The Crypto Industry Waited Five and a Half Years, and Got Half a Ticket

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-03-09Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-09

Анотація

After a five-and-a-half-year wait, Kraken has become the first cryptocurrency exchange to receive a master account from the Federal Reserve, specifically a "skinny account" that grants limited access to the Fedwire payment system. This allows Kraken to settle U.S. dollar transactions directly for institutional clients, reducing reliance on intermediary banks and lowering friction for large-scale transactions. However, the account does not include key banking privileges such as access to the discount window or interest on reserves. The approval, granted by the Kansas City Fed in March, marks a significant shift in the U.S. regulatory approach to crypto, occurring under a new political administration. It follows the collapse of key crypto-friendly banks like Silvergate and Signature in 2023, which exposed the industry's vulnerability to traditional banking partners. The move has faced criticism from banking groups, who argue the approval bypassed established rulemaking procedures. The broader implications are substantial: Kraken can now offer near-instant settlement to institutional clients, enhancing its competitive position as it prepares for an IPO. This decision, seen as politically driven rather than rules-based, may pave the way for other crypto firms like Anchorage Digital to gain similar access, though its longevity remains tied to the current political climate.

In October 2020, Kraken submitted its application for a master account to the Federal Reserve. Back then, the DeFi summer had just ended, NFTs hadn't exploded yet, FTX was still one of the most trusted trading platforms in the industry, and the U.S. SEC was still responding to all regulatory questions with "we are still studying it."

Five and a half years later, FTX has collapsed, its founder is in prison, and the entire industry has gone through a bear market that washed out almost everyone. The SEC sued Coinbase, sued Binance, and swung the "crypto equals securities" club everywhere. Then Trump won the election, the SEC chair changed, and the enforcement direction did a 180-degree turn.

By March of this year, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City approved Kraken's application. This crypto trading platform, with annual revenue of $1.5 billion and sprinting towards an IPO, finally has its own Federal Reserve master account.

The Wall Is Finally Down

But the real weight of this matter lies in the three words: "master account."

There has always been a structural wall between traditional banks and crypto companies. Crypto companies did not have the qualification to directly access the Federal Reserve's payment system; every dollar in and out had to be relayed through a traditional bank holding a master account. This is not a regulatory limitation; it is an infrastructural segregation. Crypto companies use private bank money, not central bank money, always separated by a middleman.

The risk of this middleman was fully exposed in 2023. Silvergate and Signature collapsed one after another, two banks specializing in serving the crypto industry disappeared overnight, the entire industry's dollar channels fell into chaos, trading platforms couldn't process normal deposits and withdrawals, stablecoins depegged, and some institutions faced immediate liquidity ruptures. That crisis made the entire industry realize one thing: relying on correspondent banks means handing over your lifeline to others.

The master account solves this problem. Holding a master account means direct access to Fedwire, the interbank real-time gross settlement system operated by the Federal Reserve, established in 1913, the most fundamental clearing rail in the U.S. financial system. Every business day, Fedwire handles trillions of dollars in flow; corporate M&A payments, Treasury settlements, interbank loans—all travel through this pipeline.

JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo—all licensed U.S. banks settle with each other through Fedwire using central bank money, not private bank liabilities. For over a hundred years, this system has only been open to one type of institution: federally regulated traditional banks. Kraken is now among them.

What happens after entering this door? A recent case is Square.

In 2020, it obtained an Industrial Loan Company (ILC) charter from Utah, essentially also entering the door of the Federal Reserve payment system. Before that, Square's loan product, Square Capital, had to be issued through third-party bank partners, who set conditions, charged fees, and decided credit limits; Square's pricing power and product design space were constrained.

After obtaining the charter, Square fully integrated its lending business into its own Square Financial Services, internalizing everything from funding sources to risk control to pricing. Within a year, there were visible changes in the interest rates and disbursement speed for small business loans. Cash App's financial product line then expanded rapidly—direct deposit, stock trading, Bitcoin buying and selling—a complete retail financial chain grew out of a P2P transfer tool.

Kraken's logic is the same path. U.S. dollars deposited by institutional clients into Kraken previously required clearing through correspondent banks, with time and cost losses. After directly connecting to Fedwire, Kraken can handle fiat settlement autonomously, fundamentally reducing the cost of friction for large-value deposits and withdrawals.

