加密貨幣與銀行的橋樑：加密公司爭取發牌的原因及其意義

加密公司現時愈來愈多尋求傳統銀行發牌和執照——行業分析師形容為「打不過就加入」。他們不願再停留在邊緣位置，反而志在成為受規管的銀行或準銀行。這個趨勢由支付基建接入、加強信任與信譽，以及拓展新金融產品的能力所推動。

針對穩定幣（美國、歐盟、香港等）的新法規，要求發行人達到銀行級標準，使穩定幣公司須邁向銀行化。總括而言，獲取銀行牌照代表加密企業可按自己方式融入傳統金融系統。

以下將詳述此趨勢的動機、相關牌照種類、全球發展、龍頭公司個案、監管因素，以及對用戶和市場的利弊。

加密公司為何積極申請銀行牌照

加密公司長期面對銀行接入困難。傳統銀行因為反洗黑錢疑慮和政策不明，對服務加密公司一直保持審慎。獲取合規銀行地位可解決這些問題。主要誘因有：

• 支付基建與法幣入出金： 取得銀行牌照後，加密公司能直達如Fedwire、ACH及代理銀行等金融系統。有業界顧問指出，銀行執照「讓加密公司控制自己的入出金渠道，無須經第三方銀行」。這樣他們能更快捷、穩定地處理法幣資金。例如Kraken Bank（懷俄明SPDI銀行）便計劃提供美元存款賬戶及電匯服務並與交易所結合，方便法幣無縫入金。反觀沒有銀行牌照時，加密公司往往要依賴第三方銀行或支付商，而這些機構有時會對加密客戶「發警號」甚至封鎖交易。
• 信任與信譽： 持有銀行執照代表受監管及安全性更高。有了銀行發牌，「將提升公司的信任感」，讓加密企業可在監管下開展存款及放貸。用戶與合作夥伴對有規管者觀感較佳。Circle行政總裁Jeremy Allaire曾表示，成為全國信託公司正是追求「最高信任、透明度、合規」的一部分。銀行監管亦要求有資本規範、審計及嚴謹控管——更能安撫機構客戶。
• 推出新產品及服務： 透過銀行執照，加密公司可推主流金融產品。譬如Kraken Bank憑牌照可提供加密託管及全額儲備美元賬戶、發行借記卡、利息戶口及發展代幣化資產。Circle建議中的信託銀行，可管理USDC儲備並託管用戶代幣，甚至計劃向代幣化證券擴展。獲銀行牌照即等於可以把交易所、託管、支付及錢包服務一站式整合，不用靠外判合作。
• 符合法規與穩定幣新法： 新立法亦是主因之一。在美國，例如STABLE Act和GENIUS Act要求穩定幣必須由銀行或其附屬機構發行並全額抵押。歐盟MiCA框架把穩定幣定義為電子貨幣代幣（EMT），需獲電子貨幣機構執照。香港預定的新穩定幣條例則要求必須持有金管局發牌。面對這些規定，Ripple、Circle等穩定幣發行商率先申請銀行牌照，確保能合法經營。總的來說，「銀行化」對應新監管，是合規与業務增長雙重策略。

以上多重因素令銀行執照極具吸引力。正如一位區塊鏈高管指出，經歷多年爭議後，加密公司「主流化」的方式之一就是接受與銀行同級監管，同時開拓新客戶及產品，也需承擔銀行責任。

