US Banking Lobby Considers Lawsuit Over OCC Crypto Charters

TheNewsCryptoPublished on 2026-03-10Last updated on 2026-03-10

Abstract

A US banking lobby group, the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), is considering legal action against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for granting national trust bank charters to cryptocurrency companies like Ripple, BitGo, and Paxos. The BPI argues that these charters, which allow crypto firms to operate as trust banks and provide custody services, could pose risks to Americans and the financial system. They claim this move blurs the definition of a "bank," increases systemic risk, and undermines the credibility of national banking charters. The BPI had previously urged the OCC to reject such applications, and while no final decision on a lawsuit has been made, the group has a history of taking legal action against the agency. Similar concerns were echoed by the Independent Community Bankers of America.

A banking lobby group hailing from the US is looking to take legal action against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency over the agency permitting national trust bank charters to crypto companies.

An unknown source close to the lobby’s thinking has informed The Guardian that the Bank Policy Institute has plans to sue the OCC for avoiding previous warnings from banking groups and state regulators and proceeding with its revisionism of federal licensing rules to permit national trust bank charters to crypto companies.

As per the group, this could probably put Americans and the financial system at stake. Under Jonathan Gould’s leadership, the OCC permitted the first batch of conditional national trust bank charter approvals to crypto companies comprising Ripple, BitGo and Paxos, among others. Since that time, various companies have demanded similar approvals.

Hanging Sword on OCC

Once permitted, the National Trust Bank charter will grant these firms the ability to function as trust banks and provide custody and asset safekeeping services. In October, the BPI stated it was requesting the OCC to decline applications from crypto companies, comprising Ripple and Circle, as it claimed that permitting such charters could lead to risk to the financial system.

It also mentions that BPI alerts that approving this route and permitting companies to pick a lighter regulatory touch while providing bank-like products could blur the statutory boundary of what it means to be a “bank”, heighten systemic risk and highlight the credibility of the national banking charter itself.

As per The Guardian, the BPI hasn’t decided yet if it plans to pursue legal action against the OCC. Although the report mentioned that the BPI was among a group of banks that had so far taken legal action against the OCC.

The Independent Community Bankers of America issued similar warnings over the OCC’s crypto charter approvals. Lately, the ICBA requested the OCC to pull or change its proposal for issuing licences to crypto companies. ‘

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

Hyperliquid (HYPE) Jumps 9%: Can the $40 Zone Be Reached and Anchor the Bull Run?

TagsLawsuitoccUSA

Related Questions

QWhat is the main reason the US banking lobby group is considering legal action against the OCC?

AThe banking lobby group, the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), is considering legal action because the OCC is granting national trust bank charters to crypto companies, which they believe avoids previous warnings and could put Americans and the financial system at risk.

QWhich companies were among the first to receive conditional national trust bank charter approvals from the OCC?

ARipple, BitGo, and Paxos were among the first crypto companies to receive conditional national trust bank charter approvals from the OCC under Jonathan Gould's leadership.

QWhat specific concerns does the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) have about granting these charters to crypto firms?

AThe BPI is concerned that granting these charters could blur the statutory boundary of what it means to be a 'bank', heighten systemic risk, and undermine the credibility of the national banking charter itself by allowing companies to operate with a lighter regulatory touch while providing bank-like services.

QHas the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) definitively decided to sue the OCC at this time?

ANo, as per the article, the BPI hasn't yet decided if it will pursue legal action against the OCC, though it has taken such action against the agency in the past.

QWhich other banking group has issued similar warnings to the OCC regarding crypto charters?

AThe Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) has also issued similar warnings and recently requested the OCC to withdraw or change its proposal for issuing licenses to crypto companies.

Related Reads

Will the Next Crypto Bull Run Start with On-Chain Trading of SpaceX?

This article presents a scenario-based forecast for the crypto industry from 2026 to 2029, arguing that the next major cycle will be driven not by technological narratives but by legal access to real-world assets. The author predicts that by mid-2026, pre-IPO perpetual contracts for top private companies like SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic on platforms like Hyperliquid will become the primary gateway for accessing quality assets, as most crypto-native tokens fail to capture real value. The much-hyped AI x Crypto intersection largely fails except for prediction markets, which thrive on betting on AI model supremacy. By 2027, public blockchain foundations are forced to choose between catering to retail speculation or building compliant infrastructure for institutions, with many opting for the latter. Growth in stablecoins and tokenized private credit/equity hits a "triple ceiling" due to regulatory and political uncertainty rather than market demand. The pivotal shift is forecast for 2028. A major liquidation event in pre-IPO perpetuals exposes the structural flaw of synthetic markets lacking a real underlying asset anchor. In response, regulatory changes finally allow the public solicitation of private securities resales to verified accredited investors. This creates a legitimate secondary market for real company equity, which then becomes the core asset class of the new bull market, relegating synthetic perps to a niche role. By 2029, the industry becomes "boring" but foundational. Tokens without claims on real cash flows or assets cease trading. Stablecoin growth is steady but politically capped. Crypto infrastructure fades from view as it gets absorbed into traditional finance backends. The article's central thesis is that the key bottleneck for crypto's next phase is legal and regulatory channels for real asset ownership, not technology.

