US Banking Lobby Urges OCC To Delay Crypto Charter Applications Approval

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-02-13Last updated on 2026-02-13

Abstract

The US's largest banking lobby, the American Bankers Association (ABA), has urged the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to delay its approval of crypto bank charter applications. The ABA cited regulatory uncertainty, the need for greater transparency in the application process, and a lack of finalized federal oversight. This follows the OCC's conditional approval of charters for several crypto firms in December, which raised concerns about blurred regulatory lines. The ABA argues the OCC should wait until Congress finalizes new rules. Additionally, the banking industry opposes granting crypto and fintech firms direct access to the Federal Reserve's payment systems, advocating for a 12-month waiting period to ensure safety and soundness standards are met.

The US’s largest banking lobby has requested the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) delay its approval of crypto bank charter applications, suggesting the regulator wait until regulatory uncertainty is cleared.

US Banks Call For Crypto Charter Reviews Delay

On Wednesday, the American Bankers Association (ABA) asked the OCC to pause the review of national bank charter applications for crypto firms, citing uncertainty surrounding emerging business models, the need for greater transparency in charter application and decision-making processes, and a lack of finalized federal oversight.

In a letter, the banking lobby urged the US’s top bank regulator to “ensure that robust, broadly applicable safety and soundness standards are well understood and upheld during this period of rapid innovation to provide greater transparency throughout its charter application and decisioning processes.”

As reported by Bitcoinist, the OCC approved conditional bank charters for Ripple, Circle, BitGo, Paxos, and Fidelity in December, raising concerns that the approvals could blur the lines of banking activities and lead to regulatory arbitrage.

The ABA now calls for patience as emerging crypto regulatory frameworks take shape, suggesting that the review process must be delayed until Congress finishes the rules that many recent OCC charter applicants will ultimately be subject to.

“We urge the OCC to be patient, not measure its application decisioning progress against traditional timelines, and allow each charter applicant’s regulatory responsibilities to come fully into view before moving a charter application forward,” ABA wrote.

The banking association emphasized that appropriate safety and soundness protections, including effective measures against conflicts of interest, and for compliance with other applicable consumer protection laws and regulations, must be in place from the beginning.

Notably, the Trump Family’s main crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, applied for a national trust charter in January. US Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to Comptroller Jonathan Gould asking the agency to pause its review of the application until President Donald Trump divests from the crypto company, arguing that it could create a government ethics problem.

In addition, the association recommended an amendment to the OCC’s regulations to ensure new charter applicants’ names “do not misrepresent the nature of the financial services they intend to offer.”

They suggested that the agency prohibit any charter applicant that limits its activities to either fiduciary activities or trust company operations from including the word “bank” in its name.

ABA argued that “such entities would not be engaged in the business of banking and should, therefore, ‘not have a title that misrepresents the nature of the institution or the services it offers.’”

“Skinny” Accounts Clash

US banks have recently shared their opposition to granting crypto and fintech companies direct access to the Federal Reserve (Fed)’s payment systems, according to Bloomberg.

Earlier this week, the Bank Policy Institute, Clearing House Association, and Financial Services Forum sent a joint letter to the Fed, demanding a 12-month waiting period before firms are eligible to apply for payment accounts.

The banking groups argued the Fed “should block access until newly licensed stablecoin issuers prove they can operate safely.” As Bloomberg noted, crypto and fintech firms currently rely on partner banks for access and compliance infrastructure. However, the Fed’s “skinny” master accounts proposal, first introduced in October, would allow these crypto companies to bypass the intermediation.

Moreover, recent reports from Eleanor Terret claim that the tensions between the US banking sector and the crypto industry have extended from Stablecoin rewards to include the skinny master accounts proposal.

While the digital assets side was “largely positive,” Terret affirmed the banking side worried that crypto’s “less robust regulatory status could pose a problem,” with Better Markets CEO Dennis Kelleher calling the proposal “a reckless giveaway to the crypto industry that unnecessarily expands the Fed’s mandate without justification and undermines the Fed’s true mandate.”

The total crypto market capitalization is at $2.3 trillion in the one-week chart. Source: TOTAL on TradingView

Related Questions

QWhat is the main request made by the American Bankers Association (ABA) to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)?

AThe ABA requested the OCC to pause the review of national bank charter applications for crypto firms until regulatory uncertainty is cleared and Congress finishes establishing the rules.

QWhich crypto companies received conditional bank charters from the OCC in December, as mentioned in the article?

AThe OCC approved conditional bank charters for Ripple, Circle, BitGo, Paxos, and Fidelity in December.

QWhat specific recommendation did the ABA make regarding the naming of new charter applicants?

AThe ABA recommended that the OCC prohibit any charter applicant limited to fiduciary activities or trust company operations from including the word 'bank' in its name to avoid misrepresentation.

QWhy did US banking groups oppose granting crypto and fintech companies direct access to the Federal Reserve's payment systems?

ABanking groups argued that the Fed should block access until newly licensed stablecoin issuers prove they can operate safely, expressing concerns about crypto's less robust regulatory status.

QWhat was the concern raised by US Senator Elizabeth Warren regarding World Liberty Financial's charter application?

ASenator Warren asked the OCC to pause its review of the application until President Donald Trump divests from the crypto company, arguing it could create a government ethics problem.

Related Reads

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit23m ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit23m ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit1h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit1h ago

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

For years, the semiconductor equipment industry followed an unwritten "iron rule": suppliers offered steep discounts for new tool introductions (Design-in) and faced consistent price pressure during repeat orders, especially during market downturns. This long-standing buyer's market dynamic is now being upended. Recently, SK Hynix's primary equipment suppliers have reportedly requested a 3-4% price *increase*, a nearly unprecedented move. This shift is driven by a severe supply-demand imbalance fueled by the AI compute boom. Securing equipment has become an urgent arms race as chipmakers' expansion speed dictates their ability to fulfill massive AI chip orders. Key areas feeling the strain include: **TCB (Thermal Compression Bonding) Equipment:** Demand is exploding, driven by the simultaneous needs of HBM4 memory stacking, AI chip Chip-on-Substrate (C2S), and logic Chiplet Chip-on-Wafer (C2W) packaging. Players like Hanmi Semiconductor, Hanwha Semitech, and ASMPT are receiving major orders. While hybrid bonding is seen as the future, TCB remains the pragmatic choice for HBM4 mass production, with its lifecycle extended by relaxed specifications and ongoing technological upgrades. **Test Equipment Bottlenecks:** Ironically, AI-driven shortages are now crippling test equipment manufacturing. Critical components like FPGAs, Driver ICs, and CPUs face severe shortages and extended lead times (up to 52 weeks for FPGAs), as AI data center and server vendors prioritize supply. This creates a paradoxical cycle: AI chip shortages drive fab expansion, which requires more test equipment, whose production is delayed because its key parts are diverted to make AI chips. The industry is entering a broad, AI-powered upcycle. SEMI forecasts global semiconductor equipment sales to hit a record $156 billion by 2027, fueled by investment in advanced logic/foundry, HBM-driven DRAM, and advanced packaging (like CoWoS). Major players like TSMC, SK Hynix, and Micron are aggressively ramping capital expenditure. In conclusion, leading equipment vendors are no longer just selling tools; they are selling the critical capability to deliver AI-era capacity. Pricing power is shifting decisively to those with indispensable technology in key process nodes like advanced logic, HBM, and advanced packaging, rewriting the industry's traditional power structure.

marsbit2h ago

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片