When Crypto Becomes Infrastructure: U.S. Bank Charters and CFTC Collateral Rules Mark a New Phase

For most of the past fifteen years, crypto lived in a parallel universe. Exchanges ran their own infrastructure, banks were often reluctant to offer accounts, and digital assets rarely appeared in the balance sheets of regulated intermediaries. That separation is starting to erode.

Two recent moves from U.S. regulators capture this transition. First, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) signaled that crypto-native firms can pursue full bank charters on the same footing as other applicants, granting conditional approval to a new institution, Erebor Bank, designed from day one to serve digital-asset and technology clients. Second, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced a pilot program that lets regulated derivatives firms accept Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and the stablecoin USDC as collateral, alongside traditional instruments like cash and U.S. Treasuries.

These decisions are not about short-term price action. They are about plumbing: who runs payment rails, where reserves sit, and what assets can be pledged at the heart of the derivatives system. Understanding them requires looking beyond the headlines to the incentives of supervisors, banks and market participants.

1. The OCC’s Message: Digital Assets Belong Inside the Banking Perimeter

Jonathan Gould, the Comptroller of the Currency, has been unusually direct in recent public remarks. Speaking at policy events in Washington, he warned that banks that try to avoid all contact with digital assets face a “recipe for irrelevance,” and stressed that the OCC would not impose blanket prohibitions on legally permissible crypto activities.

That rhetoric is now backed by concrete action. In October 2025, the OCC granted preliminary conditional approval for Erebor Bank, National Association, a de novo national bank based in Columbus, Ohio. Erebor is designed to serve technology, defense and digital-asset firms—including stablecoin issuers and trading venues—under the full weight of federal bank supervision.

Several aspects of this decision are notable from a market-structure perspective:

• No special carve-out. The OCC emphasised that Erebor was evaluated under the same core standards as other new bank applications—capital, management, business plan and risk controls. The message is that crypto-linked institutions can operate as banks if they meet those standards; they are not automatically excluded, but neither are they given a shortcut.

• Heightened conditions. Erebor’s charter comes with requirements such as higher leverage ratios and detailed risk-management milestones before full approval, reflecting supervisors’ caution around new business models.

• Symbolism after “de-banking.” For years, some digital-asset firms reported difficulty maintaining basic banking relationships, as risk committees opted to avoid the sector entirely. A crypto-aware bank with a national charter signals that, under this administration, the solution is not to keep crypto outside the system, but to bring it in under rules that supervisors can monitor.

Gould has also noted that the OCC is reviewing complaints that traditional banks have cut services to lawful digital-asset businesses without nuanced risk assessments. That review does not guarantee enforcement action, but it underscores the agency’s view that a modern banking system has to deal with blockchain technology rather than pretend it does not exist.

2. Why Bank Charters Matter So Much for Crypto Firms

At first glance, it may seem that crypto exchanges and wallet providers already operate effectively without full bank charters. But being on the outside comes with structural limitations.

2.1 Access to Core Payment Infrastructure

Non-bank financial firms often rely on correspondent relationships and third-party banks to access payment rails such as Fedwire or the Automated Clearing House (ACH) network. That dependence introduces operational risk and can expose end-users to disruptions if a partner bank changes its risk appetite.

A national bank charter, by contrast, comes with the ability—pending Federal Reserve membership and other approvals—to access central-bank accounts and wholesale payment systems directly. For a crypto platform that wants to offer near-instant, high-value transfers between digital assets and dollars, that access can be a defining competitive advantage.

2.2 Stablecoin Reserves and Liquidity Management

Stablecoin issuers hold large portfolios of short-term assets to back their tokens. Today those portfolios are usually parked at a network of commercial banks and money-market funds. A crypto-aware bank could bring a material share of those balances onto its own balance sheet, funding itself with stablecoin reserves and deploying the funds into high-quality liquid assets under close supervision.

This model is attractive for both sides: issuers get a specialised partner that understands their operational needs, while the bank gets a stable deposit base and a clear, regulated mandate. It also makes it easier for supervisors to monitor reserve quality and liquidity profiles in a single, integrated framework.

