Ripple has secured final approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish Ripple National Trust Bank, a federally supervised national trust bank. This decision concludes a regulatory process that began with conditional approval in December 2025, which also covered applications from Circle, Paxos, Fidelity Digital Assets, and BitGo.
Upon opening, the new bank will manage the segregated reserves backing Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin, serve as collateral trustee for those reserves on behalf of holders, and provide fiduciary digital asset custody services to enterprise clients. The RLUSD stablecoin, launched in December 2024 with a market capitalization of approximately $2.6 billion, will continue to be issued by Standard Custody & Trust Company, a limited purpose trust company regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services. Consequently, the stablecoin will operate under dual state and federal supervision.
The approval arrives amid significant legal and political challenges to crypto-related banking charters. Senator Elizabeth Warren has argued that approvals for firms including Coinbase and Ripple violate the National Bank Act, describing them as attempts to evade traditional banking safeguards. Additionally, the Independent Community Bankers of America recently sued the OCC, contending that these charters allow crypto firms to bypass capital requirements, consolidated supervision, and FDIC insurance. Despite these controversies, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse emphasized that the approval demonstrates how crypto and banks can work together within the existing financial system.
This development marks a critical step in the institutionalization of cryptocurrency infrastructure within the U.S. banking framework. By securing a national trust charter, Ripple moves beyond operating solely through state-regulated entities, gaining direct federal oversight for its reserve management and custody operations. This dual-supervision model for RLUSD enhances credibility among enterprise clients who may require stricter regulatory assurances than state-level licenses alone provide. It signals that major crypto firms are successfully navigating complex regulatory pathways to integrate deeply with traditional finance rather than operating parallel to it.
However, the achievement is tempered by ongoing legal and political resistance. The lawsuits filed by community bankers and criticisms from prominent legislators like Senator Warren highlight a persistent tension between innovation-driven charters and traditional banking protections. These challenges question whether such trusts truly adhere to the spirit of the National Bank Act or exploit loopholes to avoid standard prudential regulations. For the broader market, this means that while operational capabilities expand, the regulatory environment remains unstable. Future compliance costs and potential litigation outcomes could significantly impact the viability and structure of similar crypto-banking hybrids.
