long-term care, construction materials, skilled labor, litigation and catastrophe recovery may each experience different inflationary pressures.
A broad measure of inflation may not accurately reflect the change in cost affecting a particular insurance obligation.
For example, an insurer covering the replacement cost of a building must consider more than the structure’s cost today. The company must also consider what comparable materials and labor may cost when a future loss occurs.
After a widespread catastrophe, that calculation becomes more difficult. Many policyholders may require repairs or reconstruction at the same time, increasing demand for contractors, materials, temporary housing and other services.
The financial obligation can therefore be affected by the event itself, the number of claims and the inflation occurring within the specific part of the economy needed to fulfill the promise.
The Assets and Liabilities Must Work Together
Insurance companies do not merely collect premiums and wait for claims. They invest assets while maintaining reserves and capital intended to support their obligations.
Bonds remain the largest asset class in the United States insurance industry. At year-end 2025, they accounted for slightly less than 60% of insurer cash and invested assets.
That reliance on fixed-income assets is understandable. Bonds can provide contractual cash flows, defined maturities and an established framework for evaluating credit quality.
Life insurers also use asset-liability management to align expected asset cash flows with anticipated liability payments. The purpose is to reduce the risk that assets and obligations respond differently to interest rates, liquidity needs or changing market conditions.
Regulators reinforce this discipline through statutory accounting, reserve requirements and risk-based capital standards. Risk-based capital requirements establish a minimum level of capital based on an insurer’s size and the inherent riskiness of its assets and operations, helping regulators identify companies that may be weakly capitalized.
The system is intentionally conservative because policyholders depend on insurers to fulfill their promises.
Where the Bitcoin Question Begins
The argument is not that insurers should abandon bonds or replace their traditional portfolios with Bitcoin.
The more focused question is whether a relatively small allocation, matched with an appropriately long time horizon, could someday complement traditional assets when supporting certain long-duration risks.
Bitcoin introduces obvious concerns.
Its price can decline sharply. It does not produce contractual cash flows. Custody must be addressed. An insurer could face a liquidity problem if it had to sell during a severe drawdown. The asset would also require appropriate accounting, regulatory and risk-based capital treatment.
Those objections are real.
But another risk also deserves attention: the possibility that the assets supporting a future obligation do not preserve enough purchasing power to meet the actual cost of the promise.
That risk may become more important when the obligation is remote, the future cost is especially sensitive to inflation or the claim involves an event with low frequency but unusually high severity.
The potential role of Bitcoin would therefore depend on several questions:
- How long is the expected liability horizon?
- How much liquidity must remain immediately available?
- How small would the allocation need to be?
- How would severe and prolonged price declines be handled?
- How would the asset be secured and reported?
- What capital charge would properly reflect its risk?
- Would the proposed allocation improve or weaken policyholder protection?
These are not questions that should be answered by enthusiasm alone.
Regulatory Treatment Would Have to Change
Current statutory accounting presents a substantial obstacle.
NAIC statutory accounting guidance classifies directly held crypto assets as nonadmitted assets. In practical terms, directly held crypto assets are excluded from admitted assets and therefore do not support an insurer’s reported statutory surplus in the same manner as admitted assets.
A responsible path would not begin by pretending Bitcoin has no risk. Nor would it require regulators to grant it the same treatment as a high-quality bond.
It could begin with tightly limited exposure, conservative capital treatment, strict custody requirements and careful matching between the asset and the duration of the obligation it is intended to support.
Policyholder protection would remain the first priority.
A Question Worth Exploring
Insurance is ultimately about making promises deliverable.
Bitcoin raises questions about scarcity, monetary inflation and the preservation of value across time. Insurance raises questions about uncertainty, future obligations and the financial resources required to meet them.
The intersection of the two is not primarily about seeking higher investment returns.
It is about asking whether a new type of asset could someday help support an old and essential objective: maintaining the capacity to fulfill a promise long after it was made.
I look forward to contributing to that discussion at the Midwest Bitcoin Summit and hearing the perspectives of others working in insurance, technology, finance, policy and Bitcoin.
Midwest Bitcoin Summit 2026
September 23–24, 2026
Greater Columbus Convention Center
Columbus, Ohio
Learn more at midwestbtc.com.
About the Author
For more than three decades, Ted Stevenot has helped Ohio small businesses evaluate employee benefits as a partner at McCarthy Stevenot Agency, Inc.
He writes the Broker’s Desk series to document the real-world decisions, conversations, and observations that come from helping Ohio employers navigate health insurance renewals and employee benefits.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general educational and discussion purposes. It is not investment, legal, actuarial or regulatory advice. McCarthy Stevenot Agency does not provide investment-management services. The suitability and permitted treatment of any insurer investment depend on applicable law, regulatory guidance, company circumstances and professional analysis.