Coinbase announced that it received conditional approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for a national trust company charter through its subsidiary, Coinbase National Trust Company (CNTC).

This is a significant step toward operating as a federally regulated crypto custodian, but it’s not final approval yet. The OCC’s green light is preliminary. Coinbase must now meet several conditions before full charter approval, including: Building out robust compliance systems, Hiring key personnel, Passing regulatory reviews and a pre-opening exam, Demonstrating strong risk management, client asset protection, and anti-money laundering (AML) controls.

Other procedural steps like adopting bylaws and holding a first board meeting. Once fully approved, CNTC would function as a non-insured national trust company focused on digital asset custody and related fiduciary services for institutional clients. Coinbase has explicitly clarified that this does not turn it into a commercial bank: No retail deposits, no fractional reserve banking, no lending activities

It’s strictly for custody, asset safeguarding, payments and transactions on behalf of clients, staking, and related infrastructure—not traditional banking. Coinbase already holds a limited-purpose trust charter from the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) for its institutional custody business.

A federal charter would provide: Uniform nationwide oversight instead of navigating varying state rules. Greater legitimacy and confidence for large institutional investors. A foundation for expanding products and services under consistent federal standards. Coinbase executives, including Greg Tusar, highlighted that federal oversight would bring consistency and uniformity to custody and support new offerings.

The company already custodies assets for over 80% of U.S. spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs. This fits a broader trend: Other crypto firms like Ripple, Circle, BitGo, Paxos, and Fidelity Digital Assets received similar conditional OCC approvals in late 2025. It reflects growing regulatory integration of digital assets into the traditional financial system, especially for institutional-grade custody as more capital flows into crypto.

Positive for institutions — Federal regulation can reduce perceived risks compared to purely state-level or offshore custody. Groups like the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) opposed the move, citing concerns over risk controls, consumer protection, and whether the application fully meets National Bank Act standards.

Coinbase filed the application in October 2025, and the conditional nod marks progress in its push for clearer U.S. regulatory footing post-2024 election shifts toward pro-crypto policies. If full approval follows, it could strengthen Coinbase’s competitive position in the growing institutional custody market while helping bridge crypto with traditional finance. The process isn’t complete, so timelines for final approval will depend on how quickly Coinbase satisfies the OCC’s conditions.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) oversees the chartering of national banks and national trust companies (also called national trust banks) under the National Bank Act. These are federally chartered institutions supervised directly by the OCC, offering uniform national standards instead of varying state-by-state rules.

For entities like Coinbase seeking a national trust charter focused on crypto custody and fiduciary services without taking retail deposits or engaging in full-service banking, the process follows the OCC’s standard chartering procedures, with some tailoring for special-purpose or limited-activity trust operations.

The OCC divides the process into four broad phases, as outlined in its Comptroller’s Licensing Manual: Prefiling Stage. Applicants engage with OCC staff through informal and formal meetings to discuss the proposal, chartering requirements, and any unique aspects. They prepare a comprehensive application, including a detailed business plan that covers operations, risk controls, compliance, capital and liquidity needs, management team, and how the institution will operate safely and soundly.

For trust-focused charters, the application often incorporates or references fiduciary powers information. This stage helps applicants refine their submission before formal filing. The complete application is submitted to the OCC’s Chartering, Organization and Structure (CO&S) department. Public notice is typically published in a newspaper of general circulation for de novo charters, allowing public comments.

The OCC first checks whether the filing is administratively complete using a checklist. This does not evaluate the merits yet. OCC Licensing staff, along with legal, supervisory, and other experts, conduct a thorough analysis. This includes: Background checks on organizers, directors, and key executives. Assessment of the business plan’s viability and risk management

Evaluation of financial projections, capital adequacy, and liquidity. Review of compliance frameworks, internal controls, and consumer protection where applicable. Consideration of statutory factors under the National Bank Act, such as whether the institution will promote a safe and sound banking system. For crypto-related proposals, reviewers pay close attention to custody practices, digital asset security, affiliate relationships, and novel risks.

