Summary Banking licenses have become the new battleground in the stablecoin economy. From a stablecoin issuer and a US asset manager to a Japanese multinational conglomerate and a European fintech affiliate, digital-asset firms are pursuing charters not only as compliance shields but also as competitive moats. The objective is to embed stablecoin issuance, custody and settlement inside regulated institutions that enterprises and financial firms already recognise as credible. The regulatory architecture of digital finance is being quietly rebuilt in the US. Demand for state and federal charters has accelerated, driven by the need to anchor stablecoins within regulator-supervised institutions. This report analyzes how payments firms, crypto-native platforms and aspiring banks are using novel licenses to integrate stablecoins into regulated financial services. It maps the firms pursuing these routes, the capabilities they are assembling and the regulatory trade-offs they face. The take Banking licenses have become the new battleground in the stablecoin economy. From a stablecoin issuer and a US asset manager to a Japanese multinational conglomerate and a European fintech affiliate, digital-asset firms are pursuing charters not only as compliance shields but also as competitive moats. The objective is to embed stablecoin issuance, custody and settlement inside regulated institutions that enterprises and financial firms already recognise as credible. This matters for business. Large companies are unlikely to run payroll, supplier payments or treasury operations on tokens issued by lightly regulated entities. They are far more willing to experiment when stablecoins sit within chartered banks supervised like financial utilities. For incumbent banks, the shift is both a threat and an opportunity. Stablecoins may disintermediate deposits and payments or become programmable extensions of existing rails. The unresolved question is access. Charters confer legitimacy, but scale depends on payments connectivity via Federal Reserve master accounts. Companies that secure both regulation and rails will shape the next phase of dollar-denominated payments. Popularity for OCC charters among stablecoin companies Alternative regulatory chartering options for digital asset companies are on the rise in the US. At both the federal and state levels, policymakers have shown greater openness to novel banking models. Since the beginning of 2025, at least 15 applications have been submitted for banking charters overseen by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ((OCC)) by firms seeking to offer digital-asset-related services. According to our review of the filings, 11 of these applicants explicitly reference stablecoin issuance, reserve management or closely related payment infrastructure as part of their proposed business models. This underscores the extent to which stablecoins, rather than speculative trading, are now the primary catalyst for regulated crypto expansion. Several applicants have disclosed ambitions to issue their own stablecoins, including Japan's Sony Financial Group Inc. ( SFGYY ) and asset manager FMR LLC. Established issuers such as Circle Internet Group Inc. ( CRCL ), Paxos Trust Company LLC and Ripple Labs Inc. are also pursuing national charters to support stablecoin issuance, custody or the management of reserve assets within the banking perimeter. We reviewed applicants' stated business plans, proposed permissible activities and how digital asset capabilities are positioned relative to existing operations. Our focus is on how custody, stablecoin-related services, payments and other ancillary digital asset activities are intended to launch new businesses or materially strengthen incumbents' core franchises. Payments firms rush to issue stablecoins Payments companies account for a growing share of applicants seeking federal banking charters, reflecting stablecoins' emergence as payments infrastructure. Stripe Inc.-owned Bridge Ventures Inc., Ripple and Connectia Trust NA, backed by Sony Financial Group Inc., underscore this shift. Bridge's OCC application positions stablecoins as a settlement layer for real-world commerce. The firm emphasises cross-border payments, payroll, vendor disbursements and humanitarian aid. A national trust charter would allow Bridge to custody assets, manage reserves and potentially issue stablecoins directly. It extends Stripe's core payments franchise into faster and cheaper international settlement. Ripple, which has received conditional approval, frames its charter bid as a way to strengthen protections for holders of Ripple USD (RLUSD) ( XRP-USD ). Since launching in January 2025, RLUSD has grown to a market capitalisation of roughly $1.49 billion as of Feb. 3, highlighting its growing use within Ripple's payments network. Connectia Trust, sponsored by Sony Bank Inc., plans to issue and administer a dollar-pegged stablecoin designed for payments across Sony's gaming, media and content ecosystems. The commercial logic lies not in the token but in embedding regulated settlement into a closed-loop platform, potentially lowering transaction costs and enabling new digital business models. The project is expected to be developed with Bastion Platforms Inc., a stablecoin infrastructure provider. Full-service banks embed stablecoins into broader banking A smaller but more ambitious group of applicants is seeking full-service banking licenses to integrate stablecoins directly into conventional banking products. Erebor Bank NA aims to become "the most regulated entity conducting and facilitating stablecoin transactions." It secured conditional OCC approval in late 2025 and soon after raised $350 million at a valuation exceeding $4 billion, according to a Bloomberg report, underscoring strong investor appetite for stablecoin-native banking models. As a full-service bank, Erebor could weave distributed-ledger settlement into payments, treasury and correspondent banking. Its plan to hold limited crypto assets on balance sheet for operational needs, such as paying blockchain transaction fees, illustrates the OCC's willingness to treat tightly constrained crypto activity as incidental to banking. Augustus National Bank NA proposes a similar ground-up approach, combining deposits, lending, payments and crypto services. Its application discloses plans to hold small amounts of digital assets to support stablecoin and crypto payment flows. The company references an affiliation with German fintech Ivy GmbH, which offers instant payments settled in USDC or EURC. Brazil's largest fintech Nu Holdings Ltd. ( NU ) unit NuBank NA's full commercial