加密公司熱門銀行及金融牌照種類

加密公司現時可走多種監管路線，各有特色及規限，主要分為：

• 傳統商業銀行牌照（完整銀行執照）： 這是傳統銀行的標準之選，可開展存款、放貸與支付等全部銀行業務。獲得全牌難度最高，但可全權經營銀行業。不少加密初創選擇此路。如瑞士Sygnum及SEBA於2019年分別獲得FINMA頒發的完整銀行及證券經紀牌照。這些瑞士加密銀行能如一般銀行般辦理放貸、託管及支付服務。不過，大多國家暫無專設「加密銀行」類別——通常是沿用現有銀行或金融牌照。
• 懷俄明SPDI（特定用途託管銀行）牌照： 這是美國懷俄明州獨有，專為加密資產設計。SPDI是州政府註冊銀行，主力託管及存款，不參與放貸，必須全儲備，且不受FDIC保障。例如Kraken Bank可開設加密託管賬戶、美元存款賬戶及支付，但不能以存款去放貸。設計上，SPDI如金融避風港：受州監管，但本金不會因放貸倒閉。（Kraken亦曾表明，即使全客戶同時提款，亦可100%即時兌現。）然而，由於沒FDIC保險，存戶需自行承擔風險。
• 全國信託銀行（OCC信託牌照）： 美國貨幣監理署（OCC）可簽發全國性銀行信託牌照。信託銀行可託管資產、結算及管理備付金，通常不能經營即期存款或放貸。Anchorage Digital（加密託管商）2021年成為首家獲OCC信託銀行資格的加密企業。Circle也正申請同類牌照，以管理USDC儲備。信託銀行有高於SPDI的監管標準；而通過OCC牌照的機構，一經核准可接入銀行結算（如FedMaster賬戶）。注意：在美國，信託銀行如接受保險存款，則同樣受FDIC保障（但大多數加密信託銀行計劃並不接受存款）。
• 電子貨幣機構（EMI）牌照： 歐盟MiCA下，與法定貨幣掛鉤的穩定幣歸類為電子貨幣代幣（EMT），發行人須獲歐盟成員國EMI牌照。相等於金融科技公司為預付電子貨幣（如PayPal）申領之牌照，不同的是應用於加密資產。例如Circle於2023年在法國取得EMI牌照，為歐元穩定幣提供服務。EMI可發行可1:1兌換法幣的電子貨幣，通常不能自動提供加密託管功能，需結合其他數碼資產許可。條件包括100%儲備、資金保障及受金融機構監管。
• 虛擬資產服務提供商（VASP）/ 匯款牌照： 多國針對加密交易所、託管及錢包制定此類牌照（例如歐盟MiCA的VASP，美國各州匯款牌照，新加坡支付服務執照等），可辦理加密買賣及轉賬，但不帶銀行權限。加密公司通常持有多地VASP牌照，例如同時擁有歐盟VASP、美國匯款商及信託銀行牌照等，應對不同規限。VASP多要求KYC/AML合規，專注經紀／託管層面，而非存款。成為銀行後，公司仍會維持交易所相關執照，以覆蓋現貨及區塊鏈交易，根據各地監管要求運作。
• 其他數碼銀行/金融科技牌照： 某些地區如新加坡設有數碼銀行全牌（面向本地零售）及支付機構執照，英國金融行為監管局提供電子貨幣牌照處理加密支付。這類牌照多偏重數碼支付或放貸，並視乎本地政策決定能否整合加密業務。不過，美國及歐盟現時主流仍以上面商業銀行、SPDI、信託銀行及EMI等型式為主，未有專門加密金融科技類牌照。

各類型牌照各有取捨：SPDI及信託類側重數碼資產，業務範圍有限；全牌銀行則操作最廣，但對資本和合規要求最嚴。很多加密公司會根據主打產品選擇適合牌照（例如穩定幣發行商多傾向申請信託或EMI以管理儲備）。

全球發展及監管環境

加密銀行現象屬全球趨勢，不同地區進度各異：

• 美國： U.S. has been at the forefront of crypto bank charters. Wyoming’s crypto-friendly laws produced the SPDI model, first used by Kraken Bank and now by others like Custodia. Federally, the OCC under recent leadership has signaled openness: it eliminated previous restrictions (no-objection letters) and granted a charter to Anchorage Digital. Media reports in 2025 confirm that stablecoin issuers Ripple and Circle have applied for OCC charters, and Coinbase says it is “actively considering” a federal bank charter. These moves coincide with U.S. legislation: Congress is advancing stablecoin bills (STABLE Act, GENIUS Act) that would require issuers to be regulated by federal or state banking entities. Importantly, the Federal Reserve recently told its regional banks to drop “reputational risk” as a criterion for granting master accounts, which many saw as a green light for crypto firms to access Fed services. Still, some hurdles remain: Custodia Bank’s Fed master account application was denied in Jan 2023 on safety grounds, and AML concerns continue to loom.

