Crypto vs. Banks: The Drama Continues 🙄

Oh, brilliant. So, apparently, Jonathan Gould – who is, let’s be clear, the head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which sounds terribly important and slightly ominous) – thinks crypto companies should be treated just like everyone else. Can you imagine? Like, the same rules for complicated digital… things… as for actual, you know, banks? It’s almost…fair. 🤷‍♀️

He apparently told some blockchain conference (because, of course, he did) that just because someone is offering something “novel” doesn’t mean it’s beyond regulation. Apparently, “custody and safekeeping services have been happening electronically for decades.” Who knew? It’s not like a blockchain is, like, totally different from keeping your money in a dusty old vault. 🙄

“There is simply no justification for considering digital assets differently,” he added, with the air of someone explaining basic physics to a toddler. And, because apparently we need to be reminded of this, he also said we shouldn’t “confine banks…to the technologies or businesses of the past.” As if banks are known for their forward-thinking nature. 😂

Currently, only two crypto banks are actually OCC-licensed (Anchorage Digital and Erebor – names that sound suspiciously like fictional kingdoms, frankly). Which, given the volatility of crypto, feels like a sensible number.

Crypto “should have” a way to supervision

Gould declared the banking system could evolve “from the telegraph to the blockchain.” Which is a slightly dramatic comparison, I feel. It’s not like crypto is saving the postal service or anything. 🙄 There were 14 applications for new banks this year, including some from these “novel/digital asset” types, which is almost as many as the last four years combined. Suddenly everyone is an expert in digital assets, aren’t they?

Apparently “chartering helps ensure that the banking system continues to keep pace with the evolution of finance and supports our modern economy.” A bold claim. And he wants these crypto entities to become “federally supervised banks”. Because what could possibly go wrong? 😜

Gould brushes off banks’ concerns

The existing banks, naturally, are not thrilled about the idea of crypto companies waltzing in and disrupting everything. They’ve apparently raised concerns about the OCC’s ability to actually oversee all this. Gould dismissed these concerns as potentially “reversing innovations that would better serve bank customers.” So basically, ignoring the valid concerns of professionals for the sake of “innovation.” Sounds about right. 😒

He also claimed the OCC has “years of experience supervising a crypto-native national trust bank”. Which, let’s be honest, probably feels like a few awkward coffee meetings and a lot of head-scratching. And he’s hearing from “existing national banks” about exciting new products. Like… what? Blockchain-powered loyalty schemes? I’m not sure I’m ready for a banking revolution just yet.

All of this leaves him “confident” in the OCC’s ability to supervise new entrants. Confidence is… interesting.

Legal Panel: Crypto wanted to overthrow banks, now it’s becoming them in stablecoin fight

2025-12-09 05:04

Crypto “should have” a way to supervision

Gould brushes off banks’ concerns

Read More