More importantly, the master account qualifies Kraken to do things it couldn't do before—provide institutional clients with settlement services backed by the Federal Reserve, no longer being "a crypto trading platform surviving on the tolerance of banks." These two statements are not the same thing for institutional capital.

What Did Five and a Half Years Buy?

The type of account Kraken obtained is called a "Skinny Account" in the industry. It's in the door, but with a significant portion of permissions cut. No discount window, no interest on excess reserves, no intraday overdraft facility. These are tools traditional banks use to manage liquidity and earn passive income; Kraken got none of them.

These restrictions weren't invented by the Fed specifically for Kraken. In December 2025, the Federal Reserve released a征求意见稿 (request for comments) for "Skinny Accounts" targeting non-traditional institutions; the framework is like this—you can access the payment rail, but don't expect full banking待遇 (treatment). Kraken's account was the first approved under this logic before the framework itself was finalized.

Furthermore, Kraken's审查等级 (review tier) is also Tier 3, the strictest level in the Fed's three-tier framework. Tier 1 is traditional banks with federal deposit insurance. Tier 2 is institutions without deposit insurance but under federal prudential regulation. Tier 3 is everyone else who fits neither, including crypto banks, payment innovation companies, or any entity trying to access the Fed via non-traditional paths. The Fed is completely unfamiliar with you; you must prove yourself first. The审查原则 (review principle) for this tier is simple and brutal.

Things approved under Tier 3 are few and far between. In the years this framework has existed, almost nothing has been approved. Applications hang there, with no clear timeline, no expected outcome. Kraken's application itself wasn't special; what was special was that the people handling the审批 (approval) five and a half years later had changed.

The account initially only serves institutional clients; retail is not involved yet, as clearly stated in Kraken's own announcement. Ordinary users won't feel any change for now.

It's a different story for institutional clients.

Kraken launched Kraken Prime in mid-2025, targeting hedge funds, asset management companies, and large corporations—those institutions handling tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in fiat inflows and outflows daily. Before the Fedwire direct connection, these funds had to be relayed through correspondent banks, which have business hours, review queues, their own compliance judgments, and can directly block transactions during special periods. During the days when Silvergate collapsed in 2023, large capital flows in the industry were practically severed.

After directly connecting to Fedwire, the settlement chain loses one link. A hedge fund transferring a large U.S. dollar position to Kraken uses the Federal Reserve payment rail, real-time settlement, irrevocable, not subject to the business hours or risk control judgments of private banks. For institutions that need to precisely control the timing of funds within specific windows, this is a matter of infrastructure, not a feature update.

Looking further ahead, there's another layer. Kraken Prime is currently T+1. After the Fedwire direct connection stabilizes, T+0 real-time settlement is the natural next step. The crypto market runs 24/7; fiat settlement being stuck to business days creates a misalignment. Once this misalignment is eliminated, Kraken's appeal to institutions will be on another level.

For Kraken, which is preparing for an IPO, it no longer needs to compete with Coinbase for the title of "largest compliant crypto trading platform," but rather becomes "the first financial institution to directly access the Federal Reserve." This also adds more rationality to its $20 billion valuation.

How Was the Door Opened?

In December 2025, the Federal Reserve released the征求意见稿 (request for comments) for "skinny accounts," soliciting public opinion with a deadline of February 2026. This is the preliminary procedure for formally establishing the framework: first ask the public, then set the rules, then approve.

The comment period closed in February; in March, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City approved the account for Kraken. The rules aren't even written yet, but it was approved first.

This caused great dissatisfaction in the banking industry. Three major banking lobbying groups jointly spoke out. The Bank Policy Institute (BPI)'s statement was blunt: approving before the framework is finalized ignores the public opinion solicited by the Fed itself; the entire approval process lacks any transparency. Institutions without federal deposit insurance pose higher risks to the payment system本身 (itself); this approval neither公开 (made public) a risk assessment nor explained why it was pushed forward提前 (ahead of schedule). The American Bankers Association and the Independent Community Bankers of America followed suit.

The focus of their opposition is not that "crypto companies shouldn't come in," but the procedure itself—"using case-by-case approvals to bypass rulemaking." Columbia University scholar Todd Baker's criticism was more direct: the Fed保密 (kept confidential) the specific restrictions on Kraken citing "business secrets"; government agency approval decisions should not be opaque.

A similar case is Custodia Bank. In January 2023, the Federal Reserve rejected its application,理由是 (reasoning) "crypto business model poses undue risk to the Federal Reserve's payment system." Custodia subsequently sued, all the way to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the court unanimously upheld the original ruling; Custodia lost.

Same state, same type of institution, applications submitted to the same Federal Reserve Bank around the same time. Custodia rejected, Kraken approved.

The key difference between these two events is not that Kraken's compliance standards were higher. Custodia's investment in compliance was毫不逊色 (not inferior at all); its founder, Caitlin Long, came from Wall Street and contributed greatly to promoting SPDI legislation in Wyoming. The difference is that Custodia's application was reviewed during the Biden administration, under the political atmosphere of Operation Choke Point 2.0, where the Fed was strict on crypto institutions across the board. Kraken's application was reviewed during Trump's second term, the SEC chair had changed, SAB 121 had been repealed, and the White House publicly declared its intention to make the U.S. the "global crypto capital."

The same application, different political backgrounds, different results. It illustrates one thing: this door was not opened by rules; it was opened by politics. Politics can open a door, and it can also close it again.

Senator Lummis wrote in the approval announcement, "look forward to resolving other pending applications in the coming weeks." Anchorage Digital Bank, the only crypto bank in the U.S. holding an OCC national trust bank charter, has submitted a master account application, currently pending. If Anchorage is also approved, the precedent expands from "Wyoming SPDI" to "OCC federal特许银行 (chartered bank)," a breakthrough of another magnitude.

The court's ruling was very clear: the Fed has discretion; it can approve, or not approve; the law does not require it to treat everyone equally. What is replicable is the application path; what is not replicable is the political conditions. The room is truly entered; the door is truly open. But the hand that opened this door was not rules; it was the political wind.

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the significance of Kraken obtaining a Federal Reserve master account, and what specific limitations does its 'Skinny Account' have?

AKraken obtaining a Federal Reserve master account allows it to directly connect to the Fedwire payment system, eliminating the need for an intermediary bank for USD settlements. This reduces friction and costs for large institutional transactions. However, its 'Skinny Account' lacks key privileges: no access to the discount window, no interest on excess reserves, and no intraday overdraft privileges.

QHow did the political climate in the U.S. influence the approval of Kraken's master account application compared to Custodia Bank's rejection?

AKraken's application was approved under the Trump administration, which had a pro-crypto stance, with the SEC chair replaced and policies like SAB 121 repealed. In contrast, Custodia Bank's application was rejected during the Biden administration under 'Operation Choke Point 2.0,' where the Federal Reserve took a stricter approach toward crypto institutions.

QWhat risks did the crypto industry face due to its reliance on correspondent banks like Silvergate and Signature, and how does a master account mitigate these risks?

AThe collapse of Silvergate and Signature in 2023 exposed the industry's vulnerability, causing disruptions in USD channels, frozen withdrawals, stablecoin depegging, and liquidity crises. A master account mitigates this by allowing direct access to Fedwire, ensuring real-time, irreversible settlements without dependence on private banks' operating hours or risk assessments.

QWhat are the potential benefits for Kraken's institutional clients with the Fedwire direct connection, and how might it impact Kraken's business strategy?

AInstitutional clients benefit from real-time, irreversible USD settlements, reduced transaction costs, and elimination of intermediary bank constraints. This enables Kraken to offer T+0 settlements, enhancing its appeal to large funds and corporations. Strategically, it positions Kraken as a 'financial institution directly connected to the Fed' rather than just a crypto exchange, boosting its IPO valuation and competitive edge.

QHow did the banking industry react to the approval of Kraken's master account, and what were their main concerns?

AMajor banking lobby groups (BPI, ABA, ICBA) strongly opposed the approval, arguing that it bypassed the ongoing 'skinny account' rulemaking process and lacked transparency. They criticized the Federal Reserve for not conducting a public risk assessment or explaining the rationale, emphasizing that institutions without federal deposit insurance pose higher risks to the payment system.