美國一直處於加密銀行牌照發展的前線。懷俄明州的加密友好法律催生了SPDI（特殊目的存款機構）模式，最初由Kraken Bank採用，現時亦有像Custodia這樣的機構跟隨。在聯邦層面，OCC（貨幣監理署）近年展現出開放態度：取消了舊有的不反對函政策，並向Anchorage Digital發出了銀行牌照。2025年媒體報導確認，穩定幣發行商Ripple和Circle已向OCC申請銀行牌照，而Coinbase則表示正「積極考慮」申請聯邦銀行牌照。這些動向配合了美國國會正在推進的立法：國會正審議穩定幣法案（STABLE Act、GENIUS Act），要求發行商須受聯邦或州銀行實體監管。值得留意的是，美國聯邦儲備局最近指示其轄下地區銀行，撤銷以「聲譽風險」作為批出主帳戶的審批標準，很多人視此為加密公司獲准接觸聯儲服務的綠燈。不過障礙依然存在：Custodia Bank於2023年1月因安全理由被拒絕其聯儲主帳戶申請，而反洗錢（AML）疑慮亦仍然存在。

• Europe (EU & UK): Europe’s regulatory regime is crystallizing under MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets). MiCA requires issuers of stablecoins (called Asset-Referenced Tokens or Electronic Money Tokens) to obtain an e-money license from an EU member state; for example, Circle took an EMI license in France for its Euro stablecoins. MiCA also demands 100% backing and public disclosures for stablecoins. In practice, major crypto firms want to be compliant: Kraken Ireland received a full EU VASP license to serve EU markets under MiCA. Traditional banks in Europe are also entering the stablecoin space – a Cointelegraph article notes that after initial reluctance, several European banks have applied to issue their own stablecoins. The UK (post-Brexit) is treating stablecoins as e-money under FCA guidance, meaning issuers will also need FCA authorization. While the ECB and Eurozone banks have been cautious on CBDCs, Europe broadly is preparing for crypto integration. Regulatory focus remains on stablecoins and AML rules (the ECB continues warnings on crypto liquidity and fraud).

歐洲（歐盟及英國）： 歐洲的監管框架正隨著MiCA（加密資產市場規例）成形。MiCA要求穩定幣（稱為「資產參照代幣」或「電子貨幣代幣」）發行商必須向歐盟成員國取得電子貨幣機構（EMI）牌照；例如Circle在法國取得了EMI牌照以發行歐元穩定幣。MiCA同時規定穩定幣需有100%儲備支持及進行公開披露。實際上，主流加密公司都希望符合法規：Kraken愛爾蘭已獲發全歐盟VASP（虛擬資產服務提供者）牌照來服務歐盟市場。傳統歐洲銀行亦開始涉足穩定幣領域——據Cointelegraph報導，早期觀望後，多間歐洲銀行現已申請發行自家穩定幣。英國（脫歐後）則按照FCA指引將穩定幣視為電子貨幣，意味發行商亦需獲FCA授權。雖然歐洲央行（ECB）及歐元區銀行對CBDC持審慎態度，歐洲整體正積極為加密資產融合作準備。監管重點仍放於穩定幣及反洗錢規則（ECB續就加密資金流動性及詐騙發出警告）。

• Switzerland: Switzerland has actively courted crypto finance. In 2019 FINMA granted the country’s first full “crypto bank” licenses: SEBA Bank and Sygnum Bank (both now rebranded under Swiss law). These banks offer services from token custody to brokerage and asset management for digital assets, under the same supervisory regime as any Swiss bank. FINMA imposed strict AML measures – for example, requiring that token transfers be traceable with sender/recipient info. In 2025 Swiss crypto banks remain innovative: AMINA Bank (a spin-off of SEBA) became the first regulated bank globally to support Ripple’s new RLUSD stablecoin, offering custody and trading of the token for institutional clients. Swiss authorities have also approved CHF-backed stablecoins and tokenized assets in pilot programs, cementing the country’s image as a digital finance hub.

瑞士： 瑞士一直積極打造其加密金融地位。2019年，FINMA（瑞士金融市場監管局）首次批出完整「加密銀行」牌照，給予SEBA Bank和Sygnum Bank（現均依瑞士法律重塑品牌）。這些銀行為客戶提供從代幣託管、經紀業務到資產管理等各類數碼資產服務，受與傳統瑞士銀行同等的監管。FINMA訂下嚴格反洗錢規範——例如要求代幣轉移時必須包含發/收款人資料以供追蹤。2025年，瑞士加密銀行持續創新：AMINA Bank（由SEBA分拆而成）成為全球首家受規管銀行支持Ripple新推出的RLUSD穩定幣，為機構客戶提供託管及買賣服務。瑞士主管機關亦批出瑞郎支持的穩定幣及資產代幣化試點計劃，鞏固瑞士數碼金融樞紐地位。

• Asia (Hong Kong & Singapore): Hong Kong and Singapore are emerging as crypto gateways in Asia. Hong Kong has overhauled its rules: in mid-2023 it began licensing virtual asset trading platforms (VASP regime), and in 2025 passed a Stablecoins Bill requiring fiat-backed stablecoins to obtain a license from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. The HKMA will set stringent rules on reserves, operations and consumer protection, essentially creating a “central bank-approved” stablecoin class. This reflects a pro-innovation stance – regulators differentiate stablecoins from CBDCs to foster digital assets alongside Hong Kong’s financial markets. In Singapore, regulators have also been active: MAS released a stablecoin framework (late 2022) demanding 100% high-quality reserves and disallowing certain yields. Singapore granted four digital bank licenses in 2020 (to non-crypto firms like Grab/Sea/Ant), but is not issuing new ones currently; instead, Singapore crypto firms typically operate under Major Payment Institution licenses for digital payment tokens. Overall, both HK and Singapore emphasize stability and compliance (full reserves, audits) for crypto assets, making licenses harder to get but more credible once obtained.

亞洲（香港及新加坡）： 香港及新加坡正逐漸成為亞洲加密資產的重要樞紐。香港已大刀闊斧改革監管：2023年中實施虛擬資產交易平台（VASP）發牌制，並於2025年通過＊穩定幣條例＊，要求所有法定貨幣支持的穩定幣必須獲香港金融管理局牌照。金管局將設下嚴格的儲備、營運及消費者保障要求，實質上創立了「央行認可」的穩定幣分級。這突顯監管機構支持創新之立場：當局明確區分穩定幣及央行數碼貨幣（CBDC），以配合香港金融市場推動數碼資產發展。新加坡方面，監管當局同樣積極：金管局（MAS）於2022年底制訂穩定幣監管框架，規定100%高質量儲備，並禁止某些收益型產品。新加坡2020年批出四個數碼銀行牌照（主要給Grab、Sea、螞蟻等非加密企業），現時暫停發新牌；加密公司多以主要支付機構（Major Payment Institution）數碼支付代幣牌照運作。總體而言，港、新兩地重視加密資產之穩定性與合規（全面儲備、審計），雖然發牌難度高，但一旦取得認受性大增。

