Crypto.com OCC Charter Quest: Explosive Shift Toward OCC Oversight Without FDIC Deposits

Crypto.com OCC charter plans took a major step forward as the exchange applied to the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for a national trust bank charter, aiming to broaden federally supervised crypto custody and related trust services for institutions. The company said the application will not affect operations at Crypto.com Custody Trust Company, its existing New Hampshire–chartered qualified custodian that already serves institutional clients.

The move underscores a multi-year push to court ETF sponsors, corporate treasurers and advisers that require bank‑grade trust powers, standardized oversight and asset‑segregation frameworks across multiple blockchains. A national trust bank charter would not make Crypto.com a deposit‑taking bank; instead, the entity would focus on fiduciary activities such as custody, safekeeping and trustee services under an OCC regime designed for limited‑purpose national trusts.

With no timeline provided and approvals never guaranteed, the Crypto.com OCC charter filing marks the beginning of a rigorous review that can include bespoke operating agreements and conditions tailored to digital‑asset risk.

What a Crypto.com OCC charter would allow

A national trust bank is a limited‑purpose national bank supervised by the OCC to exercise trust powers under 12 U.S.C. § 27(a). In practice, that means:

• Nationwide fiduciary authority: Custody, safekeeping, trustee and escrow services under one federal charter.
• No insured deposits: It is not a full‑service commercial bank, does not accept FDIC‑insured deposits, and does not make traditional loans.
• Federal supervisory framework: Governance, compliance, recordkeeping and fiduciary standards are set by the OCC, potentially simplifying institutional onboarding that spans multiple states.

For Crypto.com, the aim of the Crypto.com OCC charter is to expand the institutional product set—particularly around secure, segregated custody and staking‑adjacent trust services—while unifying compliance under a single supervisory regime. The company emphasized that day‑to‑day operations at its New Hampshire qualified custodian remain unchanged while the federal application is pending.

Why institutions care about a Crypto.com OCC charter

Large counterparties often require federally supervised trust providers for custody mandates because of the clarity and consistency those charters bring. A Crypto.com OCC charter could:

• Streamline onboarding for ETF sponsors, RIAs, pensions and corporates that prefer OCC‑supervised custodians.
• Standardize asset segregation, reconciliations and audit trails across supported chains.
• Provide a unified rule set across all 50 states, reducing friction from varied state trust or money‑transmitter frameworks.
• Support staking‑adjacent trust services where permitted by policy and client mandates.

Institutional investors increasingly want “bank‑grade” controls on wallet management, key ceremonies, disaster recovery and attestation. By seeking a national charter, Crypto.com is signaling that it intends to compete in that tier under federal supervision.

The regulatory backdrop: how we got here

The OCC has a track record—albeit selective—of engaging with digital‑asset trust models:

• Anchorage Digital: In 2021, the OCC conditionally approved Anchorage Trust Company’s conversion to Anchorage Digital Bank, N.A., pairing the decision with a detailed operating agreement and ongoing oversight.
• Paxos National Trust: The OCC granted preliminary conditional approval in 2021 for a national trust approach based in New York, with bespoke conditions.
• State‑charter model: Gemini Trust Company has operated under a New York limited‑purpose trust charter since 2015, supervised by NYDFS—long considered a leading state‑level option alongside BitLicense.
• 2025 cohort: Coinbase filed to organize Coinbase National Trust Company as a de novo, non‑insured national trust company; Circle applied to establish First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A., to bring USDC reserves oversight and institutional custody under an OCC charter.

Against that backdrop, the Crypto.com OCC charter bid slots into a broader migration by large crypto firms to federal oversight models designed for trust activities. Each case is unique; charters often come with tailored agreements, staging, reporting and compliance build‑outs.

What changes for retail if a Crypto.com OCC charter is approved

Not much—at least at first. A Crypto.com OCC charter would target institutional trust and custody, not consumer deposit accounts. Key points for retail users:

• No FDIC deposits: A national trust bank does not accept FDIC‑insured deposits. Retail balances would remain exactly as they are today.
• Indirect effects: Over time, federal oversight can attract more institutional flows and counterparties. That can improve “market plumbing” that retail investors feel indirectly—such as the breadth of supported assets in ETFs or advisory platforms, or the speed and transparency of asset movements between venues.
• No immediate product shift: Crypto.com said the filing does not impact the New Hampshire qualified custodian; retail services continue as before.

In short, the Crypto.com OCC charter is about institutional credibility and operational scale more than consumer features.

