White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett has disclosed owning between $1 million and $5 million in Coinbase shares while the Trump administration advanced policies affecting the U.S. crypto industry.

Coinbase shares remained in Hassett’s disclosed portfolio

CNBC, citing Hassett’s latest annual financial disclosure, reported that the National Economic Council director held between $1 million and $5 million in Coinbase Global stock as of Dec. 31, 2025.

Federal disclosure forms report assets within value ranges rather than giving exact amounts. The filing, therefore, does not show the number of Coinbase shares Hassett owned or the precise value of the position.

Because the document only covers assets held through the end of 2025, it also does not establish whether Hassett retained, reduced, or sold the investment during 2026.

Before joining the Trump administration, Hassett served on Coinbase’s Academic and Regulatory Advisory Council from 2021 until January 2025. His relationship with the company ended when he entered the White House, according to CNBC.

An earlier disclosure reported in June 2025 had already placed the value of Hassett’s vested Coinbase stock within the same $1 million-to-$5 million range. It also showed that he had received more than $50,000 in compensation from Coinbase for advisory work.

Coinbase trades on Nasdaq under the ticker COIN, giving U.S. investors direct exposure to the country’s largest publicly listed crypto exchange. Changes in federal rules covering token trading, stablecoins, banking access and securities oversight can affect the company’s operations and its appeal to shareholders.

White House crypto policy gave the NEC a central role

Hassett’s investment has drawn attention because the National Economic Council helps coordinate economic policy across the administration, including decisions that can affect digital-asset companies.

Three days after President Donald Trump returned to office, he signed an executive order creating the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets. The group received instructions to develop proposals covering crypto regulation, stablecoins and a possible national digital-asset stockpile.

In January 2025, crypto.news covered the executive order, which also directed federal agencies to review rules affecting digital assets and recommend changes. Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other federal bodies received seats in the working group.

The executive order placed White House artificial intelligence and crypto adviser David Sacks in charge of the group. Although Hassett was not its chair, CNBC reported that the National Economic Council played an important part in developing the administration’s crypto agenda.

Policy work under the group extended to market regulation, access to banking services, stablecoin rules, and the tax treatment of digital assets. Each area carries possible financial consequences for Coinbase because the company operates a U.S. trading platform, provides custody services, and earns revenue from stablecoin-related activity.

Later in 2025, the working group published recommendations for federal agencies and Congress. The report called for clearer divisions of authority between the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, federal legislation for digital-asset markets, and updated banking guidance for crypto companies.

Hassett says he has avoided crypto-related matters

Hassett told CNBC that he had stayed away from cryptocurrency matters after consulting government ethics officials. The White House also defended his conduct, saying he “has always and continues to fully comply with all ethical requirements.”

The available disclosure does not show whether Hassett received a formal waiver, sold the Coinbase position after December 2025, or placed restrictions on his ability to trade the shares.

Federal ethics rules generally require executive-branch employees to avoid participating personally and substantially in matters that could have a direct and predictable effect on their financial interests. How the rules apply depends on the employee’s duties, the type of government matter involved, and any recusal or waiver approved by ethics officials.

Former SEC ethics lawyer Shira Pavis Minton Kantor told CNBC that the size of Hassett’s holding represented a “significant conflict of interest” or, at minimum, created the appearance of one.

Her assessment concerned the overlap between Hassett’s financial exposure to Coinbase and the NEC’s role in policy discussions affecting the crypto sector. The report did not say that Hassett had violated a federal ethics law or participated in a specific decision benefiting the company.

Any finding of an ethics breach would require evidence about the matters Hassett handled, the steps he took to recuse himself, and the advice provided by White House ethics officials. The disclosed ownership alone establishes a financial interest but does not prove misconduct.

Coinbase has built a large role in U.S. crypto politics

Coinbase entered the Trump administration’s second term after spending heavily on U.S. political advocacy during the 2024 election cycle.