• Middle East (UAE, etc.): The UAE has created multiple crypto-friendly zones. Regulators like the Dubai Virtual Asset Regulator (VARA) and Abu Dhabi’s ADGM (FSRA) license crypto exchanges and asset managers under clear rules. The UAE is also encouraging digital banking innovation. Notably, Dubai’s Ruya Bank launched as the world’s first Islamic digital bank offering Shariah-compliant crypto trading. While most licensers focus on crypto brokerage, a few fintech players (like Adadash) are pursuing crypto-bank hybrids. The UAE’s approach balances rapid adoption with stringent supervision – for instance, all crypto tokens are regulated under a payments law. Other Middle Eastern centers (e.g. Bahrain) have also issued crypto licenses. Overall, the region sees crypto finance as a growth sector, though the concept of crypto banks is still nascent compared to Western models.

中東（阿聯酋等）： 阿聯酋（UAE）已設立多個加密友好特區。監管機構如杜拜虛擬資產管理局（VARA）及阿布扎比的ADGM（FSRA）均有明確規則，為加密資產交易所以及資產管理人發牌。阿聯酋亦積極推動數碼銀行創新。其中，杜拜Ruya Bank開創全球首家符合伊斯蘭教法之數碼銀行，並提供可合規交易的加密資產。雖然大部分持牌專注於加密券商業務，部分金融科技企業（如Adadash）則發展混合型加密銀行。阿聯酋強調加快採納同時嚴格監管——例如所有加密代幣均納入支付法例監管。中東其他地區（如巴林）亦有發放加密牌照。總體而言，當地視加密金融為新興增長領域，惟相比西方，加密銀行概念仍處於起步階段。

In summary, crypto banking charters are spreading worldwide. In each jurisdiction, firms tailor their strategy to local rules – obtaining a Wyoming SPDI in the U.S., an OCC charter, an EU EMI license, or a FINMA crypto banking license – all with the goal of legalizing their core crypto services.

總結而言，加密銀行牌照正於全球各地擴展。各地公司會根據當地規則自行調整策略——在美國申請牌懷俄明SPDI、OCC銀行牌照、在歐盟申請EMI牌照、或於瑞士取FINMA加密銀行牌照——共同目標均為將核心加密業務合法化。

Case Studies of Crypto Companies Becoming Banks

Below are examples of notable crypto firms (or related entities) pursuing or obtaining bank-like licenses:

以下為值得留意的加密公司（或相關企業）尋求或已取得類似銀行牌照的實例：

• Kraken Bank (Wyoming SPDI): In 2020, Kraken was the first major crypto exchange to win approval for a Wyoming Special Purpose Depository Institution charter. Kraken’s blog explains that as an SPDI it will maintain 100% fiat reserves and offer USD deposit accounts, crypto custody, wire transfers and other banking services to its clients. Kraken emphasizes that the SPDI lets it act as a “digital-asset bank”, bridging crypto with traditional finance. (Kraken Bank will be regulated by Wyoming’s Division of Banking, with ongoing audits, but – like all SPDIs – will not be FDIC-insured.)

Kraken Bank（懷俄明SPDI）： 2020年，Kraken成為首間獲懷俄明州批出「特殊目的存款機構」(SPDI)牌照的大型加密交易所。Kraken於其官方博客解釋，作為SPDI其將持有100%法幣儲備，並為客戶提供美元存款帳戶、加密資產託管、電匯及各項銀行服務。Kraken強調，取得SPDI可令其發揮「數碼資產銀行」角色，連繫傳統金融及加密世界。（Kraken Bank將由懷俄明州銀行監管處監管，持續審計；但如大多數SPDI一樣，不受FDIC存款保險保障。）

• Custodia Bank (Wyoming SPDI): Custodia is another Wyoming-chartered SPDI intended as a stablecoin bank. In late 2022 it applied for a master account at the Federal Reserve (to connect to payment systems). However, in January 2023 the Fed publicly denied Custodia’s application. The Board cited Custodia’s “novel business model” and crypto focus as posing “significant safety and soundness risks”. In particular, Custodia’s plan to issue digital assets on decentralized networks was deemed inconsistent with safe banking practices. The Custodia episode illustrates that not all regulators share the crypto-friendly approach; although a state SPDI was granted, federal backing remains a barrier. (Custodia has indicated it will continue pursuing Fed membership under revised criteria.)

