Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has publicly challenged a key federal regulator over the expansion of crypto-related custody services under a banking charter. In a letter to OCC Comptroller Jonathan Gould, Warren contends that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has approved at least nine national trust charters for crypto companies that appear to exceed the narrow activities permitted by law under the National Bank Act. The dispute spotlights how the line between crypto custody and traditional banking is being negotiated in U.S. regulation, with potential implications for consumer protection, bank safety and soundness, and the separation of banking from commerce.
Warren said she expects the OCC to disclose the full set of charter approvals or conditional approvals issued since December 2025, including entities such as Coinbase, Crypto.com’s parent company, Ripple, Stripe, BitGo, Circle, Fidelity Digital Assets, Protego Holdings, and Paxos, along with communications between OCC officials and U.S. President Donald Trump, his family, or White House staff. She frames these applicants as effectively crypto banks pursuing regulatory arbitrage—seeking to reap the benefits of a national trust charter while avoiding the safeguards that accompany conventional bank charters. The senator warned that the approach could undermine consumer protections, threaten banking system stability, and blur the boundary between banking and commerce.
Cointelegraph requested comment from the OCC regarding the letter and the broader use of national trust charters for crypto firms; the publication reported that the OCC did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The exchange underscores the sensitivity of the issue as regulators weigh how to apply traditional banking laws to a rapidly evolving crypto custody landscape.
Separately, Kraken’s parent company Payward filed an application with the OCC on May 8 for a national trust charter. If approved, the Payward National Trust Company would provide fiduciary custody and related services primarily for digital assets. A national trust charter permits custodial and fiduciary activities without engaging in deposit-taking or commercial lending, potentially placing such firms under a different regulatory posture than traditional banks and LLCs offering standard depository services.
The evolving custody framework matters not just for a handful of firms pursuing charters, but for the broader crypto ecosystem that interacts with traditional financial infrastructure. National trust charters are designed to enable certain non-depository fiduciary activities while permitting services akin to trust and custodial functions. However, critics argue that granting crypto-focused fiduciary authority outside a full banking license can reduce the visibility of risk controls and oversight that are central to conventional bank regulation. Warren’s letter questions whether these charters align with the National Bank Act and whether the OCC’s approach creates a pathway for crypto participants to offer bank-like services without the corresponding safeguards.
Key takeaways
- The OCC faces congressional scrutiny over its approval of national trust charters for crypto firms, with Senator Elizabeth Warren requesting the full list of approved or conditionally approved applications since December 2025.
- Naming specific entities—including Coinbase, Crypto.com’s parent company, Ripple, Stripe, BitGo, Circle, Fidelity Digital Assets, Protego Holdings, Paxos—and noting potential communications with Trump and White House officials, Warren frames these actions as efforts to expand crypto custody beyond traditional banking safeguards.
- A national trust charter enables fiduciary custody and related services without mandatory deposit-taking or commercial lending, raising questions about regulatory parity and oversight concentration for crypto custody providers.
- Kraken’s Payward applied for a national trust charter on May 8, signaling growing industry interest in a custody-focused charter that could shape how exchanges and other crypto firms interact with the U.S. banking system.
- The developments occur amid broader policy debates on crypto regulation in the United States, including discussions around the CLARITY Act and potential alignment or friction with international frameworks like the EU’s MiCA, as lawmakers consider how to ensure consumer protection and financial stability while fostering innovation.
National trust charters and the regulatory boundary
A national trust charter is designed to authorize a bank-like fiduciary role—allowing a chartered entity to provide custodial and other fiduciary services—without engaging in the full spectrum of depository or commercial lending activities typically associated with traditional banks. In practice, holders of such charters may operate under a lighter regime for certain activities, while remaining subject to specific fiduciary standards, anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) requirements, and periodic supervisory examinations. Critics, however, argue that extending trust-like powers to crypto firms risks creating regulatory gaps if supervisory expectations and capital or liquidity standards diverge from those applied to conventional banks.
The tension highlighted by Warren’s letter centers on whether OCC’s approvals were appropriately scoped and whether the underlying activities of the named entities truly fit within the narrow confines of permissible banking-related fiduciary services. By demanding the full record of approvals and communications, Warren signals concern about potential regulatory arbitrage—where firms might tailor activities to fit a charter category that offers favorable oversight or fewer constraints than a traditional bank charter would entail. The inquiry also raises questions about whether these charters would adequately address issues such as consumer protections, prudential risk management, and the treatment of stablecoins and other crypto assets under a federated U.S. banking framework.