The OCC may request additional information or conduct field investigations. The OCC decides on preliminary conditional approval also called conditional or preliminary approval or denial. This is the green light stage Coinbase and others recently received. It signals that the OCC views the core proposal favorably but requires the applicant to complete significant work before operating. It is not final authorization to begin business.

The approval letter typically lists specific conditions and pre-opening requirements. The OCC can modify, suspend, or rescind this approval if issues arise later. This is the critical bridge to final approval, often lasting several months:The entity organizes as a legal corporation. Raise or confirm required capital and liquidity. Hire and onboard key personnel.

Blockchain Analytics Firms Link Drift Protocol Exploitation to North Korea Hackers

Meanwhile, blockchain analytics firms have linked a major exploit of Drift Protocol—a Solana-based decentralized perpetual futures exchange—to suspected North Korean state-sponsored hackers, with losses estimated at around $280–286 million.

On April 1, 2026, attackers drained roughly $280–285 million from Drift Protocol in about 12 minutes across ~31 transactions. This is the largest DeFi security incident of 2026 so far and ranks among the biggest crypto hacks in recent years. The attack did not exploit a smart contract bug in the core protocol.

Instead, it involved: Social engineering and compromise of administrative controls likely targeting multisig signers or the Security Council, possibly weeks in advance via a 2-of-5 multisig setup. Abuse of Solana’s durable nonce feature, which allows pre-signing transactions that don’t expire. Attackers reportedly used this to set up malicious admin actions ahead of time.

Creation of a fake token CarbonVote with minimal liquidity ~$500, which was wash-traded to manipulate oracles into treating it as valuable collateral. They then listed it on Drift, used it to borrow/drain real assets from vaults including stablecoins like USDC/USDT, tokenized BTC, and other tokens, and quickly swapped and bridged funds.

Drift’s total value locked (TVL) dropped from ~$550 million to under $250 million. The protocol halted deposits and withdrawals, and the native DRIFT token plunged sharply. Drift has sent on-chain messages to related wallets seeking communication and plans a detailed post-mortem. Blockchain firms Elliptic and TRM Labs have attributed the operation to North Korean-linked actors often associated with the Lazarus Group, also called TraderTraitor or similar units.

Key indicators include: Transaction patterns, cross-chain laundering techniques; use of Tornado Cash, bridging from Solana to Ethereum via Circle’s CCTP, routing through other chains and exchanges. Timing and obfuscation methods consistent with prior DPRK operations. Similarities to the massive 2025 Bybit hack ~$1.4–1.5 billion, which the FBI and others attributed to North Korea.

If confirmed, this would be the 18th suspected DPRK-linked crypto theft tracked by Elliptic in 2026 alone, with over $300 million stolen by these actors this year. North Korea has been linked to billions in crypto thefts in recent years, with proceeds allegedly funding its weapons and military programs. Ledger’s CTO also highlighted tactical parallels to the Bybit breach.

Funds were laundered across chains like Solana ? Ethereum and others, with portions converted to ETH and moved further. Some observers have questioned stablecoin issuers like Circle on freezing policies. This highlights ongoing risks in DeFi governance and operational security: even without code vulnerabilities, compromised keys and admins or social engineering can be devastating.

It echoes broader trends where state actors especially North Korea target crypto for funding. Pressure on liquidity and sentiment; some broader SOL price dips were noted. No group has publicly claimed responsibility, which is typical for these sophisticated operations.

Investigations are active, with on-chain tracking continuing. Drift is coordinating with security firms, and the industry is discussing stronger multisig, timelocks, and admin controls. This is developing rapidly—details on exact mechanics, recovery prospects, and official attributions may evolve with further forensics. Crypto remains high-risk, and such incidents underscore the importance of self-custody where possible and careful evaluation of protocols.