Custodia Bank（懷俄明SPDI）： Custodia亦是一家懷俄明州註冊、定位為穩定幣銀行的SPDI。2022年底其申請了聯邦儲備主帳戶（以接駁支付系統）。但2023年1月聯儲局公開拒絕其申請。董事會指出Custodia以「新穎業務模式」和聚焦加密資產，構成「重大安全與審慎風險」。特別是其計畫在去中心化網絡上發行數碼資產，被認為不符合安全銀行常規。此事反映並非所有監管機構都支持加密友好模式，儘管州級SPDI已批准，但聯邦層面支持仍存障礙。（Custodia表示會按新準則繼續追求聯儲會員資格。）

• Anchorage Digital (OCC Trust Charter): Anchorage Digital (an institutional crypto custodian) became the first crypto company to receive a national bank charter when the OCC granted it a national trust bank charter in 2021. As a trust bank, Anchorage can act as a qualified custodian for digital assets and participate fully in Fed payment services. CEO Nathan McCauley has noted that working “hand-in-hand” with the OCC over four years delivered regulatory clarity unmatched elsewhere. Anchorage now offers custody, staking and other crypto services under strict regulatory compliance.

Anchorage Digital（OCC信託牌照）： Anchorage Digital（機構級數碼資產託管商）於2021年獲OCC頒發全國信託銀行牌照，成為第一家獲全國銀行牌照的加密公司。作為信託銀行，Anchorage可作為合資格數碼資產託管人，並全面參與聯儲支付服務。行政總裁Nathan McCauley表示，與OCC四年來「緊密合作」提供了前所未見的監管清晰度。Anchorage現可在嚴格合規下辦理託管、質押及其他加密業務。

• Circle (OCC Trust Bank Application): Circle Internet Financial, issuer of the USDC stablecoin, announced in mid-2025 that it is applying to charter a national trust bank (to be called “First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A.”). If approved by the OCC, Circle’s trust bank would enable it to directly hold and manage USDC’s dollar reserves on behalf of customers. Allaire explained that this move follows Circle’s IPO and is about achieving the “highest standards of trust, transparency, and governance” for its financial operations. Unlike a commercial bank, Circle’s trust charter would not allow general deposits or loans; it is tailored for reserve management and crypto custody. Circle’s timing closely aligns with impending U.S. stablecoin legislation (the bill passed the Senate in mid-2025), suggesting the bank plan is aimed at being a compliant stablecoin issuer under the new rules.

Circle（OCC信託銀行申請）： USDC穩定幣發行商Circle Internet Financial於2025年中宣布，正申請成立全國信託銀行（暫名為「第一數字貨幣國家銀行」）。如獲OCC批准，Circle信託銀行便可代表客戶直接持有及管理USDC的美元儲備。Allaire解釋，此舉配合Circle上市，目標是為其金融運作樹立「至高信任、透明和管治標準」。Circle信託銀行不同於商業銀行，無法接受一般存款或放貸；其牌照專為儲備管理及加密資產託管而設。Circle的時機與美國即將落實的穩定幣監管立法（法案於2025年中通過參議院）極為接軌，顯示計劃乃在新法規下成為合規穩定幣發行商。

• Ripple (OCC National Bank Charter Application & RLUSD): Ripple Labs (associated with the XRP Ledger) disclosed in July 2025 that it has applied to the OCC for a national bank charter. This application makes Ripple the second crypto firm (after Circle) publicly known to seek federal bank status. Ripple’s goal is to “expand its crypto services under federal regulation” as stablecoin laws advance. At the same time, Ripple launched its own stablecoin (RLUSD) and has been integrating it with banking partners. Notably, Swiss crypto bank AMINA announced it will custodially trade RLUSD (see below), indicating Ripple’s push to treat its stablecoin as a licensed banking product. The dual strategy of charter-seeking and stablecoin issuance highlights Ripple’s bet that regulated financial status will be crucial for crypto-native firms.