The OCC’s stance on crypto-related charters is part of a broader U.S. regulatory mosaic that includes federal and state authorities, as well as policy debates on how best to supervise digital assets that interact with banking rails. The landscape is further complicated by ongoing legislative proposals and executive actions that aim to clarify which activities qualify for a banking or trust charter and how AML/KYC regimes should be tailored to crypto custodians. The outcome of these debates will influence how crypto firms structure their custody offerings and whether they seek full depository charters, specialized trust charters, or other regulatory designations.
Policy context and enforcement dynamics
The current episode sits at the intersection of hotly debated policy questions about how to regulate crypto custody and whether existing banking laws adequately address the unique risk profiles of digital assets. Senator Warren has been a persistent critic of what she views as regulatory policy that could entangle public institutions with private crypto interests or create incentives for polices with perceived conflicts of interest. In parallel, she has advocated for provisions in the crypto market structure framework, including elements of the CLARITY Act, to inject greater clarity and safeguards into the regulatory process. Her comments also reflect broader concerns about the potential influence of political relationships on regulatory outcomes, an issue she has highlighted in relation to firms linked to former President Trump and the crypto industry.
From a regulatory oversight perspective, the situation underscores the challenge of applying a consistent framework to crypto custody providers that seek to operate as banks or trust entities without the typical deposit-taking license. Regulators are weighing how to ensure robust AML/KYC controls, clear fiduciary responsibilities, and resilience against operational and cyber risks, while not stifling innovation or driving activity offshore. The discourse also intersects with international policy trends, including the European Union’s MiCA framework, which aims to harmonize crypto regulation across member states and establish distinct regimes for issuers, service providers, and stablecoin arrangements. How U.S. regulators position charters for crypto custodians in relation to MiCA-style frameworks and cross-border supervision will have implications for global banking relationships and correspondent banking access for crypto firms.
The governance and enforcement dimension is also evolving as individual institutions pursue charter applications in a climate of heightened scrutiny. Kraken’s bid illustrates that incumbent and new-entrant firms alike view a national trust charter as a pathway to formalize custody services under U.S. supervisory reach. Yet supervisors will need to articulate how such charters align with supervisory expectations, risk controls, and capital adequacy standards appropriate for fiduciary activities tied to digital assets. The interplay of these factors will likely shape future licensing decisions, capital planning, and AML/KYC program design across the crypto custody ecosystem.
Impact on industry, compliance, and regulatory strategy
For crypto platforms, the potential availability of national trust charters could alter the calculus of risk management, product design, and customer onboarding. Exchanges and custodians may pursue custody-focused offerings that emphasize fiduciary services, while limiting exposure to deposit-taking activities. This could influence the way stablecoins and other crypto assets are integrated with traditional payment rails, banking partners, and settlement mechanisms. However, as Warren’s inquiry suggests, there remains a critical need for clear, publicly available disclosures that delineate the scope of each charter approval, the activities authorized, and the corresponding compliance expectations.
From a compliance perspective, the prospect of a growing cohort of crypto firms operating under national trust charters raises questions about consistency of supervision across institutions, the applicability of AML/KYC standards, and the monitoring of fiduciary risk in asset custody. Regulators may need to establish or reinforce supervisory benchmarks, including governance requirements, stress testing for custody operations, cyber risk controls, and incident reporting protocols. The outcome will influence how banks and non-bank financial institutions interact within the U.S. financial system, including access to correspondent banking relationships and participation in integrated custody ecosystems for institutional clients.
For policymakers and industry watchers, the developments emphasize the importance of a coherent policy framework that can adapt to the evolving use cases of digital assets while maintaining robust consumer protections and market integrity. The discussion around national trust charters intersects with ongoing debates on licensing criteria, cross-border regulatory alignment, and the extent to which crypto firms should bear the same or equivalent regulatory burdens as traditional financial institutions. Observers will be watching how the OCC responds to Warren’s requests, what additional disclosures or safeguards emerge, and whether any charter approvals will be conditioned or restructured to reduce potential risks to the financial system.
Closing perspective
As regulators confront the rapid expansion of crypto custody activities, the balance between fostering innovation and maintaining rigorous oversight remains delicate. The current episode illustrates how congressional scrutiny, agency policy, and industry initiatives are converging around the question of what constitutes appropriate banking and fiduciary authority for digital asset firms. The next steps—including OCC responses to requests for full charter records, the fate of Kraken’s charter application, and any clarifying legislative or regulatory actions—will shape the regulatory landscape for crypto custody and its integration with traditional financial infrastructure.
Be the first to comment