The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is telling crypto firms they are not automatically barred from the U.S. banking system, but they still have to clear the bar like everyone else.
- OCC signal: digital asset firms can pursue national bank and trust charters if their activities are legally permissible
- No blank check: approvals still depend on capital, controls, management, and supervision
- FDIC backdrop: deposit insurance reviews are getting a faster two-phase process
- Pushback remains: critics say some crypto trust charters may stretch banking law
Comptroller Jonathan V. Gould put the agency’s new mood plainly:
“America and the OCC are once again open for business.”
That is a real shift in tone from a regulator that has often looked at crypto the way a cat looks at a vacuum cleaner. The message now is not that every token shop or stablecoin outfit gets a free pass. It is that digital asset companies conducting legally permissible activities can apply for a federal charter and be judged on the merits.
That distinction matters. A national bank charter is not the same thing as a national trust charter. The OCC charters and supervises national banks and national trust banks. Trust banks are usually narrower in scope and can focus on custody, safekeeping, and related services without necessarily taking insured deposits. In plain English, they can help move, hold, and administer assets, but they are not automatically full-service retail banks with deposit-taking powers and a branch on every corner.
For crypto firms, that narrower lane is often the point. A federal charter can reduce dependence on partner banks, cut through some of the ugly state-by-state fragmentation, and give a company more direct access to the regulated financial system. That does not make it easy. It just makes it possible.
The OCC is still very much in the business of saying no when something smells off. Gould’s friendliness does not erase the basics of bank supervision: management quality, capital strength, compliance readiness, and risk controls still matter. A polished pitch deck and a hard-charging Discord army are not regulatory capital.
There is already evidence that the door is open, but guarded. OCC records show Circle’s First National Digital Currency Bank became effective on July 10. By contrast, Wise National Trust was denied on July 21. That is the reality check here: the agency can be more welcoming without becoming lenient.
The OCC also has a list of pending Digital Assets Licensing Applications, including Payward National Trust Company, World Liberty Trust Company, Revolut Bank US, PAYO Digital Bank, EDX Trust, Agora National Trust Bank, and Dakota National Trust Bank. Dakota’s July 28 filing is described as the newest currently listed.
That pipeline tells its own story. Crypto firms are not being shoved out of the room anymore, but they are also not being escorted straight to the executive suite. They are waiting in line like everyone else, which is already a notable improvement over being treated as radioactive material on sight.
The broader federal backdrop is also shifting. The FDIC has rolled out a new two-phase process for deposit insurance applications received after Aug. 15. In phase one, the agency aims for contingent authorization within 120 days. Phase two can run for up to 12 months.
That matters most to institutions seeking insured deposits, and not every crypto trust applicant wants that. But the direction is clear: federal regulators are at least trying to make new bank formation less glacial. For an industry that has spent years getting stonewalled, delayed, or de-risked out of partner banking relationships, even a slightly less bureaucratic government is news.
The OCC’s own data points suggest the agency is leaning into that push. Gould said the OCC received 40 de novo applications over the past 18 months and that it has decided many complete applications within 120 days. The agency also adopted a chartering rule effective April 1 that replaced references to “fiduciary activities” with “operations of a trust company and activities related thereto.” The OCC says that language change did not expand or contract its authority.
That last part is exactly where the political fight sharpens its knives.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and other skeptics have argued that crypto trust charters may be getting stretched beyond their lawful limits. The concern is not subtle: if a firm is running custody, payment, or stablecoin-related services that look a lot like banking, should it be allowed to operate under a narrower trust charter instead of the full burden of bank rules?
That is not a goofy academic argument. It goes straight to the heart of whether crypto companies are building genuinely permitted trust operations or trying to slip bank-like activity through a side door. If a company wants the privileges, the critics say, it should take the obligations too. That is a fair fight, even if the anti-crypto camp often wraps it in bureaucratic upholstery.
There is a real balance to strike here. Crypto firms need a path into the banking system if they want to build durable infrastructure instead of forever relying on fragile relationships with traditional banks. But regulators also have a duty to stop charters from becoming a costume that lets companies dress like banks while dodging the hard parts. Banking law is not a cosplay convention.
For Bitcoin and the broader crypto sector, the practical effect is straightforward: access is getting less hostile. That does not mean approval is easy, or that every digital asset business belongs inside the federal banking perimeter. It does mean the OCC is no longer treating crypto as a categorical non-starter.
That may sound modest, but in banking policy, modest is often the thing that actually moves the needle. The difference between “absolutely not” and “apply and prove it” is the difference between exile and a shot at legitimacy.
What does this mean for Bitcoin businesses? It means companies building custody, payments, or infrastructure around Bitcoin have a clearer path to federal charters if their model fits the law. That could improve banking access and legitimacy, but it also brings heavier scrutiny and compliance costs.
Does this mean crypto firms are guaranteed approval? No. The OCC can still deny any application that fails on capital, governance, controls, or charter authority. Openness is not the same thing as rubber-stamping.
Is a national trust charter the same as a full bank charter? No. A trust charter is narrower and usually tied to custody and related trust activities, not the full range of retail banking services.
Why are critics like Elizabeth Warren pushing back? They argue some crypto firms may be using trust charters to do bank-like business without accepting full bank rules. Their view is that the law should not be bent into a convenience store for regulatory arbitrage.
Does the FDIC’s faster process change things for crypto firms? Only partly. The new process mainly affects applications for deposit insurance, which matters more to banks seeking insured deposits than to every crypto trust company.
The headline here is not that crypto has won the banking war. It hasn’t. The real shift is narrower and more important: the federal banking door is open enough to knock on, and the OCC is no longer pretending digital asset firms don’t belong in the conversation.
That is progress. It is also a reminder that in finance, access and approval are not the same thing. One opens the door. The other decides whether you are fit to walk through it.
Further Reading
A few regulatory cross-currents worth tracking as the OCC opens the door a little wider.
- OCC says crypto firms can pursue U.S. bank charters
- Warren presses OCC on crypto companies acting like banks
- OCC announces conditional approvals for five national charters
- OCC's recent charter approvals signal momentum for digital asset firms
- Warren targets OCC crypto charters as industry defends federal oversight
- Warren blasts OCC over crypto trust charters, Coinbase and Ripple under fire
- OCC exposes major U.S. banks for discriminatory debanking of crypto firms