The exchange joined Ripple, Andreessen Horowitz, and other crypto companies in backing Fairshake, a bipartisan super PAC supporting candidates viewed as favorable to digital-asset legislation. A November 2024 report on Fairshake’s political funding said crypto businesses and investors had put millions of dollars into the PAC and its affiliates.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong described the 2024 election as a win for the industry, arguing that voters had elected what he expected to become the most pro-crypto Congress in U.S. history. At the time, Armstrong called for legislation that would set clearer rules for crypto companies and their customers.

Armstrong has also met Trump and other senior administration officials during discussions about digital-asset policy. Coinbase contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee, while its policy team continued lobbying Congress over market-structure and stablecoin legislation.

During Trump’s second term, federal policy changes directly affected the company. In February 2025, the SEC voted to dismiss its civil enforcement case against Coinbase, ending litigation that had accused the exchange of operating as an unregistered securities platform and offering an unregistered staking service.

The SEC said its dismissal was intended to support the agency’s work on a new regulatory approach and did not express a view on the merits of Coinbase’s legal arguments. Commissioners approved the dismissal with prejudice, preventing the agency from bringing the same claims again.

Coinbase had denied the allegations and argued that the SEC had failed to provide a workable registration route for crypto businesses. No penalty, admission of wrongdoing, or change to the company’s business model formed part of the dismissal.

Anchorage Digital has partnered with stablecoin protocol Frgmnt to expand institutional access to fUSD and its staked version, sfUSD, via Anchorage’s regulated custody platform. The new integration is designed to let qualified clients hold, mint and redeem fUSD, and stake or unstake it without setting up additional custody infrastructure, according to a Friday announcement from Frgmnt (linked below).

The partnership is notable not just for broadening the range of stablecoin services Anchorage offers, but also because Frgmnt’s token structure ties rewards to active lending strategies. For institutions, the move reduces operational friction around custody while keeping the yield component inside an established compliance workflow.

Key takeaways

• Anchorage Digital will offer institutional custody access to Frgmnt’s fUSD (mint/redeem) and sfUSD (stake/unstake) through its platform.
• Frgmnt issues fUSD against USDC on Base, with backing deployed across onchain lending markets.
• Frgmnt’s protocol is currently in a capped, invite-only beta with roughly $100,000 in total value locked (per DeFiLlama data).
• Frgmnt said sfUSD was generating 13.32% APR as of Sept. 4, while noting that yield varies with underlying lending conditions.
• Frgmnt plans to open public access and raise its deposit cap on Sept. 15, potentially increasing institutional interest ahead of that date.

What the Anchorage–Frgmnt integration changes for institutions

Under the collaboration, institutional clients using Anchorage’s custody infrastructure can manage Frgmnt’s stablecoin products directly inside Anchorage’s environment. The announcement describes support for core lifecycle actions: holding tokens, minting and redeeming fUSD, and staking and unstaking fUSD to receive sfUSD.

Operationally, the key benefit is avoiding a separate custody arrangement. For regulated firms and large allocators, custody is often the limiting step when adding new tokenized products—especially those that involve staking mechanics—because each additional venue can introduce new compliance, settlement, and control requirements.

Frgmnt’s model also embeds strategy-based yield into the staked wrapper. Rather than treating staking as a purely token-native reward, the protocol links rewards to the performance of lending positions where fUSD backing is deployed.

How fUSD and sfUSD work in Frgmnt’s system

Frgmnt is positioned as a stablecoin protocol built on Base. It issues fUSD against USDC, with the backing deployed across onchain lending markets. That setup matters because it explains why sfUSD staking can reflect not only protocol parameters, but also changing conditions in the lending ecosystem.

The protocol’s design includes a staking mechanism: users can stake fUSD to obtain sfUSD and earn rewards generated by Frgmnt’s underlying strategies. Frgmnt said sfUSD was generating 13.32% APR as of Sept. 4; however, the protocol also emphasized that yields can move as lending conditions change.

Frgmnt’s current growth stage is reflected in its access model. DeFiLlama data shows the protocol has about $100,000 in total value locked, and Frgmnt is operating under a capped, invite-only beta. Those constraints indicate the integration arrives while the protocol is still scaling distribution and liquidity rather than operating at full public capacity.