bank filing is sparse on digital-asset detail. However, Nu's long-standing crypto offerings suggest stablecoins could be folded into a broader consumer banking proposition as it expands into the US. Crypto-native firms pursue divergent paths Crypto-first firms, by contrast, are split between consolidation and specialisation. Coinbase Global Inc.'s ( COIN ) proposed national trust bank would extend its large institutional custody business (currently housed in a New York trust company) into a single federal framework, enabling nationwide scale for custody, staking access and on-chain services. National Digital Trust Co. proposes a more vertically integrated model, combining custody, trading facilitation, issuer services and client-to-client digital-asset lending. Its target market is institutional investors and stablecoin sponsors seeking a unified, bank-regulated platform. Yet, New York remains the dominant state jurisdiction for digital-asset firms, with dozens operating under either limited-purpose trust charters or BitLicenses. Some issuers now appear to favour a hybrid structure. That is, issuing stablecoins through New York trusts while using OCC-chartered banks for reserve management and custody. Circle and Ripple exemplify this approach. It contrasts with Anchorage Digital Bank NA, which issues and settles digital dollars directly within a national trust bank, and with Paxos Trust Company LLC, which plans to bring PYUSD ( PYUSD-USD ) issuance under federal supervision following approval to convert its New York trust charter. In early 2021, Anchorage Digital Bank, a unit of Anchor Labs Inc., became the first crypto company to receive a national trust bank charter. State charters offer another on-ramp for digital-asset banks Alongside federal pathways, state regulators have moved aggressively to design bank charters tailored to digital-asset businesses. Wyoming's Special Purpose Depository Institution (SPDI) regime is the longest-running experiment. SPDIs operate as fully reserved banks and lending with customer deposits is prohibited. In return, the charter explicitly accommodates digital-asset custody, safekeeping and settlement as core banking activities. The model has attracted a range of firms seeking to anchor crypto-native services within a bank-regulated perimeter. Custodia Bank Inc. (formerly Avanti) uses its SPDI to issue a stablecoin and transact directly on public blockchains, while Kraken Bank has positioned its charter as a bridge between exchange infrastructure and regulated custody and payments. Others, including BankWyse and Commercium Financial Inc., emphasise tokenisation and custody services, while N3XT — founded by former Signature Bank executives — markets itself as a blockchain-enabled payments and settlement bank operating on a continuous, 24/7 basis. Nebraska's digital asset depository institution framework is newer but more assertive on stablecoins. The state's charter, recently awarded to Telcoin Digital Asset Bank, expressly authorises stablecoin issuance alongside custody and deposit-taking. Telcoin's eUSD ( TEL-USD ), backed by 100% reserves in dollar-denominated liquid assets, illustrates how a state-chartered bank can combine programmable money with regulated payments infrastructure. The ability of state-chartered institutions to accept fiat deposits, even under strict reserve constraints, expands their commercial scope. Deposits enable direct fiat on- and off-ramps, transaction accounts and liquidity management tied to stablecoin settlement, reducing reliance on correspondent banks. Master-account access may be the deal-breaker Gaining access to Federal Reserve master accounts could be a factor in digital-asset firms' pursuit of bespoke banking licenses. For years, many crypto companies have struggled to maintain stable banking relationships, as compliance, AML and reputational concerns made traditional banks reluctant counterparties. Securing a charter offers a way to internalise payments infrastructure, reduce dependence on correspondent banks and gain greater control over settlement, liquidity and customer flows. Among the available routes, OCC-chartered national trust banks appear best positioned to seek master-account access given their federal status and direct OCC supervision. Direct connectivity to payment systems like Fedwire, ACH and FedNow would materially improve stablecoin issuance, redemption and on-chain settlement. Custodia Bank's failed attempt to obtain a master account, despite holding a Wyoming SPDI charter, underscored the heightened scrutiny applied to crypto-focused institutions. However, Custodia has indicated its intention to reapply. That said, the debate is evolving. Federal Reserve officials have floated the idea of "narrow" or "skinny" master accounts with limited privileges, aimed at payments rather than full banking functionality. Whether newly approved digital-asset banks can secure any form of master-account access will be a crucial test of whether regulated stablecoin models can operate at scale within the US financial system. What this means for large firms and financial institutions For large enterprises, the emergence of regulated stablecoin banks could change the economics of payments. If stablecoins can be issued, redeemed and settled through banks with direct access to US payment rails, corporates may gain faster, cheaper and more programmable ways to move dollars, particularly across borders and outside standard banking hours. Treasury operations, vendor payments and intra-company settlement could shift from correspondent banking networks to tokenised cash equivalents, reducing liquidity traps and settlement risk. Banks face a more complicated reckoning. On one hand, regulated stablecoin issuers threaten to disintermediate traditional payments and deposits, especially in wholesale and cross-border use cases where margins are already thin. On the other, banks that partner with or replicate these models can defend their position by embedding stablecoins into existing cash management, custody and treasury services. The prize is not retail wallets but control over institutional payment flows. Asset managers, broker-dealers and market makers are likely to prefer stablecoins issued and redeemed within bank-regulated environments, where reserves, settlement finality and compliance standards are clearer. This favours banks that can combine custody, payments and liquidity management under a single regulatory roof. If regulatory pathways mature, especially around Federal Reserve access, large enterprises and banks that adapt early may find themselves operating on faster rails. Original Post
