#Fed #Crypto

In previous articles, we mentioned that U.S. financial regulators have always had complicated feelings toward the crypto industry: they worry about risks, but also fear falling behind, and in the end gradually compromise with the development of the crypto sector. This emotional attitude has been reflected in U.S. financial regulatory policy. Over the past few years, American financial regulation has repeatedly swung between relaxation and strict control, then gradually loosened. Since 2024, major institutions in the U.S. have gradually begun to “accept” the crypto industry.

Recently, the Federal Reserve officially announced the cancellation of the “Novel Activities Supervision Program,” reintegrating the supervision of banks’ crypto and fintech-related businesses back into the standard regulatory process. This news has undoubtedly stirred up no small wave in the crypto community.

On the surface, this is just an adjustment to the regulatory framework. But when interpreted in the broader environment, it reveals several important signals: first, a clear softening of regulators’ attitude; second, an easing of tensions between crypto firms and banks; third, a repositioning of the U.S. financial system regarding crypto. Today, let’s analyze from several angles: What does this step by the Federal Reserve mean? What opportunities and challenges will it bring to the crypto market? And where might it lead in the future?

To understand this change, we first need to look back at the background of this regulatory program.

In 2023, the U.S. banking crisis erupted: Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), Silvergate Bank, and Signature Bank all collapsed in succession — and these just happened to be banks closely connected with the crypto industry. At that time, suspicion toward the crypto sector within the financial system reached its peak. In order to prevent “innovation risks” from triggering systemic problems, the Federal Reserve urgently set up the so-called “Novel Activities Supervision Program,” aimed at applying extra scrutiny to banks engaged in crypto, blockchain, and fintech businesses.

To put it bluntly, this program functioned more like a “firewall.” It did not directly prohibit banks from participating in crypto-related business, but it dramatically raised compliance costs. For many banks considering entering crypto, simply dealing with approvals and compliance discussions consumed massive resources — some even chose to give up altogether. Thus, this became one of the most common complaints from crypto firms: U.S. regulators did not outright ban, but “persuaded banks to quit” through cumbersome processes.

Now, the Fed has suddenly announced the cancellation of this program, returning crypto supervision to the standard process. Behind this lie at least three layers of logic:

In the past, regulators considered crypto a “black box”: they did not understand how risks transmitted, nor the industry’s logic, so they could only apply “special treatment.” But after more than a year of research and observation, the Fed gradually realized that crypto businesses are not a monstrous flood — their risks can be managed using conventional regulatory tools.

Since Trump took office, the policy direction has clearly changed. He has repeatedly released pro-crypto signals, emphasizing that the U.S. should become a “crypto innovation center.” Against this backdrop, the Fed’s move is undoubtedly aligned with broader policy, a kind of policy echo.

As the crypto industry continues to grow, if traditional banks are kept permanently outside, they will lose market opportunities. Many banks can find new profit growth points in custody, payment settlement, and cross-border services through crypto businesses. The Fed’s “loosening” is, in a sense, giving banks breathing room.

For the banking sector, these changes are very direct. Previously, many U.S. banks kept their distance from crypto clients, fearing that involvement would make them a key target of regulatory scrutiny. But now, with the special supervision program gone, banks can handle crypto-related business under conventional risk management processes. In other words, as long as basic requirements like AML (anti-money laundering), KYC (know your customer), and consumer protection are met, banks can fully decide for themselves whether to offer services.

This means that in the future, more banks will reconsider providing accounts, payments, and custody services to crypto firms. For the crypto industry, this is a long-awaited positive, because “opening a bank account” has been one of their biggest pain points in recent years.

For the crypto sector, this does not mean regulation is completely lifted, but it does mean the compliance path is clearer.

In the past, firms often complained about policy ambiguity: Can we do this? What approvals are required? When might we be shut down? This uncertainty forced many projects to take detours, or even move headquarters to Europe or Asia. Particularly in the U.S., despite having the world’s largest pool of capital and users, regulatory vagueness was always a headache — you might open a bank account one day, only to be told by the compliance department the next day that it’s “frozen.” Such cases have been all too common in the crypto industry.

Now things are different. With the Fed, OCC, and FDIC all expressing a unified stance, banks can decide on crypto business within the existing regulatory framework. This means crypto firms can cooperate more openly and directly with banks, lowering compliance costs and reducing uncertainty. For example, previously, a crypto company seeking custody services had to repeatedly explain its business logic, prove compliance ability, and even wait for implicit “permission” from regulators. Now, banks can make the decision themselves, based on their own risk control systems. This directly improves efficiency and reduces anxiety for firms operating in the “policy gray zone.”

From a long-term perspective, this certainty will bring two clear changes:

Institutional and traditional investors have been cautious about crypto largely because of fears of sudden regulatory shifts leading to stranded assets or exposed legal risks. The regulators’ “unified tone” now provides the market with a signal: there is a path to compliance, and as long as you follow the framework, you won’t suddenly “step on a landmine.” For traditional funds, hedge funds, and even pension funds, this is a huge positive.

In recent years, many crypto projects operated in gray areas to avoid regulation, or focused on overseas markets, which limited their growth. With clearer compliance environments, projects can put more energy into product innovation and user experience, instead of “how to bypass compliance.” This not only improves overall market transparency, but also gives users a stronger sense of security. After all, retail investors’ greatest fear is project fraud or frozen funds — these risks will decrease as compliance improves.

What’s more notable is that this compliance shift will not only affect the U.S. but could trigger global policy linkage. The U.S. has always been at the core of the global financial system; if even U.S. regulators begin “drawing boundaries” for crypto, major financial centers in Europe and Asia are likely to follow suit, issuing clearer policy frameworks. This would create a chain reaction: compliance becomes the “new standard” for the industry, rather than a “choice for a few projects.” From this perspective, this is not just a U.S. market positive, but a sign that the global crypto industry is maturing.

In short, the era of policy ambiguity is fading. Compliance clarity will bring the crypto industry into a phase of “equal dialogue with traditional finance.” For project teams, this means fewer worries; for institutional investors, this means greater certainty; and for the whole industry, this marks the turning point from wild growth to institutionalization and scaling.

A core precondition for institutional investors entering the crypto market is reliable banking and custody services. As banks open up, crypto funds, family offices, and even pension funds will be more confident in allocating digital assets.

Banks re-engaging in crypto payments and cross-border transfers will make digital asset use in everyday payments and settlement more widespread. For stablecoins, this is undoubtedly a massive positive.

Bank-crypto partnerships may expand beyond accounts and payments into derivatives, loans, and collateral products. This would push crypto financialization to a new level.

Overall, the Fed’s cancellation of the special supervision program is a form of “compromise with the market” between regulation and innovation. It acknowledges the importance of crypto business, while attempting to bring its risks under conventional frameworks. In the coming years, three trends are worth close attention:

• Cooperation between banks and crypto firms will increase rapidly, especially in custody, payments, and stablecoins.

• Compliance will accelerate as the main theme, the era of wild growth will fade, and the survivors will be those willing to embrace regulation.

• Policy swings will still exist, and the industry must remain flexible, avoiding overreliance on a single market.

The Federal Reserve’s cancellation of the “crypto special supervision program” is both a reassessment of the crypto industry by the U.S. financial system and a new milestone for the entire industry’s development. For banks, it is a chance to re-enter the crypto track; for crypto firms, it is a turning point in reducing compliance uncertainty; for the market, it is a signal of further institutional inflows.