Timing: invite-only beta now, public access on Sept. 15

Alongside the Anchorage partnership, Frgmnt outlined plans to open public access and raise its deposit cap on Sept. 15. That timeline can be important for institutional adoption, because token access and deposit limits often determine whether large allocators can scale positions.

While the Anchorage integration is immediately relevant for custody workflows, the protocol’s invite-only structure suggests that not all interested institutions may be able to deploy significant capital right away. Still, having Anchorage support in place could reduce setup delays once public access begins, allowing firms to move faster when deposit capacity expands.

Investors and treasury teams may also want to watch how sfUSD yields trend through the transition from capped beta to broader access—especially given Frgmnt’s own note that APR varies with conditions across the lending markets used to back the system.

Anchorage’s push toward regulated stablecoin and staking infrastructure

This latest partnership fits a broader pattern: Anchorage Digital has been positioning itself as a regulated “gateway” for institutional stablecoin exposure and staking-related services. The Frgmnt integration adds another stablecoin-native staking flow on top of existing capabilities.

Anchorage’s stablecoin involvement goes beyond custody. In January, Tether tapped Anchorage Digital Bank to issue USAt, a US-focused stablecoin described as operating under the GENIUS Act. That move put Anchorage on the issuance side of the stablecoin market, not just the custody layer.

Beyond issuance, Anchorage has pursued infrastructure for dollar-related activities, including a May partnership where Mexico’s Grupo Salinas worked with Anchorage to support blockchain-based dollar transfers, cross-border settlement and treasury activity through Coinpro, its digital asset subsidiary. The company’s goal in these partnerships appears consistent: bring stablecoin functionality closer to institutional treasury and settlement needs while staying within a regulated framework.

On the staking side, Anchorage has also expanded its institutional staking offerings across different chains and reward mechanisms. Earlier integrations cited in the announcement include an April connection with Marinade Finance for Solana staking strategies, and later expansion to include native staking for TRX in July.

For market participants, the underlying theme is that stablecoins are becoming more than “hold and settle” instruments. Increasingly, they are being wrapped into yield-bearing structures—often via onchain lending—and institutions want those capabilities delivered with custody controls they already trust.

Readers should monitor two items next: whether Frgmnt’s Sept. 15 public access and cap increase materially changes TVL growth, and how sfUSD staking yields evolve after broader access begins, given the protocol’s stated dependence on underlying lending market conditions.

Four U.S. financial regulators have proposed new third-party risk guidelines that would let banks and credit unions tailor oversight to each outside relationship while replacing existing guidance.

Proposed bank guidelines favor risk-based oversight

The Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency announced the proposal on Sep. 11, saying financial institutions should match their controls to the risks posed by each third-party relationship.

Under the proposal, banks and credit unions would consider both the possible harm from an outside provider and the likelihood of the harm occurring. Institutions could use less detailed checks, standard contracts, or less frequent monitoring when a relationship carries limited risk.

The framework would also let a financial institution accept some residual risk after considering its risk appetite, tolerance, and ability to operate safely. According to the agencies, the principles would not impose enforceable requirements, and a bank would not face supervisory action solely for failing to follow the guidance.

Comments will remain open for 60 days after the proposal appears in the Federal Register. Once finalized, the agencies plan to withdraw the current third-party risk framework and replace it with the revised version.

Federal Reserve staff said existing guidance has sometimes been applied too broadly, encouraged process-heavy reviews, and failed to give enough weight to differences among vendors. Staff also said banks have read the current framework as discouraging work with newer service providers.

As technology has become more central to banking, institutions have outsourced more functions to vendors that can lower costs or improve efficiency. Outside providers may handle payment processing, cybersecurity, online banking, fraud detection, card programs, and anti-money laundering systems, leaving banks responsible for risks tied to services they do not operate themselves.

Community banks would receive a separate guide

Alongside the main proposal, the Federal Reserve has requested comments on a companion guide for traditional community banking organizations under its supervision. The central bank defines eligible institutions as locally focused banks with less than $30 billion in assets.

The proposed guide covers four main areas: operational resilience, information security, legal compliance, and financial resilience. It also explains how banks could assess eight common vendor groups, including core service providers, payment processors, digital banking companies, cybersecurity firms, and financial-crime platforms.

For each category, the document sets out issues that smaller banks may consider during due diligence, contract negotiations, monitoring, and a possible move to another provider. Federal Reserve staff said smaller institutions had asked for more practical information than the high-level principles in the existing framework provided.

Complex bank-fintech arrangements would not fall under the community bank guide. The Federal Reserve memo identifies such arrangements as cases in which one or more fintech companies market, distribute, or provide access to a bank’s products.

A separate statement on core providers addresses vendors that supply systems needed for transaction processing, account management, payments, compliance, customer relations, and online banking. The Fed, FDIC, and OCC said a small number of large companies control much of this market, limiting the negotiating power of community banks.

According to the statement, banks have reported difficulty obtaining due diligence records, negotiating suitable contract terms, and monitoring vendors. Regulators said they may consider a provider’s transparency, contract practices and technology investment when deciding the scope and frequency of examinations.

The agencies may also examine whether providers disclose security incidents on time, supply audit and security records, maintain aging technology, and allow clients to connect services from other companies. Opaque pricing, retroactive billing, and undefined fees for leaving a platform may also influence supervisory decisions.

Barr warns the proposal could leave oversight gaps

Federal Reserve Governor Michael Barr opposed the two proposals, arguing that their wording could weaken oversight rather than help institutions manage vendor risks.

Barr objected to a proposed “material financial risk” standard for supervisory action. According to his dissenting statement, the threshold could make banks less likely to correct problems before they become material to the institution.

The governor also questioned language saying regulators would give due consideration to a bank’s reasonable decisions. Barr said institutions could interpret the passage as requiring supervisors to defer to a bank’s judgment instead of making an independent assessment.

Consumer compliance presents another concern, according to Barr. He said the proposals could result in existing guidance being removed without a clear replacement for consumer-protection issues, or force banks to follow two sets of standards.

Barr also noted that the community bank guide excludes institutions with complex business models and vendor relationships, including some bank-fintech partnerships. In his view, banks using such structures may have an especially strong need for detailed third-party risk instructions.

“I dissent,” Barr said.

Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook supported reviewing the current framework but requested feedback on whether the final version should say more about cybersecurity, record management, consumer protection and the division of anti-money laundering duties in bank-fintech partnerships.

Cook also backed the separate guide for traditional community banks, describing it as a resource for institutions dealing with complex and critical vendor relationships. She asked community banks to comment on any extra resources they may need when evaluating technology companies and core providers.

Crypto service providers could fall within bank reviews

Although the proposal does not create rules written only for digital assets, its scope can cover technology companies that provide crypto custody, stablecoin, payment, or blockchain services to regulated banks. The agencies’ framework requires institutions to evaluate third parties according to the service and risk involved, regardless of the technology used.

The proposal follows earlier U.S. regulatory action that gave banks more room to conduct permitted digital-asset business. In April 2025, crypto.news reported that the Federal Reserve had removed prior-notification expectations for certain crypto and dollar-token activities.

Federal regulators later issued a July 2025 statement explaining how existing risk-management principles apply when banks safeguard crypto assets. The OCC’s related bulletin said banks should assess outside service providers before offering custody, while noting that the statement created no new supervisory expectations.

The new all-bank proposal permits institutions to use shared due diligence through consortia, standard contracts, certification bodies, and outside consultants. Federal Reserve staff presented such methods as possible ways for banks to gain expertise or reduce repeated work when evaluating service providers.

Consumer compliance issues are not directly covered by the proposed framework, according to the Fed memo, though third-party relationships may still create duties under existing consumer laws. The traditional community bank guide likewise states that consumer compliance falls outside its scope.