Ripple（OCC全國銀行牌照申請及RLUSD）： Ripple Labs（XRP Ledger負責公司）於2025年7月披露已向OCC遞交全國銀行牌照申請，成為繼Circle後第二家公開申請聯邦銀行地位的加密公司。Ripple目標是在穩定幣立法進展之際，「於聯邦監管下擴展其加密服務」。同時，Ripple亦推出自家穩定幣RLUSD並積極與銀行合作對接。特別是，瑞士AMINA加密銀行已宣布為RLUSD提供託管及買賣（見下文），顯示Ripple致力把自家穩定幣定位為受監管銀行產品。申請銀行牌及發行穩定幣雙管齊下，突顯Ripple相信「受規管金融地位」將是加密原生企業未來關鍵競爭力。

• Coinbase (Federal Charter Consideration): Coinbase, one of the world’s largest crypto exchanges, has publicly confirmed it is “actively considering” applying for a federal banking charter. Media reports (WSJ/Banking Dive) identified Coinbase alongside BitGo, Circle and Paxos as planning to seek charters. Coinbase’s interest reflects the broader industry trend. Experts note that recent changes at the OCC (removing the ‘supervisory non-objection’ policy) make such charters more attainable than before. If Coinbase pursues a charter, it could integrate its exchange wallet with insured deposit accounts, though it would have to meet all banking capital

Coinbase（考慮申請聯邦銀行牌照）： 作為全球最大加密交易所之一，Coinbase已公開確認正「積極考慮」申請聯邦銀行牌照。媒體（WSJ/Banking Dive）報道Coinbase與BitGo、Circle及Paxos皆有意申請牌照。Coinbase此舉反映行業大趨勢。專家指出，OCC近期取消「監理機關無異議」政策，使取得相關銀行牌照較以往更可行。如Coinbase推進申請，可把其交易所錢包與受保存款帳戶整合，但須符合所有銀行資本規定和監管要求。and consumer-protection requirements. As of mid-2025, no formal application had been submitted, but Coinbase’s public statements indicate it wants to own more of the crypto-to-fiat infrastructure.
和消費者保護要求。截至2025年中，尚未有正式申請遞交，但Coinbase公開表示有意進一步掌握加密貨幣與法定貨幣之間的基礎設施。

• Sygnum and SEBA (Swiss Crypto Banks): In August 2019 Switzerland approved the world’s first regulated crypto banks. Zug-based SEBA Bank and Zurich-based Sygnum Bank each received banking and securities-dealer licenses from FINMA. These banks combined traditional finance capabilities with crypto services: offering deposits, asset management, tokenization of securities, and crypto trading/custody. Co-founder Manuel Krieger of Sygnum hailed the license as an “important step towards the institutionalisation of the digital asset economy”. Both banks now serve institutional and private clients who want regulated access to digital assets. They continue to expand services (e.g. Sygnum obtained additional FINMA permissions for tokenized assets, SEBA launched tokenized bond offerings). Their success exemplifies a full “crypto bank” model under strict supervision.