But we cannot be overly optimistic. Regulation will never fully let go, and risk events could always alter policy trajectories. What is certain is that the relationship between crypto and traditional finance will only grow closer. And in the future, the competition will not just be about technology and business models — but also about mastering and adapting to the regulatory environment.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

#Fed #Crypto

In previous articles, we mentioned that U.S. financial regulators have always had complicated feelings toward the crypto industry: they worry about risks, but also fear falling behind, and in the end gradually compromise with the development of the crypto sector. This emotional attitude has been reflected in U.S. financial regulatory policy. Over the past few years, American financial regulation has repeatedly swung between relaxation and strict control, then gradually loosened. Since 2024, major institutions in the U.S. have gradually begun to “accept” the crypto industry.

Recently, the Federal Reserve officially announced the cancellation of the “Novel Activities Supervision Program,” reintegrating the supervision of banks’ crypto and fintech-related businesses back into the standard regulatory process. This news has undoubtedly stirred up no small wave in the crypto community.

On the surface, this is just an adjustment to the regulatory framework. But when interpreted in the broader environment, it reveals several important signals: first, a clear softening of regulators’ attitude; second, an easing of tensions between crypto firms and banks; third, a repositioning of the U.S. financial system regarding crypto. Today, let’s analyze from several angles: What does this step by the Federal Reserve mean? What opportunities and challenges will it bring to the crypto market? And where might it lead in the future?

To understand this change, we first need to look back at the background of this regulatory program.

In 2023, the U.S. banking crisis erupted: Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), Silvergate Bank, and Signature Bank all collapsed in succession — and these just happened to be banks closely connected with the crypto industry. At that time, suspicion toward the crypto sector within the financial system reached its peak. In order to prevent “innovation risks” from triggering systemic problems, the Federal Reserve urgently set up the so-called “Novel Activities Supervision Program,” aimed at applying extra scrutiny to banks engaged in crypto, blockchain, and fintech businesses.

To put it bluntly, this program functioned more like a “firewall.” It did not directly prohibit banks from participating in crypto-related business, but it dramatically raised compliance costs. For many banks considering entering crypto, simply dealing with approvals and compliance discussions consumed massive resources — some even chose to give up altogether. Thus, this became one of the most common complaints from crypto firms: U.S. regulators did not outright ban, but “persuaded banks to quit” through cumbersome processes.

Now, the Fed has suddenly announced the cancellation of this program, returning crypto supervision to the standard process. Behind this lie at least three layers of logic:

In the past, regulators considered crypto a “black box”: they did not understand how risks transmitted, nor the industry’s logic, so they could only apply “special treatment.” But after more than a year of research and observation, the Fed gradually realized that crypto businesses are not a monstrous flood — their risks can be managed using conventional regulatory tools.

Since Trump took office, the policy direction has clearly changed. He has repeatedly released pro-crypto signals, emphasizing that the U.S. should become a “crypto innovation center.” Against this backdrop, the Fed’s move is undoubtedly aligned with broader policy, a kind of policy echo.

As the crypto industry continues to grow, if traditional banks are kept permanently outside, they will lose market opportunities. Many banks can find new profit growth points in custody, payment settlement, and cross-border services through crypto businesses. The Fed’s “loosening” is, in a sense, giving banks breathing room.

For the banking sector, these changes are very direct. Previously, many U.S. banks kept their distance from crypto clients, fearing that involvement would make them a key target of regulatory scrutiny. But now, with the special supervision program gone, banks can handle crypto-related business under conventional risk management processes. In other words, as long as basic requirements like AML (anti-money laundering), KYC (know your customer), and consumer protection are met, banks can fully decide for themselves whether to offer services.

This means that in the future, more banks will reconsider providing accounts, payments, and custody services to crypto firms. For the crypto industry, this is a long-awaited positive, because “opening a bank account” has been one of their biggest pain points in recent years.

For the crypto sector, this does not mean regulation is completely lifted, but it does mean the compliance path is clearer.

In the past, firms often complained about policy ambiguity: Can we do this? What approvals are required? When might we be shut down? This uncertainty forced many projects to take detours, or even move headquarters to Europe or Asia. Particularly in the U.S., despite having the world’s largest pool of capital and users, regulatory vagueness was always a headache — you might open a bank account one day, only to be told by the compliance department the next day that it’s “frozen.” Such cases have been all too common in the crypto industry.

