Big Banks Threaten To Sue OCC Over Crypto Rules, Citing Threats To Financial Stability

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-03-09Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-09

Анотація

Major US banks, led by the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), are threatening to sue the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) over its approval of federal trust charters for crypto firms. They argue that the OCC's streamlined licensing process, which has approved firms like Ripple, Circle, and Fidelity, releases these companies into the financial system without the stringent oversight applied to traditional banks. Banking groups warn this blurs the definition of a "bank," creates a regulatory loophole, and poses significant risks to financial stability, consumer protection, and competition. The opposition is also supported by state regulators and smaller banking groups.

The traditional banking sector in the United States is reportedly intensifying its opposition to crypto firms and considering a potential lawsuit against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) over federal licenses granted to these companies.

According to a Monday report by The Guardian, the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) is evaluating its legal options after the OCC did not respond favorably to repeated warnings from influential banking groups and state regulators concerning its reinterpretation of federal licensing rules.

Banks Demand Action Against OCC’s Crypto Licenses

Since President Donald Trump took office, the OCC has streamlined the process for crypto firms and fintech startups to acquire and operate under a national bank trust charter, which allows them to serve customers in all 50 states.

This resulted in conditional bank charters being approved for five major crypto firms, including Ripple, Circle (CRCL), BitGo, Paxos, and Fidelity, back in December of last year.

However, traditional banks express concern that this approval effectively releases these firms into the broader financial system without the stringent oversight and controls that fully-fledged banks undergo.

In October, the Bank Policy Institute publicly urged the regulator to reject license applications from notable crypto and blockchain companies, including Circle, Ripple, and the London-based payment firm Wise.

The BPI, which counts banking leaders such as Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan, Brian Moynihan of Bank of America, and David Solomon of Goldman Sachs among its board members, cautioned that granting lighter regulatory frameworks to firms offering bank-like services could blur the lines defining what constitutes a “bank.”

This, they argued, could exacerbate systemic risk and undermine the integrity of the national banking charter. Currently, the BPI is contemplating whether to initiate legal action against the OCC.

Smaller Banks And State Regulators Also Push Back

The Guardian also reported that the OCC’s approach to crypto has also faced resistance from smaller banking groups and state regulators.

The Conference of State Bank Supervisors, which represents regulators from all 50 states, sent a letter to the OCC last month arguing that granting regulatory approval to crypto and payment firms would compromise competition, consumer protection, and financial stability.

Similar concerns were echoed by the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), an organization representing approximately 5,000 smaller banks.

The ICBA warned that the current proposals to issue licenses to crypto companies would create a “loophole” in core banking regulations and raise serious public policy concerns about consumer safety and the overall stability of the financial services sector.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap at $2.33 trillion as of Monday, March 9. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Пов'язані питання

QWhy are big banks threatening to sue the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)?

ABig banks, represented by the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), are threatening to sue the OCC because they oppose the federal licenses granted to crypto firms. They argue that these licenses allow crypto companies to operate like banks without undergoing the same stringent oversight, which they believe poses a threat to financial stability and undermines the integrity of the national banking charter.

QWhich major crypto firms received conditional bank charters from the OCC?

AAccording to the article, the OCC approved conditional bank charters for five major crypto firms: Ripple, Circle (CRCL), BitGo, Paxos, and Fidelity.

QWhat specific concerns does the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) have about the OCC's actions?

AThe BPI is concerned that granting lighter regulatory frameworks to crypto firms offering bank-like services blurs the definition of a 'bank,' exacerbates systemic risk, and undermines the integrity of the national banking charter.

QWhich other groups, besides the large banks, are pushing back against the OCC's crypto licensing?

ASmaller banking groups and state regulators are also pushing back. The Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) have expressed concerns that these licenses compromise competition, consumer protection, and financial stability.

QWhat was the total crypto market cap mentioned in the article as of the report date?

AThe daily chart in the article shows the total crypto market cap was $2.33 trillion as of Monday, March 9.

Пов'язані матеріали

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbit48 хв тому

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbit48 хв тому

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit1 год тому

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片