
A bail-in is a financial resolution mechanism used by banks and other financial institutions on the brink of failure, where losses are absorbed internally by stakeholders rather than relying on external financial assistance. In a bail-in, shareholders and creditors are required to take losses—either through write-downs or debt-to-equity conversions—to cover the institution’s shortfall, allowing core business operations to continue and aiming to avoid full bankruptcy or payment disruptions.
Typically, small deposits protected by deposit insurance schemes are exempt from bail-in procedures. Deposit insurance refers to government-backed guarantees for deposits up to a certain threshold; only uninsured large deposits above this limit may be subject to loss-sharing. The order in which losses are absorbed is set in advance by regulatory rules to prevent ad hoc decision-making.
The primary goal of a bail-in is to keep losses within the institution and its investors, thereby reducing the need for taxpayer-funded rescues. During periods of financial instability, bail-ins help minimize systemic risk while maintaining critical functions like payments and lending, providing the broader economy with vital stability.
Following the global financial crisis, regulators around the world have increasingly emphasized the principle of "investor responsibility." As a result, bail-ins have become a preferred alternative to traditional taxpayer-funded bailouts, often accompanied by resolution planning and capital buffers to facilitate orderly risk resolution.
Bail-ins generally follow a structured process involving several key steps: regulatory determination, loss assessment, capital restructuring, and business continuity.
Regulators first determine that an institution has "failed or is likely to fail" and initiate resolution proceedings. This typically includes freezing dividends and restricting asset transfers to prevent misuse of funds.
The institution's balance sheet shortfall is assessed, and the hierarchy of loss absorption is clarified. The usual sequence is: shareholders absorb all losses first, followed by subordinated debt holders and convertible bondholders, then senior unsecured creditors, and finally large uninsured depositors if necessary; insured deposits are typically protected.
The institution’s capital ratio is restored via write-downs or "debt-to-equity swaps," converting certain debts into new shares so the bank’s capital position returns to positive territory.
Arrangements are made for business continuity or the sale of healthy assets. For example, branches or loan portfolios may be transferred to other banks to ensure uninterrupted payment and settlement services for customers.
In some jurisdictions, large banks must also maintain additional loss-absorbing capacity (commonly referred to as TLAC—Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity), which can be converted directly into capital during crises to mitigate systemic shocks.
For depositors, small insured deposits are generally protected. For instance, in the European Union, the harmonized coverage limit is €100,000 per person per bank (source: EU regulatory framework); in the United States, FDIC insurance covers up to $250,000 per person per insured bank (source: FDIC official site, 2024). Uninsured amounts above these thresholds may be subject to loss-sharing.
For investors, shareholders bear losses first. Holders of subordinated debt and convertible bonds face significantly higher risk than depositors. Even senior unsecured creditors can be impacted if losses are severe enough. In short, the higher the yield and lower the seniority, the greater the risk of being written down in a bail-in event.
Bail-ins focus on internal loss absorption—shareholders and creditors bear the losses, with no direct use of public funds—while bailouts involve government injections or guarantees that effectively place taxpayers as backstops.
Compared to bankruptcy liquidation, bail-ins aim to preserve critical banking functions and prevent a complete halt in payments or lending. Liquidation follows legal proceedings that often take longer and can have a more severe impact on the real economy.
The 2013 Cyprus banking crisis saw a major bail-in: large uninsured deposits and certain bonds were written down, while insured deposits were protected (source: EU and local regulatory disclosures, 2013). This approach helped contain wider payment disruptions during the crisis.
In 2017, Banco Popular in Spain underwent a bail-in under the EU’s Single Resolution Mechanism. After equity and subordinated capital instruments were written down, another bank acquired Banco Popular’s core business for €1, ensuring business continuity (source: European Central Bank and Single Resolution Board [SRB], 2017).
Web3 users often interact with fiat on/off-ramp providers or custodial banks for their transactions. If a partner bank undergoes a bail-in, fiat funds above insured limits could face uncertainty, potentially affecting deposit and withdrawal options.
Stablecoin reserves are typically held in cash or short-term government securities. If reserves include bank deposits, users should pay attention to segregation and custody arrangements; reserves primarily in government bonds are less exposed to bank resolutions. Transparency from issuers—including regular disclosures and audit reports—is crucial for assessing risk transmission.