How an OCC trust charter differs from a bank charter

It’s easy to conflate bank labels. Here’s what a national trust bank is—and is not:

• Is: A federally supervised fiduciary institution with authority to provide trust services nationwide under OCC oversight.
• Is not: A full‑service commercial bank. It does not take insured deposits or make consumer loans. It typically does not offer retail checking or savings products.

That distinction matters for risk management, capital requirements and the types of services the entity can lawfully provide.

Precedent and process: what to expect next

The OCC generally does not comment on pending applications. Past approvals in digital assets have included:

• Detailed operating agreements that set milestones for compliance, risk management, audits and capital.
• Phased permissions that expand as controls mature.
• Tailored conditions for custody, staking and third‑party risk.

For the Crypto.com OCC charter, outcomes are not assured. The agency decides case by case based on the applicant’s governance, financial condition, business plan, risk controls and supervisory history. If approved, launch timing depends on how quickly the new entity stands up its people, systems and third‑party oversight.

Why now: the institutional custody race heats up

The application highlights intensifying competition to win mandates from ETF issuers, asset managers and corporates:

• ETF sponsors want consistent, audited custody under a recognized framework.
• Corporate treasurers seek segregation, reporting and incident‑response assurances.
• Advisors look for qualified custodians with robust SOC audits, key management and transparent controls.

A successful Crypto.com OCC charter could position the firm alongside other federally supervised trust models, narrowing due‑diligence gaps for counterparties that insist on national‑level oversight.

What stays the same: Crypto.com’s New Hampshire trust

Crypto.com stressed that its New Hampshire–chartered, non‑depository trust—the Crypto.com Custody Trust Company—continues to operate as a qualified custodian. That entity already serves institutions and remains available regardless of the federal application’s outcome.

If the Crypto.com OCC charter is eventually approved, the firm could run with a dual‑track structure: a state trust for certain activities and clients, and a national trust bank for those that prefer or require OCC supervision. Many groups maintain both to accommodate client preferences and regulatory scoping.

Risks, limits and misconceptions

• Filing is not approval: The Crypto.com OCC charter is an application. Reviews can be lengthy, iterative and conditional.
• Scope is limited: A national trust bank has trust powers, not full banking powers. It will not accept insured deposits or originate consumer loans.
• Tailored supervision: Even if approved, the charter can include custom restrictions and reporting that evolve over time.
• Retail stability: Consumer account experiences are unlikely to change in the near term as the filing targets institutional trust.

Clarity on these points matters for setting accurate expectations with clients, counterparties and the public.

Industry reaction and competitive implications

While the OCC typically stays silent, industry observers view the Crypto.com OCC charter as part of a broader shift toward federal trust infrastructure:

• Standardized oversight can reduce onboarding friction for multi‑state clients.
• National trust status may expand the addressable market for custody mandates linked to ETFs, SMAs and wealth platforms.
• Competitive pressure rises as more firms seek national charters, potentially accelerating best‑practice convergence in key management, SOC attestations and incident response.

At the same time, state trust frameworks remain viable. Many institutions are comfortable with NYDFS or other state models, particularly when combined with strong audits and segregation controls.

What to watch next

• OCC milestones: Acceptance of the application, requests for additional information, or preliminary conditional feedback.
• Operating agreement contours: Any signs of phased permissions, capital standards or staking‑related conditions if approval proceeds.
• Interplay with state trust: How Crypto.com aligns services between its New Hampshire custodian and any future national trust bank.
• Peer progress: Outcomes for Coinbase’s and Circle’s 2025 national trust applications that could shape expectations.
• Product pipeline: Institutional custody enhancements—such as multi‑sig and HSM upgrades, reconciliation tooling, or new supported chains—regardless of charter status.

The through‑line: institutions want resilient controls and predictable oversight. A Crypto.com OCC charter could be one way to deliver that at national scale.

Conclusion

The Crypto.com OCC charter filing signals a decisive bid to bring more of the company’s institutional trust services under a single federal umbrella. If approved, a national trust bank would expand Crypto.com’s ability to serve ETF sponsors, corporates and advisers with OCC‑supervised custody, without becoming a deposit‑taking bank. Retail users should not expect immediate changes; the effort is about institutional credibility, regulatory consistency and the “plumbing” that moves assets safely and transparently.

With federal approvals bespoke and never guaranteed, the application marks the start of a detailed process rather than an endpoint. Still, in a year when peers have also pursued national trust paths, the Crypto.com OCC charter push highlights where the market is headed: toward standardized, federally supervised crypto custody built for institutions that demand it.

FAQ’s

Article Source: CoinDesk
Image Source: Unsplash