The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has issued new guidance clarifying that national banks and federal savings associations under its oversight can engage in certain cryptocurrency activities, including buying, selling, and holding crypto assets on behalf of clients. This was confirmed in Interpretive Letter 1183, published on March 7, 2025, and further elaborated in a subsequent letter.

The OCC has reaffirmed that banks can provide crypto-asset custody services, engage in certain stablecoin activities (such as holding deposits as reserves for stablecoins), and participate in distributed ledger networks (e.g., operating as validation nodes). The more recent guidance explicitly allows banks to facilitate crypto transactions, including buying and selling crypto assets for customers, as well as providing related services like trade execution, transaction settlement, recordkeeping, valuation, tax services, and reporting.

The OCC rescinded previous requirements from 2021 Interpretive Letter 1179 that mandated banks to obtain supervisory non-objection and demonstrate adequate controls before engaging in crypto activities. This change reduces regulatory hurdles, aligning crypto-related services with traditional banking activities, provided banks maintain robust risk management practices.

Banks are still expected to apply the same rigorous risk management controls to crypto activities as they do to traditional ones. This includes addressing market, liquidity, operational, cybersecurity, and anti-money laundering risks, as well as ensuring consumer protection compliance. National banks may outsource crypto-related services, such as custody and trade execution, to third parties, provided those entities adhere to sound risk management standards.

This guidance marks a shift toward a more crypto-friendly regulatory stance under the Trump administration, aligning with broader efforts to integrate digital assets into the mainstream economy. It follows a White House crypto summit and an executive order on March 7, 2025, promoting digital assets. The OCC’s actions are seen as reducing burdens on banks and fostering innovation, though the Federal Reserve and FDIC have yet to fully align their positions, and future interagency guidance is anticipated.

While this guidance is a significant step, challenges remain, including potential regulatory fragmentation across agencies and the need for banks to navigate complex risks. The OCC’s framework aims to provide clarity, enabling banks to meet evolving customer demands while maintaining safety and soundness.  The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) new guidelines allowing national banks to buy, sell, and hold crypto assets for clients have far-reaching implications for the banking and crypto sectors, while also highlighting a regulatory divide among U.S. financial authorities.

Banks can now offer crypto trading and custody services, making digital assets more accessible to retail and institutional clients through trusted, regulated institutions. The involvement of major banks could attract significant capital into crypto markets, as traditional investors gain exposure through familiar channels. Analysts suggest optimism, with some predicting a surge in institutional investment.

Banking integration lends credibility to crypto, potentially reducing stigma and encouraging broader adoption. Banks can generate fees from crypto trading, custody, and related services (e.g., tax reporting, valuation), diversifying income sources. Smaller banks may face pressure to adopt crypto services to compete with larger institutions, though high compliance costs could pose barriers.

The guidelines encourage banks to explore blockchain-based services, such as stablecoin reserves or distributed ledger participation, fostering technological advancements. Crypto’s volatility, cybersecurity threats, and regulatory uncertainties require banks to bolster risk management frameworks, particularly for market, operational, and anti-money laundering (AML) compliance.

Banks must navigate complex consumer protection requirements, ensuring transparency and safeguarding client assets. Outsourcing crypto services to fintechs or crypto firms introduces additional oversight challenges. The guidance aligns with the Trump administration’s pro-crypto stance, as evidenced by the March 7, 2025, executive order and crypto summit, signaling a broader push to integrate digital assets into the U.S. economy.

By enabling banks to engage with crypto, the U.S. aims to maintain its edge in financial innovation, competing with jurisdictions like the EU and Singapore that have clearer crypto frameworks. The OCC’s progressive stance contrasts with the more cautious approaches of other U.S. financial regulators, creating a fragmented regulatory landscape:

OCC vs. Federal Reserve

The OCC oversees national banks, but the Federal Reserve, which regulates bank holding companies and state-chartered banks, has not issued parallel guidance. Fed officials have expressed concerns about crypto’s systemic risks, and some banks under Fed oversight may face stricter scrutiny or capital requirements for crypto activities. The Fed’s 2023 supervisory letters (SR 23-8) emphasized rigorous risk assessments for crypto engagements, contrasting with the OCC’s streamlined approach.

OCC vs. FDIC

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which oversees state-chartered banks not under the Fed, has also lagged in providing clear crypto guidance. FDIC Chair Martin Gruenberg has historically voiced skepticism about crypto’s stability, and the agency’s lack of alignment with the OCC could create inconsistencies for banks under its purview.

SEC and CFTC Overlap

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulate crypto assets differently (securities vs. commodities), complicating banks’ compliance when offering crypto trading. The OCC’s guidance does not resolve these jurisdictional tensions, leaving banks to navigate overlapping rules. The SEC’s enforcement-heavy approach under past leadership contrasts with the OCC’s permissive framework, though a more crypto-friendly SEC chair in 2025 could narrow this gap.

The OCC’s unilateral action highlights a lack of cohesive federal policy. While the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and interagency working groups are expected to issue unified guidance, progress has been slow. State regulators, such as New York’s Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), impose their own crypto rules (e.g., BitLicense), which may conflict with the OCC’s framework. This creates challenges for banks operating across jurisdictions.

The regulatory divide reflects differing political priorities. The OCC’s guidelines align with the current administration’s pro-crypto agenda, but opposition from progressive lawmakers or future administrations could lead to reversals or stricter oversight. Banks are likely to move cautiously, prioritizing compliance and pilot programs before fully embracing crypto services. Partnerships with crypto custodians like Anchorage Digital or Coinbase could accelerate adoption.

The U.S. risks falling behind jurisdictions with unified crypto frameworks (e.g., EU’s MiCA). A harmonized U.S. approach would enhance clarity and competitiveness. The OCC’s guidelines mark a pivotal step toward integrating crypto into traditional banking, with significant economic and competitive benefits.

However, the regulatory divide among the OCC, Fed, FDIC, SEC, and state authorities creates uncertainty, potentially slowing adoption and complicating compliance. Future interagency alignment or legislative action (e.g., a comprehensive crypto bill) will be critical to resolving these tensions.