Пов'язані матеріали

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

SpaceX's trillion-dollar valuation is built on its three core businesses: Starlink (profitable, 60% of revenue), rockets (driving down launch costs), and AI (a major investment area). This creates a financial cycle: Starlink funds rocket development, which enables low-cost launches for AI hardware, generating future revenue. This cycle fuels annual capital expenditures of tens of billions, flowing to a vast supply chain. Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability. The first group includes irreplaceable players like NVIDIA (GPU/CUDA ecosystem), Eutelsat (critical radio spectrum), Filtronic (specialized amplifiers), Materion (strategic beryllium), and STMicroelectronics (antenna chips). The second group consists of hard-to-replace suppliers due to high switching costs, such as Honeywell (flight control), Carpenter Technology (specialty alloys), Hexcel (carbon fiber), Broadcom (data exchange), and Linde (industrial gases). The third group comprises high-volume, cost-critical suppliers for mass-produced items like Starlink terminals. Key names include Wistron NeWeb (primary manufacturer) and several A-share companies like Shenzhen Sunway (connectors), Pies New Materials (forgings), Western Superconducting (alloys), and Yingliu (castings). Other niche players include Trimble (timing), Astronics (power distribution), and CTS (thermal management). The article argues that investing in these suppliers, rather than SpaceX stock directly, offers an alternative opportunity. The rationale is threefold: procurement is just beginning to scale, SpaceX's IPO brings new transparency to its supply chain, and the situation mirrors early stages of past "super terminal" ecosystems like Apple or Tesla. While risks exist (commodity cycles, geopolitical factors, technology shifts), the core thesis is that SpaceX's massive, ongoing procurement will translate into reliable revenue for its key suppliers, regardless of its own stock price volatility.

marsbit13 хв тому

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

marsbit13 хв тому

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

**Title: The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who Benefits from Musk's Annual $100 Billion Capital Expenditure?** This article argues that investors seeking to benefit from SpaceX's growth might find greater opportunities in its supply chain rather than directly investing in the company itself, drawing parallels to historical successes with Apple, Tesla, and NVIDIA suppliers. **SpaceX's Business Model & Cash Flow:** SpaceX generates revenue from three main areas: 1. **Starlink:** Its profitable core, earning $11.3B in 2023 (60% of revenue), funding other ventures. 2. **Rockets (Falcon/Starship):** Requires $3B+ in annual R&D but achieves the world's lowest launch costs. 3. **AI:** Currently unprofitable (-$6B+ in 2023), investing heavily in ground-based supercomputers (220,000 GPUs) and future orbital data centers. The cycle is: Starlink profits → fund cheaper rockets → low-cost launches deploy AI hardware → AI compute rentals generate future revenue. This cycle drives annual procurement spending of tens of billions of dollars. **The Supply Chain Beneficiaries:** Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability: **1. Nearly Irreplaceable (High Barriers to Entry):** * **NVIDIA:** Powers the Colossus supercomputer; its CUDA ecosystem creates immense switching costs. * **Eutelsat (SATS):** Controls critical radio spectrum for satellite communications; holds a ~3% stake in SpaceX. * **Filtronic (FTC):** Supplies millimeter-wave signal amplifiers for Starlink satellites; SpaceX constitutes 83% of its revenue. * **Materion (MTRN):** Global leader in beryllium production, a strategic material used in Starship structures. * **STMicroelectronics (STM):** Supplies phased-array antenna chips for Starlink satellites. **2. Replaceable, but Switching Cost is Prohibitively High:** * **Honeywell (HON):** Provides flight control and inertial navigation systems with decades of certification. * **Carpenter Technology (CRS):** Manufactures ultra-pure specialty steel alloys for Raptor engines. * **Hexcel (HXL):** Supplies custom carbon fiber composites developed over a decade with SpaceX. * **Broadcom (AVGO):** Manages high-speed data switching. * **Linde Group:** Supplies industrial gases (liquid oxygen/nitrogen) from facilities built near SpaceX launch sites. **3. High-Volume, Cost-Critical Manufacturing:** Focuses on mass-producing components like Starlink user terminals (target: 30 million units). * **Key Players:** Wistron NeWeb (6285, primary terminal manufacturer), several Chinese A-share companies (e.g., Sunway Communication, PAX New Materials, Western Metal Materials, Yingliu Co.), and smaller US firms like Trimble (TRMB, timing systems). **Why Now?** Three factors make the supply chain opportunity timely: 1. **Volume Ramp-Up:** SpaceX plans 100 launches in 2026, aims for 30 million Starlink terminals, and will deploy AI data centers, meaning procurement will accelerate. 2. **Increased Transparency:** The IPO provides public financial data, allowing investors to track supplier order growth. 3. **Historical Precedent:** The current phase is likened to Tesla's early mass-production stage (circa 2018), suggesting a long growth runway for suppliers. **Conclusion:** The article posits that while investing in SpaceX stock is betting on Elon Musk's ambitious vision at a high valuation, investing in its established suppliers is a bet on the tangible, recurring revenue from its massive procurement budget, which is largely decoupled from day-to-day stock price volatility.