2.3 Credibility With Institutional Clients

Even as institutional adoption of digital assets has grown, many asset managers, insurance companies and pension funds remain cautious about dealing directly with entities that lack bank-level supervision. A charter does not eliminate risk, but it signals that an institution meets minimum standards for governance, capital and compliance. Over time, that stamp of approval can open doors to customer segments that would otherwise stay on the sidelines.

3. CFTC’s Collateral Pilot: Bitcoin, Ether and USDC Enter the Derivatives Core

While the OCC focuses on who can be a bank, the CFTC is changing what assets can sit at the heart of regulated derivatives markets. In December 2025, the agency announced a digital assets collateral pilot program that allows certain futures commission merchants, swap dealers and clearing houses to accept BTC, ETH and USDC as margin collateral under a structured set of conditions.

The program builds on earlier initiatives around tokenized collateral and stablecoins and is implemented through staff advisories and a no-action letter, giving firms a defined safe harbour if they follow the rules. Key features include:

• Limited asset set. Only three digital assets—Bitcoin, Ether and USDC—are eligible in the initial phase. All three have relatively deep liquidity and established market infrastructure, and USDC is designed to maintain parity with the U.S. dollar through reserves in cash and short-term Treasuries.

• Conservative haircuts and risk controls. Firms must apply robust valuation haircuts, concentration limits and intraday risk management procedures when accepting these assets as collateral, recognising their price volatility and, in the case of BTC and ETH, their lack of a central issuer.

• Intensive reporting. Participants are required to provide weekly data to the CFTC during the first three months of the pilot, covering positions, collateral composition, margin calls and any operational incidents. This feedback loop is designed to give supervisors real-time insight into how tokenized collateral behaves in stress scenarios.

• Integration with tokenized Treasuries. The pilot is also aligned with efforts to treat tokenized representations of U.S. government securities as eligible collateral, allowing firms to manage liquidity across both on-chain and traditional instruments using a single risk framework.

The key change is conceptual: for the first time, digital assets are being treated not just as products to be traded, but as building blocks of the risk-management system itself. When BTC, ETH and USDC can back margin obligations on CFTC-regulated venues, they sit alongside cash and Treasuries at the centre of the derivatives ecosystem.

4. What These Moves Signal About U.S. Regulatory Strategy

Seen together, the OCC’s openness to crypto-linked bank charters and the CFTC’s collateral pilot suggest a broader shift in U.S. strategy. Rather than trying to keep digital assets at arm’s length, regulators are gradually drawing them into familiar supervisory frameworks.

4.1 From Exclusion to Conditional Integration

Earlier debates often revolved around whether banks should be allowed to touch crypto at all. Now the emphasis is on how they can do so safely: what capital they must hold, which risk-management practices they must adopt, and how supervisors can monitor exposures. That transition from exclusion to conditional integration marks a new stage of policy maturity.

In practical terms, that means:

• Crypto firms willing to accept the responsibilities of being banks—capital constraints, examinations, comprehensive compliance programs—can gain access to the same legal status as other depository institutions.
• Digital assets that meet certain robustness criteria can be woven into risk-management frameworks for derivatives, provided they are subject to conservative haircuts and clear reporting obligations.

4.2 Aligning With Broader Legislative Efforts

These regulatory changes do not exist in a vacuum. They complement legislative initiatives such as the CLARITY Act, which aims to divide oversight of digital assets between the SEC and CFTC, and the GENIUS Act, which provides a statutory basis for experiments with tokenized collateral. As Congress debates those bills, agencies are using their existing authorities to set practical guardrails.

5. Strategic Implications for Different Market Participants

What do these developments mean in practice for the main actors in the ecosystem?

5.1 For Traditional Banks

Large banking groups face a strategic choice. If specialised institutions like Erebor demonstrate that digital-asset clients can be served profitably under full supervision, mainstream banks may feel pressure to offer competing services: custody, stablecoin reserve management, tokenized cash products, and interfaces to on-chain settlement systems.

