The turning point in the US banking system: OCC letter opens new doors for crypto trading

December 9th, a clarification letter from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) quietly changed the game. Letter No. 1188 sends a clear signal to national banks: you can participate in cryptocurrency intermediary services without worrying about your own risk exposure.

The core content of the letter touches on a long-standing gray area. National banks are now explicitly authorized to facilitate crypto asset transactions for clients in a “risk-free principal” manner—that is, buying digital assets from one client and immediately reselling to another, without the bank holding any meaningful position itself. This change breaks the conservative stance many traditional financial institutions have held toward the crypto space.

Equally important is the key point articulated by OCC Director Jonathan Gould in subsequent remarks. He explicitly states that the settlement method of digital assets should not be a reason for regulatory classification. From electronic custody to distributed ledgers, technological advances should not alter the fundamental regulatory framework. These comments directly respond to opposition from financial industry lobbying groups.

What exactly has this new letter changed?

For large banks that have been hesitant to engage in crypto, this letter provides clear operational guidance. Banks can establish client-facing crypto brokerage services, while minimizing risk through a peer-to-peer matching transaction structure. This is not an encouragement for banks to heavily enter the crypto market, but rather a message: participation under strict risk controls is feasible.

For tokens classified as securities, existing regulations have long been in place. For other crypto assets, the letter introduces a four-factor test framework, categorizing risk-free principal transactions as “banking activities.” This means many assets like stablecoins, governance tokens, and others now have explicit federal regulatory approval for their trading.

A broader impact is that this letter clarifies the path for the integration of crypto assets into the U.S. financial infrastructure. Banks no longer need to test the waters through loosely affiliated subsidiaries, nor do they have to cede the market entirely to exchanges. They can build end-to-end service stacks: trading, fiat settlement, on-chain custody—all under federal regulatory oversight.

The real story behind the controversy over National Trust Certificates

To understand why this letter is so critical, it’s important to know about a little-known branch of the U.S. banking system: National Trust Banks.

OCC, under the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is responsible for chartering and supervising national banks and related institutions. Its unique authority does not come from Congress’s budget but from assessment fees paid by its regulated entities, granting it relative independence. One of its core powers is issuing bank charters—these are essentially federal commercial banking licenses.

Trust banks focus on trust, fiduciary, and custodial services, typically not taking retail deposits nor providing FDIC insurance. This unique structure means they often do not meet the “bank” definition under the Bank Holding Company Act, allowing parent companies to avoid full bank holding company regulation.

Because of this, National Trust Certificates have become a coveted target for crypto companies. By obtaining such a license, crypto platforms can hold customer digital assets, manage stablecoin reserves, act as settlement hubs, and enjoy the appearance of federal oversight and nationwide coverage—potentially escaping stricter bank holding company rules.

Bank lobbying groups, especially the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), have strongly opposed this. They argue that Trust Certificates were originally designed for institutions primarily engaged in trust activities, and some crypto applicants’ true intent is to operate payment and reserve services—beyond the original legislative purpose.

The shift in OCC attitude and the significance of regulatory clarity

Gould’s rebuttal to BPI is insightful. He reviews decades of electronic custody history and questions why assets on distributed ledgers should be considered fundamentally different activities. This argument is reflected in Explanation Letter 1188, which cites precedents and OCC’s prior opinions, asserting that risk-free principal transactions in crypto assets are functionally equivalent to brokerage activities and a natural extension of modern custodial services.

In other words, OCC is not opening the floodgates but defining boundaries—clarifying which activities fit within existing legal frameworks.

For the crypto industry, this kind of “item-by-item clarification” may be more practically meaningful than any sweeping new legislation. In a market rife with regulatory uncertainty, clear guidance can directly translate into business opportunities. Crypto firms seeking access to U.S. institutional funds now know what to prepare; traditional banks looking to enter crypto also understand the regulatory boundaries.

However, this does not mean Trust Certificates are easily obtainable. OCC has broad discretion to evaluate applicants’ management quality, financial strength, consumer protection record, and ownership transparency. BPI and other commentators have already submitted detailed objections to specific applications, and OCC review teams may impose tailored capital or liquidity conditions.

Global ripple effects and potential shifts in market structure

U.S. regulatory decisions often have effects beyond borders. Large banks operating across jurisdictions frequently reference U.S. rules when formulating new business strategies, and global regulators closely monitor OCC because its decisions impact the world’s largest balance sheets.

If U.S. national banks, guided by OCC’s guidance, begin offering risk-free principal routes for Bitcoin and Ethereum, market expectations in London, Frankfurt, and Singapore will adjust accordingly. If a few crypto firms obtain Trust Bank licenses and operate large-scale custody and stablecoin services under federal oversight, it would mark a significant structural shift—from a decade-long pattern dominated by offshore exchanges and local payment providers to a more localized, regulated framework.

What does this mean now, and what might the future hold?

For the crypto industry, this letter and Gould’s remarks do not mean the U.S. banking system has fully embraced crypto. Instead, they represent a clear delineation of the rules: risk-free principal transactions are classified as brokerage, custody is recognized as a modern form of safekeeping, and Trust Certificates are defined as vehicles for fiduciary and reserve activities.

This gradual clarification is profoundly meaningful. In a market where regulatory uncertainty is a primary risk, clear guidance acts like a lighthouse. Crypto companies seeking formal recognition now have more concrete targets; traditional banks interested in crypto infrastructure see the boundaries set by regulators.

The pace of subsequent developments will be decisive. Whether this letter and the series of OCC decisions that follow mark the dawn of a new era of crypto infrastructure led by traditional banks, or merely a chapter in regulators’ ongoing exploration of how digital assets fit into existing rules, depends on how many stakeholders truly step through this opened door.