Within centralized platforms, some entities may also implement "bail-in-style" creditor restructuring under stress. For users, monitoring platform transparency regarding assets/liabilities, segregation of client funds, and audit standards is essential.
Understand your country’s deposit insurance limits and coverage. Diversify across banks and jurisdictions to avoid excessive concentration.
Know whether you hold insured deposits or bank bonds. High-yield investment products or subordinated debt are not “deposits” and are more likely to be written down in a bail-in.
Monitor fiat on/off-ramp channels you use. For example, when using Gate’s fiat gateway, pay attention to channel banks, official notices, and maintenance updates; maintain adequate liquidity buffers for unexpected delays.
When holding stablecoins, review issuers’ monthly reports and audit statements; focus on reserve asset types and custody arrangements to assess potential impacts from bank resolutions.
Prepare multiple contingency channels—for example, accounts at several banks, different settlement networks, and cross-border options—to minimize single-point-of-failure risks.
In the EU, the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) establishes rules for bail-ins, deposit protection, and loss absorption hierarchy; the harmonized limit is €100,000 per person per bank (source: EU framework).
In the US, the FDIC insures up to $250,000 per person per insured bank (source: FDIC official site, 2024) and may take extraordinary actions during systemic events to ensure payment continuity. For global systemically important banks (G-SIBs), international standards require sufficient loss-absorbing capital and bonds (TLAC) to support effective bail-in execution.
Overall, regulators require pre-crisis resolution planning and capital buffers, enforce statutory loss order during resolution, and mandate post-event review and disclosure—aiming to minimize market contagion.
Misconception 1: Bail-ins always affect all deposits. In reality, insured deposits are generally protected up to legal limits through defined processes.
Misconception 2: Bail-ins are equivalent to bankruptcy liquidation. In fact, bail-ins aim for rapid recapitalization and business continuity—distinct from liquidation’s objectives and procedures.
Misconception 3: Holding crypto assets has no connection to bail-ins. If your fiat on-ramp, stablecoin reserves, or custodial banks are impacted by a bail-in event, your funds could still be affected.
Bail-ins require shareholders and creditors to bear losses in a legally defined order, helping financial institutions restore capital and maintain essential services while reducing taxpayer burden. For individuals, understanding deposit insurance limits, product structures, and counterparty risk is crucial; for Web3 users, additional attention should be paid to fiat gateways and stablecoin reserve disclosures. In all cases, diversification and transparency remain core strategies for navigating uncertainty—and higher yields often come with greater risk of write-downs during resolution.
Bail-ins can impact funds exceeding deposit insurance limits. Most countries have deposit insurance schemes (for example, FDIC coverage in the US is up to $250,000 per person per bank), so deposits within this limit are protected; uninsured amounts may be frozen or written down in a bail-in scenario. Diversifying across multiple banks can help ensure each account stays within insurance coverage limits.
Traditional bailouts involve governments or central banks using taxpayer money to rescue failing institutions; bail-ins require the institution’s own stakeholders to absorb losses through reduced creditor returns or debt conversion. Simply put: in a bailout “outsiders pay,” while in a bail-in “insiders absorb losses,” which reduces public fiscal burden but increases investor risk.
Bank bonds may be partially or fully written down or converted into equity during a bail-in. Bondholders usually rank below depositors in claims hierarchy and face higher loss risk. Before purchasing bank bonds, understand their risk level and assess the issuer’s financial health; prioritize bonds with higher credit ratings when possible.
Crypto platforms sometimes use "community governance" or staking mechanisms that mirror bail-in logic—where users or ecosystem participants share risk collectively. After the 2023 FTX collapse, there were discussions about loss-sharing among token holders, but currently there is no unified risk management framework in crypto; models for risk absorption remain under exploration.
Monitor key indicators such as capital adequacy ratio, non-performing loan ratio, and liquidity coverage ratio—the lower these metrics are, the higher the risk. Also pay attention to regulatory warnings and media reports; larger banks with long histories and strong credit ratings generally present lower risk profiles. Regularly review bank financial statements and diversify deposits across multiple institutions for straightforward risk mitigation.