However, expanding into this area also introduces new types of operational and market risk. Banks will need to invest in technical expertise, cyber resilience, and robust segregation of customer assets. Boards and supervisors are likely to move cautiously, especially given memories of past episodes where rapid growth in new product lines created vulnerabilities.

5.2 For Crypto-Native Firms

For exchanges, stablecoin issuers and trading platforms, the prospect of obtaining a bank charter or working with chartered partners offers both opportunity and responsibility. Access to insured deposits, payment rails and central-bank liquidity facilities can stabilise operations and reduce reliance on overseas institutions. At the same time, it subjects these firms to continuous supervision, rigorous reporting and formal resolution planning.

In derivatives markets, firms that already hold large inventories of BTC, ETH or USDC may benefit from being able to deploy these assets directly as collateral, rather than converting everything into dollars or Treasuries. But they will have to manage collateral volatility carefully and ensure that margining systems are robust across stress scenarios.

5.3 For Institutional Investors

Asset managers and corporate treasuries often care as much about infrastructure and legal certainty as they do about directional price views. The combination of OCC-supervised crypto banks and CFTC-recognised digital collateral gives them clearer answers to basic questions: Who holds the assets? Under what law? What happens if something goes wrong?

This does not automatically lead to large allocations, but it lowers some of the structural barriers that previously kept institutions at arm’s length. Over time, that could support a gradual increase in the share of portfolios allocated to Bitcoin and other major digital assets via regulated vehicles and derivatives.

6. Risks and Open Questions

None of these changes are risk-free. Bringing digital assets into the core of the financial system amplifies certain challenges rather than eliminating them.

• Concentration risk. If a small number of specialised banks end up holding the bulk of stablecoin reserves and digital-asset operating balances, stress at one institution could have outsized ripple effects.

• Procyclicality. Using volatile assets such as BTC and ETH as collateral can amplify market swings if haircuts or risk parameters are not calibrated carefully. During sharp price declines, participants may need to post additional margin quickly, reinforcing pressure on the system.

• Cross-border coordination. U.S. rules on tokenized collateral and crypto banking are only part of the picture. European, Asian and emerging-market regulators are developing their own frameworks, and inconsistencies could create regulatory arbitrage or fragmented liquidity.

• Supervisory capacity. Agencies must maintain the expertise needed to evaluate new risk models, smart-contract infrastructure and tokenization platforms. Hiring and retaining that expertise is an ongoing challenge.

These concerns are precisely why the CFTC opted for a time-limited pilot with intensive data collection, and why the OCC attaches stringent conditions to new charters. Supervisors are trying to learn in real time while limiting the potential for systemic shocks.

7. Educational Takeaways for Market Observers

For individuals following the sector, it can be tempting to focus solely on short-term price implications: will these announcements push Bitcoin higher, or will they already be "priced in"? A more durable way to read the news is to treat it as information about institutional confidence and legal status.

Allowing crypto-native firms to become banks, and letting BTC, ETH and USDC back margin obligations in regulated derivatives markets, does not guarantee any particular return. What it does signal is that key U.S. agencies increasingly treat well-managed digital-asset activities as compatible with a safe and sound financial system, provided they are subject to familiar disciplines—capital requirements, risk controls and transparent reporting.

From an educational standpoint, the main lesson is that the centre of gravity is shifting from speculative experiments on the periphery toward integration with established financial infrastructure. That process will be uneven and occasionally contentious, but it is likely to shape how digital assets are used and perceived over the remainder of this decade far more than any single price swing.

Disclaimer

This article is intended solely for educational and analytical purposes. It does not constitute financial, investment, legal or tax advice, and it should not be relied upon as a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any asset or to pursue any particular strategy. Digital assets and financial markets can be volatile and involve risk, including the possible loss of principal. Readers should conduct their own research, consider their individual circumstances and risk tolerance, and consult with qualified professionals before making any financial decisions.