The American Bankers Association is pressing the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to slow the wheel on national trust bank charters for crypto and stablecoin firms until key questions around the GENIUS Act, which would reshape U.S. stablecoin regulation, are settled. In a recent comment letter responding to the OCC’s notice of proposed rulemaking on national bank charters, the ABA warned that the sector’s regulatory picture remains fragmented across federal and state authorities. The trade group argued that advancing applications now could leave uninsured, digital-asset‑focused trusts exposed to unresolved safety, operational, and resolution issues, even as the industry connects customer assets to federally chartered platforms.

The ABA’s critique centers on the risk that a patchwork of oversight can create gaps for entities that manage crypto and stablecoins. The letter contends that until forthcoming GENIUS Act rulemakings lay out clear regulatory obligations, it would be prudent for the OCC to pause or slow down approvals. The GENIUS Act, which aims to streamline or redefine how digital assets fit into the U.S. banking framework, has not yet produced a settled regulatory map. Without that clarity, the ABA argues, banks seeking charters could face obligations that are not yet defined, complicating risk management and supervisory expectations for these new structures.

Beyond governance, the association underscored distinct safety and soundness concerns tied to uninsured, digital-asset‑focused national trusts. Chief among them are questions about how customer assets are segregated and protected, potential conflicts of interest, and the cyber safeguards necessary to withstand sophisticated threats. The letter points to the possibility that uninsured digital-asset trusts could be used to sidestep traditional registration and scrutiny by agencies such as the SEC or CFTC when activities would ordinarily trigger securities or derivatives regulation. The overarching worry is that these charters could become a back door to bypass comprehensive, integrated oversight.

The ABA’s stance comes as the OCC has recently moved to greenlight a path for several crypto firms to hold and manage customer digital assets under a federal charter while staying outside the deposit-taking and lending business. In December 2025, the OCC granted conditional national trust bank approvals to five notable players: Bitgo Bank & Trust, Fidelity Digital Assets, Ripple National Trust Bank, First National Digital Currency Bank, and Paxos Trust Company. This sequence—clear progress followed by calls for prudence—has amplified calls from industry observers and policymakers to align new models with robust regulatory guardrails.

As the regulatory dialogue intensifies, the broader banking lobby has amplified its push for Congress to act. Proposals such as the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act have gained attention for attempting to curb the appeal of stablecoin rewards and other yield-bearing programs that could blur the line between traditional banking products and crypto offerings. At the same time, coverage of GENIUS Act proposals has underscored the tension between innovation and prudential supervision. The industry’s worry is that without a unified framework, chartered entities could be forced into a regulatory limbo where consumer protection and financial stability are not fully safeguarded.

While the ABA’s letter emphasizes caution, the OCC’s recent actions reflect a different facet of the ongoing balancing act: enabling regulated access to digital assets under a federal charter while attempting to avoid the full deposit-taking framework. The OCC’s stance has drawn support from some voices within the crypto sector who argue for clear, uniform standards that would prevent a fragmented patchwork of state-by-state approaches. The debate also intersects with ongoing discussions about how to treat banks and crypto similarly or differently, a point highlighted by industry and regulatory leaders alike. A separate OCC statement and related commentary have argued that there is no justification to treat banks and crypto differently; the underlying question remains how to translate those principles into enforceable, uniform rules across multiple agencies.

​Warning after new crypto trust charters

The timing of the ABA’s intervention is notable: it follows the OCC’s conditional approvals announced earlier in December 2025 that would allow these firms to hold and manage customer digital assets under a federal umbrella while remaining out of the deposit-taking and lending business. The OCC described these structures as national trusts designed to segregate digital assets and provide custody capabilities without converting to traditional banking operations. The five charter recipients—Bitgo Bank & Trust, Fidelity Digital Assets, Ripple National Trust Bank, First National Digital Currency Bank, and Paxos Trust Company—represent a cross-section of the market and reflect a broader appetite to experiment with federal oversight in the crypto custody space. The OCC’s action signals a potential pathway for regulated custody of digital assets, even as lawmakers and industry groups push for clarifying legislation and more precise supervisory expectations.

The push for governance clarity is not happening in a vacuum. Industry participants and lawmakers alike have been weighing proposals like GENIUS Act and CLARITY Act, which seek to define the boundaries of crypto activities within the traditional banking regime and curb practices that could be mischaracterized as bank-like products without full bank regulation. The evolving regulatory mosaic poses a dilemma for firms seeking charters: how to align innovative custody models with a robust, predictable framework that ensures customer protection and systemic stability—without dampening the competitiveness and speed of financial-technology innovation.

