US Banking Lobby Considers Lawsuit Over OCC Crypto Charters

TheNewsCryptoОпубликовано 2026-03-10Обновлено 2026-03-10

Введение

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

Связанные с этим вопросы

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.

Похожее

SharpLink CEO: How to Understand Ethereum Developers Just Exceeded 1 Million?

SharpLink CEO reflects on the milestone of Ethereum surpassing 1 million historical developers, emphasizing that this figure represents the largest pool of technical talent ever assembled around an open, permissionless blockchain network. While approximately 232,000 developers remain active, the key question for the crypto industry is not which chain is fastest, but where the best builders choose to build long-term. Ethereum's advantage lies in a decade-long accumulation of infrastructure, standards, tools, liquidity, and a cohesive culture, making it the default operating system for programmable finance. This developer base is tackling complex challenges: the Glamsterdam upgrade aims to enhance scalability while preserving core principles; synchronous composability seeks to unify Rollup ecosystems; and significant efforts are underway for post-quantum security. Ethereum's deeper network effects stem from composability and shared standards (like the EVM and Solidity), creating a flywheel of more developers, tools, and liquidity. Three reinforcing strengths cement Ethereum's lead: credible neutrality (secured by ~900k validators), a modular architecture with interconnected Rollups, and a culture that attracts top researchers. The ecosystem is consolidating as the trusted coordination layer for internet-native finance, favored by large institutions valuing security and liquidity. The future of Ethereum is being built by this global community of founders and architects.

链捕手4 мин. назад

SharpLink CEO: How to Understand Ethereum Developers Just Exceeded 1 Million?

链捕手4 мин. назад

A Clod of Chinese Soil Chokes Two Japanese Giants

"Chinese Soil Chokes Japanese Giants" The production of a key electronic specialty gas, tungsten hexafluoride (WF6), vital for manufacturing AI chips, was halted by two leading Japanese producers—Kanto Denka and Central Glass. Their shutdown was not due to a technological failure but a sudden, critical shortage of a raw material they had long taken for granted: ultra-high-purity (6N-grade) tungsten powder, which is almost entirely sourced from China. Following a quiet Chinese export announcement in January 2026, tungsten powder shipments to Japan dropped to zero for months. Despite frantic efforts, Japanese companies found no viable alternative; imported powder was three times more expensive and lacked the required purity. Their existing stockpiles were exhausted by mid-2026. WF6 is essential for depositing tungsten into the microscopic contact holes of High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) chips, which are crucial for advanced processors like those from Nvidia. While Japanese firms had mastered producing ultra-pure WF6 gas, their entire supply chain relied on China's 6N tungsten powder—a dependency now revealed as a fatal vulnerability. China's dominance in this "soil" results from decades of painstaking R&D by companies like Xiamen Tungsten and China Tungsten & Hightech. They overcame immense technical hurdles, such as separating chemically similar molybdenum from tungsten, to achieve mass production of the world's purest tungsten powder. With their primary suppliers gone, Kanto Denka and Central Glass announced a permanent halt to WF6 production starting July 1, 2026. This immediately created a supply crisis for major semiconductor manufacturers like Samsung and SK Hynix, forcing them to urgently seek and certify new Chinese suppliers for WF6 itself. The reversal marks a dramatic shift: China has moved from exporting low-value raw materials to controlling the high-purity foundation of a critical global tech supply chain, upending a long-established industrial hierarchy.

marsbit35 мин. назад

A Clod of Chinese Soil Chokes Two Japanese Giants

marsbit35 мин. назад

Without Tencent, What's Left for Suiyuan?

The article centers on the crucial question posed in the title: what is Seyond Technology really worth if its dominant customer, Tencent, were to stop purchasing its AI chips? As the last of China's "Four AI Chip Dragons" to secure approval for a public listing, Seyond's IPO filing reveals a profound and controversial dependency. In 2025, 74.9% to over 80% of its revenue came from Tencent. The piece argues that this extreme customer concentration is not merely a vulnerability but a strategic outcome of China's AI industry evolution. It contrasts Seyond's path with its peers (Moore Thread, Biren Technology, and MetaX), noting that while others raced to market with ambitious stories, Seyond focused first on securing and delivering for a major client. Its explosive revenue growth—with Q1 2026 up 1474.85% year-on-year—is driven by concentrated orders from Tencent, which itself faces massive, escalating AI compute demands for products like its Yuanbao and Hunyuan models. The relationship is framed as a deliberate, symbiotic cultivation of a supply chain. As both a major shareholder (20.26%) and primary client, Tencent is actively fostering Seyond to build a controllable, stable alternative to NVIDIA, similar to how global tech giants historically nurtured key suppliers. The high switching costs—involving software stacks and deployed systems—create a deep "ecological moat" for Seyond within Tencent's ecosystem. The analysis positions the AI chip landscape in three tiers: NVIDIA as the global leader, Huawei's Ascend as the state-backed player, and commercial firms like Seyond competing for market orders. Seyond is increasingly seen as "Tencent's compute foundation," with its product roadmap closely aligned with the tech giant's needs. The conclusion is that the industry's metric for success is shifting from fundraising and technical specs to real orders, delivery capability, and ecosystem binding. Seyond's value, therefore, lies not just in its chips but in holding a massive, multi-year procurement order from China's largest internet company—a tangible asset arguably more telling than any technical whitepaper in the current climate. The core insight is that for domestic chips, the ultimate challenge isn't just catching up technologically with NVIDIA, but earning the trust, scenarios, and recurring orders from a major anchor client.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Without Tencent, What's Left for Suiyuan?

marsbit1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片