Stablecoin Push for Bank Charters Intensifies

Paths are being paved for stablecoins to move more fully into mainstream payments, with growing use in cross-border settlements, corporate treasury flows and real-time commerce.

Stablecoin issuers are no longer content to operate as FinTech intermediaries. They are now applying for bank or trust charters and seeking direct access to the Federal Reserve’s core payment system.

Why the Charter Race Is On

As PYMNTS has reported, the GENIUS Act creates U.S. federal framework for “payment stablecoins.” Under the law, only “permitted payment stablecoin issuers” may issue in the U.S. They must maintain full backing in cash or short-term Treasuries, publish monthly reserve disclosures, and are prohibited from paying interest on the coins.

The Act also allows smaller, state-regulated issuers under $10 billion outstanding to operate if the state regime is substantially similar. In effect, the law forces stablecoin issuers into a regulated mold and makes a bank or trust charter a next step for the twin endeavors of legitimacy and scale.

Who Is Applying and Why

Leading examples illustrate the shift. Circle Internet Group, issuer of USDC, applied on June 30 to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A., a national trust bank that would oversee USDC reserves and institutional custody.

Paxos Trust Company followed, with an application to convert its New York Department of Financial Services charter into a national trust charter with the OCC.

Bridge Infrastructure, the stablecoin arm of Stripe, filed for a national trust charter earlier this month.

Together, these filings show that stablecoin issuers are positioning themselves as regulated financial institutions — issuing tokens, managing reserves, and facilitating payments with direct regulatory oversight.

The Services and Accounts They Plan to Offer

Once chartered, a stablecoin issuer bank could consolidate issuance, redemption, custody and reserve management within one institution. Under the GENIUS Act, permitted issuers may issue and redeem payment stablecoins while managing the reserves tied to those stablecoins.

A charter would allow stablecoin issuers to hold their own reserves instead of depending on third-party banks, reducing counterparty risk and giving them tighter control over redemption. Circle said its trust bank would directly oversee its reserve portfolio and offer custody for institutional clients.

With a charter, stablecoin issuers could also serve corporate clients, enable real-time settlement and integrate tokenized dollars into payments and treasury operations, creating a direct link between traditional banking infrastructure and blockchain rails.

The Fed and Master Account Access

Master accounts give banks direct access to the Federal Reserve’s settlement system. The Fed is now considering a “payment-only” or “skinny” version of these accounts for eligible firms. In its October 2025 article, Competition Policy International reported that the Fed is exploring payment accounts that would let nonbank firms, including stablecoin issuers, settle payments directly without access to lending, interest or overdraft privileges.

This would be a significant change. Currently, stablecoin firms depend on partner banks to access Fed settlement systems. A direct, limited-purpose master account could let them hold reserves, settle transactions instantly and operate more efficiently across borders.

Risks of Stablecoins in Bank Accounts

Granting stablecoin issuers charters and system access also introduces traditional banking risks. If users treat stablecoins like insured deposits, redemption pressure could trigger liquidity runs similar to a bank run. Community groups opposing Circle’s application argued that its structure “mimics the depositor-funded demand deposit business” without FDIC insurance, as a July 30 letter to the Comptroller of the Currency contends.

Contagion is another concern. If stablecoin reserves are held in the banking system, stress in one issuer could ripple through its partner banks.

These issues mean stablecoin issuers that become banks will need to meet the same prudential and liquidity expectations as traditional institutions to maintain confidence.