As regulatory scoping continues to evolve, observers note that the OCC’s framework for conditional approvals to national trust charters could have meaningful implications for market structure, consumer safeguards, and the scope of permissible activities for non-deposit-taking digital asset custodians. The tension between fostering innovation and ensuring a resilient financial system remains at the heart of the debate. Several pieces of legislation and policy proposals that would influence this trajectory are already in circulation, reinforcing the sense that 2026 could be a critical year for how crypto custody and stablecoins are governed at the federal level.

Why it matters

For investors, the ongoing regulatory clarifications affect risk assessment and the perceived legitimacy of crypto custody solutions. A formal, well-defined regulatory framework could reduce ambiguity around the protections afforded to customer assets held by uninsured digital-asset trusts and influence risk pricing for associated products. For builders and operators, clear rules can help map out feasible business models that align with capital, governance, and risk-management expectations. And for policymakers, the interplay between GENIUS Act provisions, banking supervision, and securities/derivatives regulation underscores a key objective: ensuring that innovation remains aligned with financial stability and consumer protection.

From a market structure perspective, the debate highlights how custody and settlement infrastructures could evolve under federal oversight. If the OCC’s conditional trust charters become a common feature, watchers will be looking for transparency around capital requirements, resilience standards, and the safeguards that would prevent consumer confusion—especially around institutions that use “bank” in their names for branding purposes despite not engaging in traditional banking activities. The industry’s insistence on naming rules reflects a broader concern about trust and clarity in a landscape where digital assets can be held by entities operating under a federal umbrella but without full deposit-taking powers.

Meanwhile, the GENIUS Act and related proposals continue to shape the policy dialogue on stablecoins and digital assets within the U.S. financial system. As the regulatory math evolves, the market will be watching how agencies interpret and implement these concepts in real-world chartering decisions. The balancing act remains: enable responsible innovation in custody and settlement while preserving a robust, transparent, and enforceable supervisory regime that protects consumers and maintains market integrity.

What to watch next

• OCC’s formal response to the ABA comment letter and any adjustments to the proposed rulemaking timeline.
• Developments in GENIUS Act rulemaking and any accompanying guidance that clarifies obligations for crypto custody under national bank charters.
• Details on the five crypto firms granted conditional national trust charters, including milestones for capital, risk controls, and asset segregation.
• Legislative progress on the CLARITY Act and related measures that would influence stablecoin governance and disclosure requirements.

Sources & verification

• The ABA letter to the OCC regarding national bank chartering (PDF).
• OCC press release: conditional national trust bank approvals for Bitgo Bank & Trust, Fidelity Digital Assets, Ripple National Trust Bank, First National Digital Currency Bank, and Paxos Trust Company (nr-occ-2025-125.html).
• OCC updates on GENIUS Act-related rulemaking and related policy discussions cited in industry coverage.
• Cointelegraph reporting on the OCC’s stance toward treating banks and crypto equally and the broader lobbying around the GENIUS Act and related reforms.

What the ABA letter says, in context

The ABA’s position centers on prudence and transparency. The association argues that the OCC should resist rushing charter approvals for entities handling uninsured customer funds in crypto and stablecoin operations until the GENIUS Act rulemakings are fully defined and integrated into a coherent supervisory framework. It emphasizes that without a clear, comprehensive set of obligations, chartered entities could encounter undefined capital, operational resilience, and customer-protection standards. The letter calls for greater clarity on how capital and resilience benchmarks will be calibrated in conditional approvals and presses for tighter naming rules to prevent consumer confusion when entities use “bank” in their branding, despite not engaging in traditional banking activities. The overarching theme is to align innovation with robust safeguards and to keep deposit-empowered banks as the reference point for consumer protections and risk management.

Key figures and next steps

As the regulatory conversation continues, observers will be watching a trio of developments: the OCC’s formal responses to stakeholder comments, the progression of GENIUS Act rulemaking, and the practical implications of the five conditional charter approvals already granted. The dialogue around whether banks and crypto should be treated differently is likely to persist, but the current emphasis appears to be on ensuring that any new chartering framework provides explicit obligations and strong oversight. With policy and industry stakeholders navigating these questions, the coming months could define how crypto custody, stablecoin issuance, and related digital-asset activities are integrated into the U.S. banking system on a long-term, predictable basis.