US banks resist federal charters for crypto

TLDR

Major US banks are pushing back against federal crypto trust charters, arguing they grant crypto firms bank-like powers without full bank-style oversight.

1. Large banks, via the Bank Policy Institute, are weighing a lawsuit against the OCC over expanded national trust charters for crypto and fintech firms.
2. Banks say the OCC has created a two-tier system where crypto firms can compete in payments and custody with lighter capital, liquidity, and consumer protection rules.
3. The outcome could shape how stablecoin issuers, custodians, and exchanges operate in the US, affecting access to regulated crypto banking rails and onramps.

Deep Dive

1. What Banks Are Fighting

Under Comptroller Jonathan Gould, the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has eased national trust bank charters for crypto and fintech firms, letting them operate across all 50 states under a single federal license. Reports show conditional charters granted to Ripple, Circle, BitGo, Fidelity Digital Assets, Paxos and later Crypto.com, with firms like Zerohash, Revolut, and Morgan Stanley also pursuing charters tied to new digital asset and stablecoin rules such as the GENIUS Act.

Major banks, coordinated through the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), are considering suing the OCC over this reinterpretation of licensing rules, arguing it oversteps statute and was issued without proper Administrative Procedure Act process. Similar reporting from outlets like Cointelegraph and Yahoo Finance describes legal options under review rather than a filed case.

2. Why Banks See Risk

Banks argue that national trust charters let crypto firms offer bank-like services (custody, settlements, possibly interest-bearing stablecoin balances) without full-service bank standards such as capital buffers, liquidity rules, stress tests, deposit insurance, and robust resolution regimes. BPI and groups like the American Bankers Association and Independent Community Bankers of America warn that this creates a regulatory loophole and a two-tier system that could blur what it means to be a bank and heighten systemic risk.

They point to the pre-2008 rise of lightly regulated entities and the collapses of firms like FTX and Celsius as examples of how gaps in oversight can amplify shocks. State regulators through the Conference of State Bank Supervisors also complain that federal charters can sidestep their stricter state-by-state licensing.

3. How This Could Affect Crypto Users

If the OCCs approach stands, more crypto-native firms could operate as federally chartered trust banks, providing custody and payment services under a clearer national framework instead of a patchwork of state money transmitter licenses. That could benefit stablecoin issuers such as Circle or institutional custodians by simplifying compliance and potentially making it easier for banks and asset managers to use their services.

If banks succeed in court, judges could pause new approvals, narrow what trust-chartered crypto firms are allowed to do, or force the OCC into a slower, full rulemaking process. That would inject uncertainty into pending applications and could delay new US-regulated stablecoin and custody products until Congress finalizes laws like the CLARITY and GENIUS Acts.

Conclusion

US banks are not trying to ban crypto outright so much as to challenge a chartering path they see as unfair and risky. The legal and political resolution of this dispute will help determine whether US crypto rails evolve through federally chartered specialist trusts, tighter bank-equivalent rules, or a slower, more fragmented model, which in turn affects the speed and safety of mainstream adoption.