USA TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS Contributed by: Donald J. Mosher, Melissa G. R. Goldstein, Adam J. Barazani and Leel Sinai, McDermott Will & Schulte LLP
Congress continued to advance broader digital asset market structure reform. The Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a bipartisan proposal, would allocate regulatory jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC, establish tailored registration regimes for digi - tal commodity exchanges and intermediaries, and impose robust customer protections. While the bill gained momentum in the House during 2025, its pro - gress in the Senate has slowed, and final enactment may extend into late 2026. At the state level, regulatory fragmentation remains a defining feature of the US digital asset landscape, as we discuss in more detail below. Licensing and Banking Charters for Fintech The concept of a federal fintech charter shifted from theory to practice in 2025, with the OCC approving multiple national bank charters for fintech and digi - tal-asset companies. The approvals demonstrate that non-traditional applicants can meet the initial stand - ards set for traditional financial institutions, obtain FDIC insurance, and access Federal Reserve master accounts. The momentum behind national bank char - ters signals growing regulatory confidence in applying established banking regimes to fintech firms, espe - cially those involved in payments, custody, and set - tlement functions. At the state level, limited-purpose charter regimes continue to complement federal options by offer - ing fintechs tailored banking authorities without the obligations of a full-service commercial bank. Con - necticut and Georgia remain established pathways for wholesale banking and payment processing activities, while Utah’s industrial loan company (ILC) charter has regained momentum by providing FDIC-insured deposit and lending authority without imposing bank holding company status on their parent companies. The FDIC has reinforced the viability of the ILC model by soliciting public comment on its framework for evaluating deposit insurance applications, signal - ling renewed regulatory openness to qualified fintech applicants. A small number of states continue to support digital asset-focused business models through narrowly tai - lored charters, including Wyoming’s Special Purpose
Depository Institution regime, Nebraska’s Financial Innovation Act, and New York’s limited-purpose trust charters. These state-based frameworks are intention - ally limited in scope, aligning specific fintech activities, such as custody, settlement, and stablecoin issuance, with prudential oversight and consumer protection standards rather than replicating the breadth of tradi - tional banking authority. California’s Digital Financial Assets Law will introduce a more prescriptive licens - ing and compliance regime for digital asset business - es operating in the state. Accordingly, while federal initiatives point toward a more predictable supervisory environment, uneven state-level requirements and phased implementation of new federal frameworks will continue to demand continued analysis and flex - ible compliance strategies. Access to the Federal Reserve remains a central issue for fintechs evaluating both federal and state char - ter paths. Full Federal Reserve master accounts are still largely limited to institutions that meet conven - tional supervisory expectations. However, the Federal Reserve is currently soliciting public input on introduc - ing limited-access payment accounts, often referred to as “skinny” master accounts. If adopted, these accounts could permit qualifying chartered fintechs to settle transactions directly with the Federal Reserve under constrained conditions. Fintechs must therefore carefully weigh the potential operational advantages of such future account frameworks against the super - visory obligations that accompany both national and state charters. Bank-Fintech Partnerships Fintechs continued to explore bank partnerships as an alternative to federal or state chartering in 2025, but market participants remained acutely aware of the lessons arising from the 2024 bankruptcy of Synapse Financial Technologies, Inc. Against that backdrop, banks have become increasingly selective in choos - ing fintech partners and more rigorous in accessing the operational, compliance, and consumer protec - tion risks associated with these relationships. Even as the new administration has shifted toward supervi - sion focused on material financial risks (as signalled by Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Bow - man’s “Statement of Supervisory Operating Princi - ples”), banks have continued to raise internal vetting
985 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook