Eleven Companies, Eighty-Three Days: Inside the Race for Federal Crypto Banking Licenses
In just 83 days — from December 12, 2025 to March 4, 2026 — eleven companies filed for or received conditional approval for national trust bank charters from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The applicants include crypto-native firms like Ripple and Circle, a $1.1 billion Stripe acquisition, and even Morgan Stanley. Now the banking industry's most powerful lobby is threatening to sue the regulator that approved them, calling the resulting structure a "Franken-charter."
This isn't a quiet policy update. It may be the most consequential reshaping of the boundary between banking and crypto since the creation of the OCC itself.
The December Batch: Five Approvals in a Single Day
On December 12, 2025, the OCC issued conditional approvals to five crypto-focused entities simultaneously:
- Circle (First National Digital Currency Bank) — de novo applicant building a new national trust bank from scratch
- Ripple (Ripple National Trust Bank) — de novo applicant
- Paxos — converting its existing state trust charter to a national one
- BitGo (BitGo Bank & Trust) — state-to-national conversion
- Fidelity Digital Assets — state-to-national conversion
The OCC treated both pathways — de novo applications and state charter conversions — as equally valid, establishing a dual on-ramp that lowered the barrier to entry. Circle and Ripple built entirely new entities, while Paxos, BitGo, and Fidelity upgraded existing state-level structures into federally supervised ones.
Before this wave, only one crypto-native firm had ever completed the full journey from conditional approval to fully operational national trust bank: Anchorage Digital Bank, which remains the sole reference point for what the finish line actually looks like.
The Second Wave: Bridge, Protego, Crypto.com, and Beyond
The approvals didn't stop in December. Between January and early March 2026, six more companies either received conditional approvals or submitted new applications:
- Protego — received conditional approval in early February
- Bridge (Stripe subsidiary) — conditional approval on February 12, authorizing the entity to issue stablecoins, custody digital assets, and manage reserves under direct federal oversight
- Crypto.com (Foris Dax National Trust Bank) — conditional approval on February 23, roughly four months after filing its October 2025 application
- Morgan Stanley (Morgan Stanley Digital Trust, N.A.) — filed February 18 for a de novo charter headquartered in Purchase, New York
- Payoneer — application pending
- Zerohash — application pending
The inclusion of Morgan Stanley is perhaps the most telling signal. A Wall Street institution with $1.2 trillion in client assets doesn't file for a trust charter on a whim. Morgan Stanley Digital Trust intends to custody digital assets, facilitate staking on a fiduciary basis, and support the firm's wealth management arm — activities previously handled through partnerships with infrastructure providers like Zerohash, which powered crypto trading on E*Trade.
What a National Trust Charter Actually Provides
A common misconception is that these firms are "becoming banks" in the traditional sense. They're not. National trust bank charters come with significant limitations:
- No deposit-taking: These entities cannot offer checking or savings accounts
- No FDIC insurance: Without deposits, there's no FDIC backstop
- No lending: Trust banks cannot make loans
What they do provide is a federally supervised framework for:
- Custody of digital assets under OCC oversight
- Settlement of digital asset transactions
- Staking on a fiduciary basis
- Stablecoin issuance and reserve management (for issuers like Circle and Bridge)
- Federal preemption of state money transmitter laws — perhaps the most valuable feature
That last point is critical. A national trust bank charter eliminates the need to hold 50-plus state money transmitter licenses, each with its own compliance requirements, capital reserves, and examination schedules. For firms operating nationally, federal preemption alone justifies the effort and cost of pursuing a charter.
The "Franken-Charter" Controversy
Not everyone is celebrating. The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) has been the most vocal critic, with its president describing the OCC's approach as creating a "Franken-charter" — a regulatory entity assembled from legal components not designed to work together.
The specific flashpoint is OCC Interpretive Letter 1176, issued in January 2021 by then-Chief Counsel Jonathan Gould. The letter broadly interpreted the OCC's authority under the National Bank Act to charter national trust banks that engage in "activities related to" trust operations and "activities that are part of the business of banking."
Critics argue this interpretation effectively expanded charter eligibility without the formal notice-and-comment rulemaking process that typically governs major regulatory changes. On January 8, 2026, the OCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to codify parts of the interpretive letter into regulation under 12 CFR 5.20 — an acknowledgment, perhaps, that the legal foundation needed reinforcement.
The Bank Policy Institute (BPI), representing many of the nation's largest banks, is now weighing a lawsuit. BPI's core argument centers on procedural violations: that the OCC used interpretive letters to bypass the Administrative Procedure Act's requirements for formal rulemaking. An April 1, 2026 regulatory deadline related to the proposed rule change may force BPI to make a final call on whether to file suit.
Why Traditional Banks Are Uncomfortable
The banking industry's resistance isn't purely procedural. There's a competitive dimension.
Traditional banks spent decades building compliance infrastructure to meet capital requirements, liquidity rules, deposit insurance assessments, and Community Reinvestment Act obligations. National trust banks face lighter versions of these requirements — or in some cases, none at all. From the BPI's perspective, crypto firms are accessing the benefits of a federal charter (preemption, legitimacy, regulatory clarity) without bearing the full costs.
State regulators echo this concern. The CSBS warned that granting federal approval to crypto and payment firms may place them outside "core federal banking laws," potentially weakening market safeguards.
OCC Comptroller Jonathan Gould, however, has doubled down. He's stated publicly that the OCC will continue to pursue its view on federal preemption in court and in Congress, framing the charter expansion as a necessary modernization rather than a regulatory shortcut.
What Changed to Make This Possible Now
The 83-day sprint didn't happen in a vacuum. Several factors converged:
-
Regulatory posture in Washington shifted under the current administration. The OCC's willingness to issue five conditional approvals simultaneously in December 2025 signaled a green light.
-
The February 27 rule change finalized updated language allowing crypto trust banks to operate custody as a core business function, not merely an incidental activity. This removed ambiguity that had been holding back applications.
-
Institutional demand matured. With spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs well-established, firms like Morgan Stanley and Fidelity needed federally supervised custody infrastructure to support their wealth management clients.
-
Competitive pressure accelerated timelines. Once the first five approvals landed in December, waiting became riskier than applying. Companies that delayed risked finding themselves regulated by a patchwork of state laws while competitors operated under a unified federal framework.
What Comes Next
The next 90 days will determine whether this charter wave reshapes American financial regulation or stalls in court.
If BPI files suit and succeeds in challenging the legal basis of Interpretive Letter 1176, conditional approvals could be frozen or revoked. Companies that invested millions in compliance infrastructure would face regulatory limbo.
If the OCC's proposed rulemaking survives the comment period and takes effect, the interpretive letter's principles become codified regulation — far harder to overturn. The April 1 deadline creates urgency for both sides.
Meanwhile, the eleven companies themselves face their own challenge: converting conditional approvals into fully operational charters. As Anchorage Digital Bank's experience shows, conditional approval is only the beginning. Business plans must be executed, capital requirements met, and operating agreements fulfilled — a process that can take years.
The outcome will set the terms for how digital asset firms interact with the federal banking system for a generation. Whether you call it modernization or a Franken-charter may depend on which side of the competitive divide you stand.
BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade blockchain API and node infrastructure for institutions navigating this rapidly evolving regulatory landscape. As digital asset custody and staking move under federal banking supervision, reliable infrastructure becomes essential. Explore our API marketplace to build on foundations designed for institutional-grade requirements.