Now things are different. With the Fed, OCC, and FDIC all expressing a unified stance, banks can decide on crypto business within the existing regulatory framework. This means crypto firms can cooperate more openly and directly with banks, lowering compliance costs and reducing uncertainty. For example, previously, a crypto company seeking custody services had to repeatedly explain its business logic, prove compliance ability, and even wait for implicit “permission” from regulators. Now, banks can make the decision themselves, based on their own risk control systems. This directly improves efficiency and reduces anxiety for firms operating in the “policy gray zone.”

From a long-term perspective, this certainty will bring two clear changes:

Institutional and traditional investors have been cautious about crypto largely because of fears of sudden regulatory shifts leading to stranded assets or exposed legal risks. The regulators’ “unified tone” now provides the market with a signal: there is a path to compliance, and as long as you follow the framework, you won’t suddenly “step on a landmine.” For traditional funds, hedge funds, and even pension funds, this is a huge positive.

In recent years, many crypto projects operated in gray areas to avoid regulation, or focused on overseas markets, which limited their growth. With clearer compliance environments, projects can put more energy into product innovation and user experience, instead of “how to bypass compliance.” This not only improves overall market transparency, but also gives users a stronger sense of security. After all, retail investors’ greatest fear is project fraud or frozen funds — these risks will decrease as compliance improves.

What’s more notable is that this compliance shift will not only affect the U.S. but could trigger global policy linkage. The U.S. has always been at the core of the global financial system; if even U.S. regulators begin “drawing boundaries” for crypto, major financial centers in Europe and Asia are likely to follow suit, issuing clearer policy frameworks. This would create a chain reaction: compliance becomes the “new standard” for the industry, rather than a “choice for a few projects.” From this perspective, this is not just a U.S. market positive, but a sign that the global crypto industry is maturing.

In short, the era of policy ambiguity is fading. Compliance clarity will bring the crypto industry into a phase of “equal dialogue with traditional finance.” For project teams, this means fewer worries; for institutional investors, this means greater certainty; and for the whole industry, this marks the turning point from wild growth to institutionalization and scaling.

A core precondition for institutional investors entering the crypto market is reliable banking and custody services. As banks open up, crypto funds, family offices, and even pension funds will be more confident in allocating digital assets.

Banks re-engaging in crypto payments and cross-border transfers will make digital asset use in everyday payments and settlement more widespread. For stablecoins, this is undoubtedly a massive positive.

Bank-crypto partnerships may expand beyond accounts and payments into derivatives, loans, and collateral products. This would push crypto financialization to a new level.

Overall, the Fed’s cancellation of the special supervision program is a form of “compromise with the market” between regulation and innovation. It acknowledges the importance of crypto business, while attempting to bring its risks under conventional frameworks. In the coming years, three trends are worth close attention:

• Cooperation between banks and crypto firms will increase rapidly, especially in custody, payments, and stablecoins.

• Compliance will accelerate as the main theme, the era of wild growth will fade, and the survivors will be those willing to embrace regulation.

• Policy swings will still exist, and the industry must remain flexible, avoiding overreliance on a single market.

The Federal Reserve’s cancellation of the “crypto special supervision program” is both a reassessment of the crypto industry by the U.S. financial system and a new milestone for the entire industry’s development. For banks, it is a chance to re-enter the crypto track; for crypto firms, it is a turning point in reducing compliance uncertainty; for the market, it is a signal of further institutional inflows.

But we cannot be overly optimistic. Regulation will never fully let go, and risk events could always alter policy trajectories. What is certain is that the relationship between crypto and traditional finance will only grow closer. And in the future, the competition will not just be about technology and business models — but also about mastering and adapting to the regulatory environment.

Press enter or click to view image in full size