marsbit1h ago

Will the Next Crypto Bull Run Start with On-Chain Trading of SpaceX?

marsbit1h ago

Kalshi-CFTC Fight In New Mexico Could Shape Prediction Market Rules

A jurisdictional battle between the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the state of New Mexico over the regulation of prediction markets could set national rules for the industry. At issue is who polices platforms like Kalshi, with the CFTC asserting federal oversight and New Mexico arguing state gaming and consumer protection laws apply, especially for contracts resembling wagers on events like elections or sports. The outcome will determine if prediction markets can scale nationally under a clear federal framework or face a fragmented, state-by-state regulatory landscape. This dispute is significant for the crypto-adjacent trading community, which often engages with these speculative event markets. A clearer rulebook could boost mainstream adoption, liquidity, and integration with crypto infrastructure, while a state-led challenge could stifle growth. The case is particularly sensitive for sports-related contracts, where the line between financial markets and gambling blurs. Ultimately, this legal fight will shape whether prediction markets become a scalable national product or remain constrained by jurisdictional conflicts.

bitcoinist2h ago

Kalshi-CFTC Fight In New Mexico Could Shape Prediction Market Rules

bitcoinist2h ago

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

**Summary: The Value Distribution of Stablecoins** The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from mere trading tools into broader channels for dollar access. It divides the stablecoin ecosystem into four layers to analyze how value is distributed: 1. **Issuance Layer:** Mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the spread between reserve yield and user costs (e.g., Tether, Circle). This layer currently earns the largest profit margin. 2. **Infrastructure Layer:** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and asset management (e.g., Bridge, BVNK). This is the "unglamorous" but critical work, building the essential bridges between crypto and real-world finance. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer:** Integrates stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and provides enterprise financial software (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase). They act as the access point for businesses. 4. **Application Layer:** The end-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlements, or as a store of value. They benefit from convenience but have little pricing power. The core thesis is that while the issuance layer currently dominates profits, the often-overlooked **infrastructure layer holds significant long-term potential**. The real challenge and barrier to mass adoption is not the on-chain transfer of stablecoins (which is simple), but the complex "last mile" integration into existing business workflows, banking systems, and regulatory frameworks across different countries. Companies in this layer are currently in a "land grab" phase, investing heavily to build networks, secure bank partnerships, and establish compliance pathways. While their position is currently pressured by the profitable issuers above and distribution platforms below, the article suggests that if stablecoins become a default financial rail for businesses, the infrastructure providers who have done the hard work of integration will ultimately gain strong pricing power and become entrenched, essential players.

marsbit7h ago

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

marsbit7h ago

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from a mere trading tool into a broad "dollar channel." It analyzes the industry's value chain through four layers: 1. **Issuance Layer (e.g., Tether, Circle):** The top layer that mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the thickest interest rate spread. 2. **Infrastructure Layer (e.g., Bridge, BVNK):** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling critical but complex "dirty work" like fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and cross-border settlement. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase):** Embeds stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and integrates with enterprise software. 4. **Application Layer:** End-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlement, or storing value. The author posits that while the issuance layer currently captures the most profit, the most overlooked and potentially critical layer is infrastructure. The core challenge for stablecoin adoption isn't the on-chain transfer (which is simple), but bridging the gap between blockchain and the real-world financial system. This involves solving practical problems for businesses: fiat conversion, reconciliation, tax handling, and user onboarding. Infrastructure companies are currently in a difficult "land-grab" phase—building networks, securing banking relationships, and achieving compliance country-by-country. They face pressure from both the profitable issuance layer above and distribution platforms below. However, the author suggests this layer is building a crucial moat. Once stablecoins become a default business rail, the infrastructure players who have done the hard work of integration may gain significant, durable value and pricing power.

链捕手7h ago

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

链捕手7h ago

Why Is Nvidia Borrowing $20 Billion When It's Not Short of Cash?

Nvidia's recent announcement to issue at least $20 billion in senior notes, despite holding a strong cash position with over $48.6 billion in free cash flow last quarter, is not a sign of financial need. Instead, it represents a strategic move to leverage its high credit rating (recently upgraded to AA by S&P) to secure low-cost, long-term debt. This capital will support long-term AI infrastructure investments, data centers, R&D, supply chain prepayments, and strategic investments, while allowing the company to continue aggressive shareholder returns through stock buybacks and dividends. The decision reflects a mature capital management strategy: using debt to finance long-term growth assets is more efficient and less dilutive to shareholders than equity financing. It signals that Nvidia, like other tech giants (Alphabet, Meta, Amazon), is entering a new phase of heavy AI capital expenditure, shifting from a pure growth story to a story about capital allocation, credit strength, and long-term ecosystem positioning. The key question for investors is whether Nvidia can maintain its high cash flow generation and ensure that returns from these AI investments justify the cost of capital over the long term. The bond issuance amplifies its expansion capabilities but also ties its valuation more closely to the broader AI investment cycle's sustainability and profitability.

marsbit8h ago

Why Is Nvidia Borrowing $20 Billion When It's Not Short of Cash?

marsbit8h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片