Comptroller Jonathan Gould announced that firms engaged in legally permissible activities—including "digital assets and other novel technologies"—now have a pathway to becoming national banks. "America and the OCC are once again open for business," Gould stated in an official announcement. This directive does not automatically grant crypto companies bank status; applicants must still undergo the agency's standard chartering review, which evaluates management, capital, business plans, compliance, and financial risk.

Crypto Firms Already in the Charter Pipeline

Gould's remarks coincide with a growing queue of digital-asset applications at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The regulator tracks these companies through its digital-assets licensing database.

Zero Hash illustrates the industry's demand for federal status. As reported in March, the company applied for a national trust bank charter to facilitate services including digital-asset custody, staking, transfers, and stablecoin-related operations.

Digital assets represent only a segment of a broader chartering resurgence. Over the past 18 months, the OCC has received 40 de novo applications, often reaching decisions within 120 days of receiving a completed filing.

National Trust Banks vs. Full-Service Institutions

Many cryptocurrency firms are not seeking to become traditional retail banks that accept deposits and issue loans. Instead, they are pursuing national trust bank charters, which provide a narrower scope focused on permitted trust-company activities, such as custody services. The OCC's 2026 final trust-bank rule confirmed that national banks operating under these limitations may also conduct qualifying non-fiduciary activities without expanding the agency's underlying chartering authority.

Coinbase demonstrates this model in practice. Following its conditional approval, the exchange utilized a national trust charter to oversee custody and related activities under a federal framework, without converting into a conventional deposit-taking institution.

The FDIC's Role and Insured Deposits

The regulatory framework changes when insured deposits are introduced. While the OCC issues national bank charters, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) independently determines whether an institution qualifies for federal deposit insurance. The FDIC evaluates applications based on capital adequacy, management quality, business plans, and potential risks to the Deposit Insurance Fund.

The OCC's recent statement praised the FDIC's efforts to streamline this process for new banks. FDIC Chairman Travis Hill stated the agency aims to promote de novo bank formation and assess innovative business models with an open mind, provided statutory standards for insured institutions are maintained.

A national trust charter supports custody and trust operations without necessarily requiring insured deposits. However, an insured deposit-taking national bank must secure both an OCC charter and separately satisfy the FDIC's deposit-insurance protocols. Consequently, FDIC procedural updates are most critical for digital-asset firms intending to accept federally insured deposits.

Moving Away from Reputation Risk

Federal banking supervisors are moving away from utilizing "reputation risk" to restrict relationships with lawful businesses. Both the OCC and FDIC have eliminated reputation risk as a basis for adverse supervisory action. Regulators will now focus on identifiable financial, operational, and compliance risks rather than whether a business sector is politically sensitive. The change directly addresses a long-standing concern among digital-asset firms that supervisors could pressure banks to sever ties with entire sectors deemed controversial, regardless of individual compliance or financial soundness.

Despite this shift, digital-asset applicants must still demonstrate competent management, robust financial resources, and stringent controls capable of handling anti-money laundering (AML), sanctions, cybersecurity, and operational threats. For the crypto sector, this means involvement with digital assets will prompt a formal risk assessment rather than an automatic disqualification.

Weighing the Federal Charter Option

Historically, U.S. cryptocurrency businesses have operated using a combination of state money-transmission licenses, state trust charters, and specialized regulatory frameworks. Operating under this patchwork has meant maintaining dozens of separate state-level authorizations, each with its own compliance requirements, bonding obligations, and renewal cycles. A national charter provides an alternative route, allowing firms to integrate permitted activities—such as custody, settlement, and related financial services—directly into the national banking system through a single OCC framework. This consolidation can reduce operational complexity and provide regulatory certainty for firms operating across state lines.

This pathway demands stricter oversight. Companies pursuing a national charter accept bank-level regulatory scrutiny in exchange for the stability of an established federal structure. The expanding pipeline of applications suggests that major infrastructure providers in the crypto industry view this trade-off as advantageous. Gould's declaration that the OCC is "open for business" will now be tested as these applicants navigate the agency's rigorous chartering standards.