#美社区银行协会起诉occ加密银行牌照
Last month, the Senate was still 49 to 50—this month it went straight to court: the same group of community banks starts targeting the federal banking licenses of crypto companies ⚖️🦖
🚨 行情变了群里说
On Friday, October 2, the Independent Community Bankers Association (ICBA) sued the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The reason: the OCC allowed a batch of crypto companies to obtain “national trust bank” charters, exceeding the authority Congress granted it.
The wording is strong: Congress has never designed this charter as a “back door” for crypto companies to enter the banking system. They want the legitimacy that comes with a federal banking charter—but without having to take on obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act, consolidated/affiliate supervision, and capital and liquidity standards, and without buying FDIC deposit insurance. ICBA chair Rebeca Romero Rainey directly called it out: it places community banks at a “severe competitive disadvantage.”
But there’s a detail many people overlook: these trust charters originally can’t accept deposits or make loans, and they’re not the same as the core business of community banks. The OCC’s response was equally blunt—no comment on the lawsuit.
Zoom out on the timeline for clarity: these banks were deeply involved last month in blocking the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY), which ultimately failed 49 to 50 in the Senate. Now they’ve moved the fight from legislation to the courts. Those that have already obtained—or are close to obtaining—charters include a certain exchange, stablecoin issuer Circle, and another major exchange, while OCC current head Jonathan Gould has been steadily approving them since taking office.
My take: this isn’t an ordinary lawsuit—it’s a boundary dispute over “who’s allowed to touch the U.S. dollar system.” What banks really fear isn’t crypto custody today, but that tomorrow these licensed institutions will start handling payments and settlement, bypassing their deposit strongholds. In the short term, it has no direct impact on Bitcoin’s price—but if you’re watching the main thread of “crypto compliance,” this case is worth noting. It will determine whether licenses are issued fast or slow.
Comment section: do you think crypto companies should get federal banking charters, or should they accept full-spectrum regulation like banks? 🦕
Click the avatar to watch the livestream
Every day, I’ll help you track key crypto regulatory developments—not just what happened in the news, but also the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀
Last month, the Senate was still 49 to 50—this month it went straight to court: the same group of community banks starts targeting the federal banking licenses of crypto companies ⚖️🦖
🚨 行情变了群里说
On Friday, October 2, the Independent Community Bankers Association (ICBA) sued the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The reason: the OCC allowed a batch of crypto companies to obtain “national trust bank” charters, exceeding the authority Congress granted it.
The wording is strong: Congress has never designed this charter as a “back door” for crypto companies to enter the banking system. They want the legitimacy that comes with a federal banking charter—but without having to take on obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act, consolidated/affiliate supervision, and capital and liquidity standards, and without buying FDIC deposit insurance. ICBA chair Rebeca Romero Rainey directly called it out: it places community banks at a “severe competitive disadvantage.”
But there’s a detail many people overlook: these trust charters originally can’t accept deposits or make loans, and they’re not the same as the core business of community banks. The OCC’s response was equally blunt—no comment on the lawsuit.
Zoom out on the timeline for clarity: these banks were deeply involved last month in blocking the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY), which ultimately failed 49 to 50 in the Senate. Now they’ve moved the fight from legislation to the courts. Those that have already obtained—or are close to obtaining—charters include a certain exchange, stablecoin issuer Circle, and another major exchange, while OCC current head Jonathan Gould has been steadily approving them since taking office.
My take: this isn’t an ordinary lawsuit—it’s a boundary dispute over “who’s allowed to touch the U.S. dollar system.” What banks really fear isn’t crypto custody today, but that tomorrow these licensed institutions will start handling payments and settlement, bypassing their deposit strongholds. In the short term, it has no direct impact on Bitcoin’s price—but if you’re watching the main thread of “crypto compliance,” this case is worth noting. It will determine whether licenses are issued fast or slow.
Comment section: do you think crypto companies should get federal banking charters, or should they accept full-spectrum regulation like banks? 🦕
Click the avatar to watch the livestream
Every day, I’ll help you track key crypto regulatory developments—not just what happened in the news, but also the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀
