Connect with us

Crypto

Banks In The USA Should Be Permitted To Own Cryptocurrency

Published

on

Banks In The USA Should Be Permitted To Own Cryptocurrency

The world of financial services is always evolving, but recently there are signs of a seismic shift. At the heart of this transformation is the rise of cryptocurrencies. Digital assets like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and a host of others – including stablecoins – have moved from the fringes of the financial system to the forefront, capturing the attention of investors, regulators, and, increasingly, traditional banks. As the cryptocurrency market continues to mature, one question that is becoming increasingly urgent to answer is whether banks in the United States should be permitted to own cryptocurrencies. If banks are to remain relevant in the rapidly changing financial landscape, then participating in the cryptocurrency markets is a necessary and logical step in the evolution of banking.

A Shifting Regulatory Landscape

Since the beginning of the crypto asset class, the relationship between banks and cryptocurrencies has been fraught with tension. Regulatory uncertainty, concerns over volatility, and the perceived risks associated with digital assets have kept banks on the sidelines. Most banks have even shied away from providing any banking services to companies and individuals who had interest in the digital asset class.

However, recent developments, particularly from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), have begun to pave the way for greater bank involvement in the cryptocurrency space. On March 7, 2025, the OCC issued Interpretive Letter 1183 (IL 1183), which provided much-needed clarity on the ability of national banks to engage with cryptocurrencies. The impact of this guidance is discussed in Banks In Crypto: The OCC’s Quiet Game-Changer.

Advertisement

Interpretive Letter 1183 affirmed early guidance that national banks can provide cryptocurrency-related services—such as custody and trading—as long as they do so in a safe and sound manner. The original guidance, articulated in Interpretive Letter 1170 in July 2020, was never withdrawn, but for almost five years it was practically disavowed.

Although the OCC has shown a path for banks to offer cryptocurrency services, the question of direct bank ownership of cryptocurrency remains a sticking point. In a joint statement from the OCC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Federal Reserve in January 2023, banks were cautioned against holding public cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin on their balance sheets (read: prohibited). The restriction, rooted in concerns over risk and stability, feels increasingly out of step with the realities of the modern financial system. The OCC recognized that was time to revisit this stance, and Acting Comptroller of the Currency Rodney E. Hood announced the OCC withdrew from the joint statement. Subject to safety and soundness considerations, according to the OCC, national banks have the ability to own cryptocurrencies outright.

Bringing Trust and Stability to a Volatile Market

Perhaps the strongest argument for allowing banks to provide products and services in cryptocurrency, and to own cryptocurrencies directly, is their unique ability to bring trust and stability to a market that desperately needs it. Banks have centuries of experience managing complex financial assets, from stocks and bonds to derivatives and foreign exchange. They operate under some of the strictest regulatory frameworks in the world, with requirements for capital reserves, liquidity, and consumer protection that far exceed those of the average fintech or cryptocurrency exchange.

Consider the high-profile collapses of platforms like FTX, Celsius, Voyager, and BlockFi, which left investors reeling from billions in losses. These failures underscored the risks of operating in a largely unregulated environment. By contrast, banks offer a level of security and oversight that is unmatched in the cryptocurrency space. FDIC insurance, rigorous compliance standards, and robust risk management protocols mean that customers can engage with digital assets through a bank with far greater confidence than they can through a standalone crypto exchange or lightly regulated fintech. Allowing banks to own cryptocurrencies would leverage this infrastructure to create a safer, more reliable ecosystem for digital assets.

New Revenue Streams and Competitive Relevance

Beyond stability, there is a compelling business case for allowing banks to own and provide services in cryptocurrencies. The cryptocurrency market can no longer be considered a financial niche: it is a multi-trillion-dollar asset class that continues to attract significant capital from investors across the spectrum. Banks that can custody, trade, and hold digital assets stand to capture a share of this growing market. More importantly, engaging with cryptocurrencies will allow banks to remain competitive in an era where younger generations—millennials and Gen Z—are increasingly integrating digital assets into their financial lives.

Advertisement

Take custody services as an example. As institutional interest in cryptocurrencies grows, so does the demand for secure storage solutions. Banks, with their established expertise in safeguarding assets, are perfectly positioned to meet this need. If permitted to own cryptocurrencies, banks could also offer innovative products—think crypto-backed loans or yield-generating accounts—that would attract tech-savvy customers and diversify revenue streams. In a financial landscape where margins are under constant pressure and fintech and crypto-native firms are encroaching on traditional banking activities, banks cannot afford to be forced to remain sitting on the sidelines.

Managing the Risks

It goes without saying that a discussion of banks and cryptocurrencies would not be complete without addressing the question of the risks. The price of Bitcoin, the largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, has been known to swing 20% in a single day, a level of volatility that captures the attention of even seasoned risk managers. Critics have argued that by exposing banks to such fluctuations cryptocurrencies could jeopardize their stability and, by extension, the broader financial system. It is a fair concern—but one that overlooks and does not give appropriate credit to the proven ability of the banking industry to manage volatile assets.

Banks already navigate turbulent markets like foreign exchange and commodities with sophisticated tools: diversification, hedging strategies, and strict exposure limits. Applying these same principles to cryptocurrencies is both feasible and practical. Banks could further mitigate risks by focusing on well-established digital assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum, which have already been designated digital commodities. The cryptocurrencies with significant market capitalizations also offer greater liquidity and resilience than newer, untested tokens. With proper regulatory guardrails—such as capital requirements tailored to crypto holdings—the risks can be managed effectively.

The Need for Regulatory Clarity

Regulatory clarity is traditionally the strength of the financial markets in the USA, and one of the reasons that the capital markets are the largest in the world. The American banking system is the engine for growth for the greater economy, and that engine does not function well when there is uncertainty. The OCC Interpretive Letter 1183 is a giant step forward, but the OCC does not have the authority to address bank ownership of cryptocurrencies on their own. With the newly reasserted OCC guidance, the 2023 joint statement from federal regulators creates a contradictory message: banks can engage with cryptocurrencies, but they cannot fully participate. This ambiguity will continue to stifle innovation and will leave banks uncertain about how to proceed, or whether they are permitted to proceed at all.

What is needed is a clear, consistent framework that allows banks to own cryptocurrencies and provide customers with products and services all while ensuring safety and soundness. The OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve should work together to update their guidance, drawing on lessons from the past decade of cryptocurrency evolution. Clear rules would not only protect consumers but also give banks the confidence to invest in the infrastructure—including blockchain integration and cybersecurity—needed to support digital asset ownership.

Advertisement

A Modern Financial System

Finally, the benefits of bank-owned cryptocurrencies extend beyond the institutions themselves. The broader financial system stands to gain from the modernization that digital assets can bring. Blockchain technology, which underpins cryptocurrencies, offers the potential to streamline cross-border payments, reduce transaction costs, and push financial institutions to move towards true round-the-clock operations. Banks, with their vast networks and customer bases, are ideally positioned to drive these innovations forward. By owning and integrating cryptocurrencies into their operations, banks can bridge the gap between traditional finance and the emerging digital economy.

Banks also cannot afford to be left behind from the growth in the use of stablecoins. Customer expectations are growing for the modernization of the payment infrastructure. Traditional payment rails are not enough, and customers are demanding alternatives. If banks are not involved in the innovation of stablecoins then banks risk fintech companies completely usurping their role in the space.

The Path Forward

The cryptocurrency revolution is here to stay, and banks must be allowed to play a central role in shaping the future. The recent guidance from the OCC is both a positive regulatory signal and a move in the right direction, but it is only the beginning of what is required. Permitting banks to own cryptocurrencies would harness their expertise to bring trust and stability to the market, unlock new opportunities for growth, and modernize the financial system for the digital age. The active involvement of banks will help ensure that the volatility is in the asset, and not in the stability of the financial institutions providing cryptocurrency services to customers. The risks are real, but they are manageable—and the rewards far outweigh them. It is time for regulators to take the next step and let banks join the crypto revolution in full. The future of finance depends on it.

Crypto

Scattered Spider hacker pleads guilty to stealing $8 million in cryptocurrency – Help Net Security

Published

on

Scattered Spider hacker pleads guilty to stealing  million in cryptocurrency – Help Net Security

A British national tied to the Scattered Spider cybercrime group pleaded guilty to hacking multiple companies via SMS phishing and stealing over $8 million in virtual currency from US victims.

Tyler Robert Buchanan, 24, of Dundee, Scotland, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.

In November 2024, US authorities unsealed criminal charges against Buchanan and four other alleged members of the Scattered Spider group, accusing them of using phishing text messages to steal employee credentials, breach company systems and steal cryptocurrency.

According to court documents, Buchanan and his co-conspirators conducted cyber intrusions and virtual currency thefts between September 2021 and April 2023.

Advertisement

The victims included interactive entertainment, telecommunications and technology companies, as well as business process outsourcing (BPO) and IT service providers, cloud communications firms, virtual currency companies and individual victims.

“As part of the scheme, Buchanan and his co-conspirators conducted Short Message Service (SMS) phishing attacks by sending hundreds of SMS phishing messages to the mobile telephones of a victim company’s employees. The messages purported to be from the victim company or a contracted IT or BPO supplier for the victim company,” the Justice Department said.

“The SMS phishing messages contained links to phishing websites designed to look like legitimate websites of a victim company or a contracted IT or BPO supplier. The websites then lured the recipient into providing confidential information, including personal identifying information (PII), and account usernames and passwords.”

In April 2023, police found on a digital device at Buchanan’s residence in Scotland the names and addresses of numerous victims, including a text file containing cryptocurrency seed phrases and login credentials for one account.

Buchanan has been in federal custody since April 2025 and faces up to 22 years in federal prison.

Advertisement

Co-conspirator Noah Michael Urban is serving a 10-year federal prison sentence and was ordered to pay $13 million in restitution after pleading guilty in April 2025 to fraud-related charges. Three other defendants charged alongside Buchanan, including Ahmed Hossam Eldin Elbadawy, Evans Onyeaka Osiebo and Joel Martin Evans, still face criminal charges in the case.

Scattered Spider is a cybercrime collective, also known as UNC3944, Muddled Libra and Octo Tempest, made up largely of young, native English-speaking hackers who use social engineering, including impersonating IT and help-desk staff, to gain initial access, bypass MFA, and compromise enterprise networks.

The group gained notoriety for its role in high-profile hacking and extortion attacks against Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts International, two of the largest casino operators in the US.

Although authorities have increased pressure on the group and arrested several members, including four they consider responsible for ransomware attacks targeting UK-based retailers last year, the group continues to operate, with new members replacing those arrested.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto

XRP Prepares for Quantum Future as Ripple Maps XRPL Strategy for Security Readiness

Published

on

XRP Prepares for Quantum Future as Ripple Maps XRPL Strategy for Security Readiness

Key Takeaways:

  • Ripple outlines a phased roadmap to prepare XRPL for quantum-era cryptography risks.
  • Industry momentum grows as XRPL testing highlights performance and security tradeoffs.
  • Developers at Ripple will expand testing to balance innovation with network stability.

Ripple Maps Quantum Security Strategy

Ripple’s post-quantum strategy reflects a growing shift in blockchain security as quantum computing risks gain credibility. The company’s latest Insight, published April 20 by Senior Director of Engineering Ayo Akinyele, outlined a structured roadmap to prepare the XRP Ledger for future cryptographic disruption while preserving network performance.

The Insight stated:

“Ripple is introducing a multi-phase roadmap to prepare the XRP Ledger (XRPL) for a post-quantum future, with a target for full readiness by 2028.”

It also detailed collaboration efforts: “Ripple is working with Project Eleven to accelerate development, including validator testing and early custody prototypes.”

Akinyele explained that quantum security is becoming more relevant because blockchain networks rely on cryptographic systems that could eventually be broken by sufficiently advanced quantum computers. On XRPL, each signed transaction reveals a public key on-chain, which could weaken long-term wallet security in a post-quantum environment.

He also pointed to the “harvest now, decrypt later” threat, where attackers collect cryptographic data today and wait for future quantum capabilities to exploit it. While this does not indicate an immediate failure of current protections, it increases the urgency of preparing systems that secure long-duration value. These risks reinforce the need for early testing of quantum-resistant cryptographic systems and structured migration planning.

Advertisement

XRPL Testing Targets Long-Term Stability

Ripple’s roadmap consists of four phases, starting with contingency planning for a potential failure of existing cryptographic standards. This includes a “Quantum-Day” framework designed to enable secure migration to post-quantum accounts if vulnerabilities emerge. Additional phases focus on evaluating National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-recommended algorithms under real network conditions, measuring impacts on throughput, storage, and verification efficiency. XRPL’s native features, including key rotation and deterministic key generation, provide a technical advantage by enabling gradual migration without forcing users to abandon existing accounts. Parallel testing on development networks will allow developers to assess performance tradeoffs before broader implementation.

The senior director of engineering emphasized long-term execution and coordination, stating:

“We should not view addressing the quantum threat on XRPL as a single upgrade, but rather a multi-phased strategy of carefully migrating a live, global financial infrastructure without compromising the value of digital assets protected by the XRPL.”

Akinyele indicated that achieving post-quantum readiness requires balancing cryptographic innovation with operational stability, ensuring the network remains efficient while adapting to future security challenges.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto

Central Banks Say US Stablecoins Threaten Financial Integrity | PYMNTS.com

Published

on

Central Banks Say US Stablecoins Threaten Financial Integrity | PYMNTS.com

Central bank officials are warning of potential threats from the increasing use of U.S. stablecoins for international payments.

Stablecoins — crypto assets pegged to fiat currencies like the dollar — “raise serious risks for financial integrity and can facilitate regulatory circumvention,” the head of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) said in a speech in Japan Monday (April 20).

The fast-rising use of stablecoins could also “make it easier to evade capital controls” in emerging markets (EMs) and developing countries trying to keep control on financial flows and heighten “dollarisation risks,” said BIS general manager Pablo Hernández de Cos, whose comments were reported by the Financial Times (FT).

Their increasing popularity “opens up new avenues for tax evasion,” he added, citing estimates that “stablecoins now account for most illicit transactions within the crypto ecosystem.”

According to the FT, the increased worldwide use of dollar-denominated stablecoins was mentioned as a threat to financial stability in EMs by multiple financial policymakers when they convened in Washington last week for the IMF and World Bank meetings.

Advertisement

“There will be a focus on the extent to which it moves into domestic currency substitution,” Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, said during a financial industry event in D.C.

Advertisement: Scroll to Continue

Bailey, who also chairs the Financial Stability Board, said “the rate of progress” on establishing international rules for stablecoins had slowed.

“If you had asked me a year ago, I would have said we are heading very quickly towards it. But I think it is something that we will have to come to terms with pretty soon,” he added.

Meanwhile, French Finance Minister Roland Lescure said last week that European banks should develop more euro-based stablecoins and tokenized deposits to reduce the region’s dependence on non-European payment providers.

Advertisement

Speaking at a cryptocurrency conference in Paris, Lescure said that the small volume of euro-pegged stablecoins compared to dollar-pegged tokens is “not satisfactory” and that a company formed by a group of European banks to introduce a euro-pegged stablecoin later this year is “what we need and that is what we want.”

In other stablecoin news, PYMNTS wrote last week about the implications of recent security incidents such as the North Korea-linked hack that led to losses of up to $280 million.

“The incidents underscore the fact that major stablecoin issuers retain the technical ability to halt transfers of specific tokens, or even eliminate them entirely through what’s termed as ‘burning,’ often in response to regulatory directives, security incidents or compliance concerns,” PYMNTS wrote.

“For CFOs accustomed to the predictability of bank deposits or money market funds, this can introduce a new category of risk: not market risk, but governance risk embedded in code.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending