The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has put a marker down: firms working in digital assets are welcome to seek a national bank charter, so long as what they do is lawful for a bank to do. It is a notable shift in tone from a regulator whose posture toward crypto has swung sharply across the last three administrations. It is also, on close reading, a statement of intent rather than a change in the rulebook, and that distinction is where compliance teams should focus.
What the Comptroller actually put on the record
The signal came from Comptroller Jonathan Gould, quoted in an OCC news release whose headline subject was the agency's endorsement of a federal reform to make forming new banks easier. Inside that broader push to revive de novo chartering, Gould framed the door as open to newer business models: entities engaged in "legally permissible activities, including those involving digital assets and other novel technologies," should have a route to becoming a national bank.
“Entities that engage in legally permissible activities, including those involving digital assets and other novel technologies, should have a path to becoming a national bank. America and the OCC are once again open for business.”
— Jonathan V. Gould, Comptroller of the Currency
The release wrapped that line in some supporting numbers on chartering momentum: roughly 40 applications for new charters over the previous 18 months, a share of complete applications decided within about 120 days, and the first full service national bank opening its doors in five years.
Why an open door is not a fast lane
Nothing in the announcement rewrites the standard a charter applicant must meet. There is no new licence category, no streamlined crypto track, and no waiver of the review that every prospective national bank goes through. Capital adequacy, the credibility of the business plan, the strength of management, and a Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-laundering program built to supervisory expectations. A public statement that the agency is "open for business" changes the mood music around an application; it does not lower the bar the application has to clear. Read as deregulation, the message would be misread.
Trust charter or full bank: the difference shapes the obligations
The reference to national trust banks is the tell. Most digital-asset firms that have pursued federal charters are not trying to become deposit-taking, lending institutions; they are seeking trust or custody-oriented charters that fit activities such as safekeeping of assets and fiduciary services. That choice carries real consequences: the capital profile, the permissible activities, and the supervisory questions differ markedly from those facing a full-service bank. A headline that reads "crypto firms can become banks" flattens a distinction that determines what a chartered entity may and may not do and what its compliance function will be judged against.
“For more than a decade, regulators signalled that those seeking a federal bank charter and federal deposit insurance need not apply.”
— Jonathan V. Gould, Comptroller of the Currency
The contrast with the recent record
Openness in posture is not the same as approval in practice. As RegTech.com previously reported in its coverage of WISE's rejected US charter bid, an ambition to enter the national banking system can founder on the substance of the review even when the strategic logic looks sound. That episode is a useful counterweight to the current optimism: The gap between an invitation and an approval is precisely where supervisory scrutiny lives.
What to watch next
The meaningful test is conversion, whether this posture produces a run of completed charters for digital-asset firms, and of what type. Worth tracking: the mix of trust versus full-service applications that follow; how the OCC scales BSA/AML and sanctions expectations for a federally chartered institution whose core business is digital assets; and whether a more welcoming federal stance sharpens the long-running friction with state regulators over who supervises what. For firms weighing an application, the practical work has not changed: a charter-grade compliance, risk, and governance build-out remains the price of entry, signal or no signal.
Compliance impact
What changed: The OCC has publicly stated that digital-asset firms conducting legally permissible activities should have a path to a national bank charter, a shift in supervisory tone, not a new rule or a lighter approval process.
Who is affected: Crypto custodians, stablecoin issuers, and digital-asset service providers weighing a federal charter, most likely a national trust charter rather than a full-service bank charter.
What to watch next: Whether the posture converts into actual charter approvals and of what type; how BSA/AML, sanctions, and capital expectations are calibrated for chartered digital-asset entities; and renewed state-versus-federal supervisory tension.
Source: OCC News Release NR-OCC-2026-67, "OCC Commends FDIC Reform, Advances Priority to Reinvigorate De Novo Chartering," 11 August 2026 — occ.gov.
