US banking regulators, comprising the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), have released a joint statement setting out expectations for banks dealing with digital asset custody.
This announcement underscores that the guidance is based on existing regulations and not new policy directives. The seven-page document delves into critical operational demands for banks providing crypto custody services, stressing the necessity of secure management of cryptographic keys to meet current legal and regulatory standards. It also covers areas such as anti-money laundering compliance, audit readiness, risk management, and technical proficiency.
Regulatory Clarity Amid Policy Shifts
The recent release of this guidance reflects a shift in the regulatory landscape. Previously, US banking regulators had issued guidelines discouraging financial institutions from participating in cryptocurrency businesses. However, this position has softened, with recent statements aimed at providing clarity rather than setting new restrictions.
Representatives from these agencies have stated that the guidance is intended to clarify how current supervisory frameworks apply to crypto custody activities and should not be interpreted as introducing new rules or expectations. This timing aligns with ‘Crypto Week’ in the US House of Representatives, a period during which lawmakers are examining various pieces of legislation aimed at shaping a clearer regulatory framework for digital assets.
Stablecoins and the GENIUS Act
In June 2025, the US Senate approved the GENIUS Act, which establishes a federal regulatory structure for stablecoins. This bill was supported by eighteen Democrats and opposed by two Republicans before moving forward to the House of Representatives.
A pivotal aspect of the GENIUS Act is its aim to regulate an area of the cryptocurrency sector that has seen significant growth but has largely remained unregulated. Despite bipartisan agreement on the need for oversight, political differences have slowed legislative progress.
