2025-12-30 05:26:41

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency recently issued an interpretive letter, sending a clear signal to national banks: engaging in risk-free transactions involving crypto assets is a legitimate banking activity.

What does this mean? Let’s see what industry insiders say. Jake, head of Wintermute OTC, pointed out a key detail—the role of banks in these types of transactions is actually quite limited. Banks buy crypto assets from clients and immediately transfer them to liquidity providers (LPs). Throughout the process, assets only briefly stay with the bank, essentially a momentary technical holding. Banks do not bear any price volatility risk.

Ultimately, this falls within the scope of brokerage services. Banks can facilitate matching, helping buyers and sellers connect, but there is a strict boundary—they cannot hold positions or engage in proprietary trading. This clear boundary is precisely what regulators intend.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

EyeOfTheTokenStorm

· 3h ago

Wait, is this what regulators want? From what I see, banks doing T+0 is pretty much the same logic—earning middleman fees without taking on any risk. But the problem is, can real transactions be done "instantaneously"? Network delays, liquidity gaps, market impacts... these data points never lie.

View OriginalReply0

StakeOrRegret

· 3h ago

I think this is exactly the "gentle" approach that regulators want. Banks are just middlemen, wearing different hats. --- Wait, isn't the term "risk-free" a bit misleading... technically, holding instantly is still holding. --- So, at the end of the day, it's just about preventing banks from making big profits, just taking some fees... a clever approach. --- This boundary is really well drawn, a compromise product, something all parties can accept. --- By the way, are banks really willing to come in and work? The profit margin is so small? --- Theoretically perfect, but in practice, there will definitely be gray areas... I bet five bucks. --- Finally, there's a positive signal. Those guys were still saying banks shouldn't touch crypto before.

View OriginalReply0

FOMOSapien

· 3h ago

Well... it's just acting as an intermediary, with the bank earning fees without taking the blame, regulators are happy, and everyone is pleased.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationWatcher

· 3h ago

Banks do brokerage but not proprietary trading? The line is drawn a bit too thin here. In actual operations, who can really achieve instant transfer?

View OriginalReply0

TokenTaxonomist

· 3h ago

nah wait, so banks are basically just running a glorified order-matching service? that's... actually taxonomically sound, tbh. let me pull up my spreadsheet real quick — the risk layering here is mathematically elegant but statistically speaking, how many institutions actually stick to the no-position rule? data suggests otherwise lol

Reply0