Crypto.com’s conditional OCC approval is a big step toward “crypto firms becoming banks”

Crypto.com says it has received conditional approval from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to pursue a national trust bank charter for an entity it calls Crypto.com National Trust Bank (Foris Dax National Trust Bank). If finalized, this would place a major crypto platform under a federal supervisory framework rather than a patchwork of state regimes, and it would strengthen Crypto.com’s pitch to institutions looking for a “qualified custodian” for digital assets.

The key point: a national trust bank charter is not “a bank license” in the retail sense. It generally focuses on custody and safeguarding client assets (and related trust activities) rather than taking insured deposits and making loans. Reuters notes that this type of charter would enable Crypto.com to hold and manage client assets within a regulated framework, but it would not necessarily mean deposit taking or lending like a traditional bank.

Why this matters for neobanks, crypto cards, and stablecoin payments

1) Custody is becoming the core product, not a back-office function.
As crypto moves from trading toward crypto financial infrastructure (custody, settlement, staking, and treasury operations), trust charters become a distribution advantage. A federally supervised trust bank framework can reduce friction when onboarding institutional clients, partnering with banks, or integrating into enterprise payment flows where custody and control standards are non-negotiable.

2) It accelerates the convergence of “crypto fintech” and “regulated financial institutions.”
Crypto.com is the latest in a growing cohort pursuing national trust bank paths, following conditional approvals reported for firms including Bridge, Ripple, Circle, Paxos, and others. The signal to the market is that the endgame for many large platforms is not just being an exchange or app, but operating a regulated node in the financial system.

3) It changes the trajectory for crypto cards and card-linked custody models.
Crypto cards sit between card payment rails and digital asset rails. As more providers pursue federal trust frameworks, expect tighter integration between card programs and custody operations: clearer rules on asset safeguarding, operational resilience, and the controls that surround conversion, settlement, and transaction monitoring. Over time, this could make it easier for “crypto neobank” products to look and behave more like conventional finance—just with programmable, multi-asset backends.

The regulatory backdrop: the OCC is signaling “yes, with guardrails”

This news lands amid broader shifts in U.S. policy. In 2025, the OCC issued interpretive guidance clarifying that national banks can engage in certain crypto-asset activities and also moved to reduce procedural burdens for banks engaging in crypto-related work, while still emphasizing strong risk management expectations. That doesn’t mean crypto is “unregulated.” It means regulators are drawing clearer lanes for what is permissible—and pushing activity into supervised environments.

What to expect next

If this effort progresses from conditional to final approval, watch for:

• Scope details: exactly which custody activities and client segments the charter covers, and whether staking is treated as an enabled service under the proposed framework (Crypto.com says the framework would support custody and staking services).

• Risk and governance disclosures: how segregation of client assets, controls, audits, and incident response are structured under OCC expectations.

• Knock-on effects for the ecosystem: more crypto platforms, stablecoin infrastructure providers, and custody firms will pursue similar routes to become “bank-like” under federal oversight—especially those serving institutions and large payment volumes.

The Neobankster takeaway

This is another step toward a world where crypto firms don’t just plug into the banking system—they increasingly become regulated financial infrastructure inside it. For neobanks and crypto card programs, the competitive edge shifts toward who can combine user-facing distribution with credible governance: custody type, compliance jurisdiction, and operational controls that stand up to federal supervision.