US Banking Lobby Urges OCC To Delay Crypto Charter Applications Approval

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-02-13Última atualização em 2026-02-13

Resumo

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

Perguntas relacionadas

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.

Leituras Relacionadas

From Robinhood to Polymarket: Is the Era of Integrating All Assets on a Single Platform Coming?

From Robinhood to Polymarket: The Era of All-in-One Asset Platforms Is Coming Asset classes are rapidly converging. Platforms that once specialized in single categories—such as stocks, cryptocurrencies, or prediction markets—are now moving toward offering all three. Robinhood pioneered this model, starting with equities, adding crypto in 2018, and prediction markets in 2025. This strategy has proven resilient: when crypto revenues fell, other segments like options and stocks filled the gap. Now, prediction market leaders Polymarket and Kalshi are moving in the same direction, both announcing perpetual futures trading on April 21, 2026, pending regulatory approval. These futures will cover assets like Bitcoin, gold, and stocks such as Nvidia. This trend mirrors the consolidation seen in consumer tech, like smartphones replacing dedicated cameras and MP3 players. Younger users, accustomed to interacting with multiple asset types from an early age, will increasingly demand unified platforms. A key competitive advantage in prediction markets is collateral utilization—idle assets locked during betting periods. Polymarket’s move into perpetuals may be a strategy to generate yield from that capital, similar to earlier DeFi integrations like PolyAave. As the regulatory landscape evolves, traditional finance is also likely to incorporate crypto and prediction markets, further accelerating this convergence.

marsbitHá 13m

From Robinhood to Polymarket: Is the Era of Integrating All Assets on a Single Platform Coming?

marsbitHá 13m

OpenAI Goes Left, DeepSeek Goes Right

On April 24, 2026, DeepSeek released V4, a Chinese large language model offering a free "million-token context window," enabling it to process vast amounts of data like entire books or years of corporate documents in one go. In contrast, OpenAI’s GPT-5.5, released around the same time, is more powerful but significantly more expensive, charging up to $180 per million output tokens. DeepSeek’s strategy represents a shift from a pure AI research firm to a heavy-infrastructure player, building data centers in Inner Mongolia’s Ulanqab to bypass U.S. chip export restrictions. This move, supported by Huawei’s Ascend chips and China’s cheap green electricity, highlights a fundamental divergence in AI development models: U.S. firms focus on high-cost, high-margin services, while Chinese players like DeepSeek prioritize accessibility and affordability. Facing intense talent poaching from tech giants, DeepSeek is seeking a $44 billion valuation funding round to retain researchers and scale infrastructure. Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers are compressing AI models to run on smartphones, making AI accessible offline and across the Global South. Through open-source models and localized solutions, Chinese AI is empowering non-English speakers and low-income users, driving a form of "digital equality." While Silicon Valley builds walled gardens, DeepSeek and others are turning AI into a public utility—like tap water—flowing freely to those previously left behind.

marsbitHá 39m

OpenAI Goes Left, DeepSeek Goes Right

marsbitHá 39m

$292 Million KelpDAO Cross-Chain Bridge Hack: Who Should Foot the Bill?

On April 18, 2026, an attacker stole 116,500 rsETH (worth ~$292M) from KelpDAO’s cross-chain bridge in 46 minutes—the largest DeFi exploit of 2026. The stolen assets were deposited into Aave V3 as collateral, causing $177–200M in bad debt and triggering a cascade of losses across nine DeFi protocols. Aave’s TVL dropped by ~$6B overnight. This legal analysis argues that KelpDAO and LayerZero Labs share concurrent liability, with fault apportioned 60%/40%. KelpDAO negligently configured its bridge with a 1-of-1 decentralized verifier network (DVN)—a single point of failure—despite LayerZero’s explicit recommendation of a 2-of-3 setup. LayerZero, which operated the compromised DVN, failed to secure its RPC infrastructure against a known poisoning attack vector. Both protocols’ terms of service cap liability at $200 (KelpDAO) or $50 (LayerZero), but these limits are likely unenforceable due to unconscionability, gross negligence exceptions, and potential securities law invalidation (if rsETH is deemed a security under the Howey test). Aave’s governance also faces fiduciary duty claims for raising rsETH’s loan-to-value ratio to 93%—far above competitors’ 72–75%—without adequately assessing bridge risks, amplifying the systemic fallout. Practical recovery targets include LayerZero Labs (a registered Canadian entity), KelpDAO’s founders, auditors, and identifiable Aave governance delegates. The incident underscores escalating legal risks for DeFi protocols, infrastructure providers, and governance participants.

marsbitHá 1h

$292 Million KelpDAO Cross-Chain Bridge Hack: Who Should Foot the Bill?

marsbitHá 1h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片