链捕手17 хв тому

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

链捕手17 хв тому

The U.S. Government Blocked the Anthropic Model. It Wasn't About 'Jailbreaking' at All.

Last Friday, the U.S. Commerce Department issued an enforcement letter that forced Anthropic to take its two most advanced AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, offline. The stated reason was unspecified national security concerns, initially linked to potential "jailbreaks" of the models' safeguards. However, new details suggest the action stemmed more from a deteriorating relationship between the Trump administration and Anthropic, rather than a genuine technical threat. According to reports, the government cited a little-known export control regulation, compelling Anthropic to block access for all non-U.S. persons, including its own international employees. The company complied, shutting down the models without a court order or specific technical details from the government. Cybersecurity expert Katie Moussouris revealed she was privately shown a research paper detailing a potential safeguard bypass in Fable 5. She argued the described method was minor and did not warrant an export ban, stating that attempts to "fix" it would only weaken the model's defensive capabilities. Moussouris and other experts have since called for the order to be revoked, warning it dangerously removes advanced cybersecurity tools from U.S. defenders. Analysts like Justin Hendrix suggest the move appears retaliatory and sets a dangerous precedent, signaling that the U.S. government can unilaterally shut down a tech company's products. The incident has raised concerns about the reliability of American AI and the potential for political interference in the tech industry, serving as a warning to the broader sector.

marsbit20 хв тому

The U.S. Government Blocked the Anthropic Model. It Wasn't About 'Jailbreaking' at All.

marsbit20 хв тому

Ray Dalio: AI Bull Market Continues to Soar, Should Investors Go All In or Cash Out and Leave the Field?

In his latest notes, Ray Dalio addresses a critical question for investors amid the AI-driven stock market surge: how should one allocate assets during a transformative technological revolution? Dalio emphasizes that technological advancement does not automatically make related stocks attractive. Historical tech cycles—marked by excitement, crowding, volatility, and eventual shakeouts—show that even long-term winners like Microsoft and Apple experienced severe drawdowns. Today's AI sector faces similar uncertainties: overinvestment, intensifying competition, geopolitical tensions (e.g., Taiwan's chip supply), tax policy shifts, anti-AI sentiment, and potential disruption from future technologies like quantum computing. Dalio's core argument focuses on the highly concentrated market structure, where a few tech giants dominate major indices. He warns investors against unknowingly holding concentrated, correlated exposures. Instead of chasing a handful of AI leaders, he advocates for a robust, diversified portfolio of 15 or more high-quality, uncorrelated investments, risk-balanced to match an investor's volatility tolerance. Mathematically, such diversification significantly improves the risk-return ratio—for example, holding 15 uncorrelated assets can boost the ratio by over four times compared to a single concentrated bet. Dalio cautions that future equity returns appear low, with his bubble indicator suggesting real returns could be negative over the next 5-10 years. He stresses that knowing what you don't know is as important as knowing what you do. In an environment of high uncertainty and concentration, avoiding large, concentrated bets on AI stocks is prudent. The optimal strategy is disciplined diversification—the "holy grail" of investing—to navigate this technologically driven cycle with lower risk and comparable or better returns.

marsbit24 хв тому

Ray Dalio: AI Bull Market Continues to Soar, Should Investors Go All In or Cash Out and Leave the Field?

marsbit24 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片