From Marginalization to Integration: How Five Cryptocurrency Institutions Are Breaking Down the US Financial System Wall

In December 2025, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) made a decision that revived a scenario that just a few years ago seemed unthinkable: Ripple, Circle, Paxos, BitGo, and Fidelity Digital Assets received conditional approval to operate as federally licensed national trust banks. This change did not cause spectacular price jumps, but its systemic significance is profound and long-lasting. It marks the industry’s transition from “rebellious outsiders” to equal participants in the federal financial infrastructure.

The core of the change is access to the payment network, not the name itself

The key misconception is that the word “bank” in this context does not mean a traditional commercial bank. The five approved institutions will not be able to accept FDIC-insured deposits or extend commercial loans — which paralyzed traditional financial circles (especially the Bank Policy Institute, representing JPMorgan and Bank of America).

However, the nature of this restriction reveals a key design: for stablecoin issuers like Circle (USDC, with approximately $80 billion in reserves) or Ripple (RLUSD), the business model relies on 100% full reserve backing, not on credit expansion. The fractional reserve model at the heart of traditional banking is entirely unnecessary here.

The real purpose of this license is different. A federal trust bank gains the right to apply for a main account at the Federal Reserve, which provides direct access to Fedwire and CHIPS systems. For years, crypto companies were forced to rely on traditional correspondent banks, where each transaction had to go through multi-layered settlements, generating fees, delays, and risks. Paxos, although previously compliant under supervision of the New York State Department of Financial Services, could not directly participate in the federal payment network. That is now changing.

Infrastructure wins: cost advantage pattern

The math behind this transformation is very tangible. Eliminating correspondent banks as intermediaries means a radical reduction in cost structure. Industry estimates suggest that direct access to Fedwire could reduce total settlement costs by 30%-50%.

For Circle, which handles enormous daily capital flows related to USDC reserves, such savings could translate into hundreds of millions of dollars annually in payment channel fees alone. This is not marginal optimization — it’s a fundamental restructuring of the economics of settlement for the entire stablecoin issuer industry.

An additional consequence is the fiduciary obligation embedded in the federal license. Stablecoin reserves will be held in a trust system under OCC supervision, legally separated from the issuer’s assets. After the FTX scandal, where misappropriation of customer funds shook industry trust, this legal structure is hugely significant for institutional investors.

Trump and GENIUS: ideological shift in stablecoin perception

A few years ago, under the Biden administration, the crypto industry operated in a quasi-isolation state. After the FTX collapse, regulators adopted a “risk isolation” strategy — banks received informal guidelines to avoid doing business with crypto firms. The fall of Silvergate Bank and Signature Bank symbolized this period, known as “debanking” or “Operation Choke Point 2.0”.

The return of the Trump administration completely changed the tone. Trump repeatedly publicly supported the crypto industry, positioning the United States as a “global hub of digital innovation.” The key ideological shift was redefining the role of stablecoins: from a threat to a tool for strengthening the dollar’s international position in the digital age.

The signed July 2025 GENIUS Act formalized this shift. For the first time at the federal level, a clear legal status for stablecoins and issuing institutions was established. The law allows non-bank institutions meeting certain criteria to be “qualified stablecoin payment issuers” under federal supervision, but imposes strict requirements: stablecoins must be 100% backed by dollars or short-term US Treasury bonds.

Even more importantly, the law grants stablecoin holders priority in claims in case of issuer bankruptcy. This means reserves must be used first to redeem tokens. This structure has changed the risk calculus for institutions, making stablecoins a much more credible instrument.

A new layer of competition: the battle for main accounts

However, OCC licensing is only half the battle. The other, equally challenging hurdle remains the right to open a main account at the Federal Reserve, which is controlled independently by the Fed itself. History shows that obtaining a license does not guarantee access to Fedwire — Wyoming-based Custodia Bank sued the Federal Reserve after being denied, revealing a huge gap between OCC approval and access to federal infrastructure.

This is the battlefield of the future. The Bank Policy Institute and traditional financial elites, unable to block OCC decisions, will pressure the Fed to impose very high capital and compliance requirements for granting main accounts. Ripple and Circle are preparing for this phase, but uncertainty remains.

Ripple’s and Circle’s path: from service providers to infrastructure

Brad Garlinghouse, Ripple’s CEO, called the OCC decision “a huge step forward,” while sharply criticizing traditional lobbying: “You said the industry doesn’t follow the rules, and now we’re under direct OCC supervision. What are you afraid of?”

Circle stated that the federal license will fundamentally change institutional trust, enabling the offering of digital asset custody services at a level comparable to traditional institutions.

These statements share a common theme: from being served by banking systems to becoming an integral part of the financial infrastructure. Ripple’s (On-Demand Liquidity) product has long suffered from bank operating hours and fiat channel availability restrictions. Now, fiat on-chain exchange can happen without time gaps.

Future scenarios: consolidation or parallel evolution?

The future of the financial industry could split into several trajectories. Traditional banks might acquire crypto firms to supplement technological capabilities — JPMorgan or Bank of America could buy Circle to improve their payment platforms. Alternatively, state regulators like NYDFS might start new disputes over federal vs. state oversight boundaries. Many regulatory details still need to be worked out: capital requirements, cybersecurity standards, risk separation — all of which will be the subject of future political battles.

One thing is clear: OCC’s decision does not end the dispute but opens a new chapter. Crypto finance has officially entered the system. Now, the game is on for balancing innovation, stability, and competition within American financial oversight.