• Sygnum及SEBA（瑞士加密銀行）： 2019年8月，瑞士批准了全球首間受監管的加密銀行。位於楚格的SEBA Bank及蘇黎世的Sygnum Bank分別獲得了FINMA發出的銀行及證券經紀人牌照。這兩間銀行結合了傳統金融能力與加密貨幣服務，例如提供存款、資產管理、證券通證化，以及加密交易與託管服務。Sygnum聯合創辦人Manuel Krieger稱該牌照是「數字資產經濟邁向機構化的重要一步」。目前，兩家銀行均為希望以合規方式接觸數字資產的機構及私人客戶提供服務。它們持續拓展業務（例如Sygnum獲得FINMA新增批核的資產通證服務，SEBA推出通證化債券產品）。它們的成功展示了在嚴格監管下的「全方位加密銀行」典範。

• AMINA Bank (Swiss Crypto Bank & RLUSD Support): In Switzerland, AMINA Bank (formerly part of SEBA/AMINA) is a new crypto-focused commercial bank licensed by FINMA. In July 2025, AMINA announced it is the first global bank to offer services for Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin. Specifically, AMINA will provide institutional clients with custody and trading for RLUSD, which is backed by U.S. Treasury assets. AMINA CEO said the move “aims to bridge traditional banking and crypto infrastructure”. This is a concrete example of a licensed bank embracing crypto innovation: by integrating RLUSD into its platform, AMINA connects a digital-asset stablecoin directly to regulated banking rails. Other Swiss banks are reportedly exploring similar collaborations.

• AMINA Bank（瑞士加密銀行及RLUSD支援）： 在瑞士，AMINA Bank（前身為SEBA/AMINA一部份）是一間獲FINMA發牌、主打加密資產的商業銀行。2025年7月，AMINA宣布成為全球首間銀行為Ripple的RLUSD穩定幣提供服務。具體而言，AMINA將為機構客戶提供RLUSD的託管及交易服務，該穩定幣由美國國債資產作支撐。AMINA行政總裁表示，此舉「旨在搭建傳統銀行與加密基建的橋樑」。這是持牌銀行擁抱加密創新的具體例子：將RLUSD整合至其平台，令AMINA把數字資產穩定幣直接連接至受監管的銀行系統。有消息指，其他瑞士銀行亦在研究類似合作。

Each of these case studies highlights how crypto firms are intersecting with banking. Firms like Kraken and Circle seek charters to solidify core functions (USD custody, stablecoins). Established crypto custodians like Anchorage show how a charter can enhance trust. And forward-looking banks like AMINA demonstrate how incumbents are adopting crypto. Across the board, these companies stress regulatory compliance: they view licenses not as a constraint, but as a foundation to scale digital finance globally.
這些案例展示了加密公司如何與銀行業融合。像Kraken及Circle等機構積極申請牌照，鞏固其核心業務（美元託管、穩定幣）。知名加密託管機構如Anchorage顯示取得牌照可提升信任度。而前瞻性的銀行如AMINA則體現了傳統銀行如何主動迎合加密發展。整體而言，這些公司強調合規經營：她們將牌照視為擴展全球數字金融規模的基石，而非限制。

Regulatory Drivers: Stablecoins and Financial Integration

監管驅動因素：穩定幣與金融整合

The move toward banking licenses is closely tied to global regulatory changes, especially around stablecoins and “payment rails” integration. Key drivers include:
申領銀行牌照的風潮與全球監管變化息息相關，當中特別圍繞穩定幣及「支付管道」的融合。主要驅動力包括：

• Stablecoin Legislation: Lawmakers worldwide are drafting bills that treat stablecoins like bank deposits. In the U.S., for example, the GENIUS Act (Sen. Scott et al.) and STABLE Act (Reps. Frankel et al.) propose that stablecoin issuers be federally chartered, fully backed and compliant with banking safeguards. Similarly, Europe’s MiCA classifies major stablecoins as electronic money requiring bank-like licensing. Hong Kong’s new law will require HKMA licenses for fiat-pegged stablecoins. These laws effectively force stablecoin companies (like Tether or USDC issuers) to operate under banking frameworks. As CoinDesk reports, Ripple, Circle and others are explicitly aligning with this trend.

• 穩定幣立法： 全球各地立法機關陸續草擬法案，擬將穩定幣視作銀行存款處理。以美國為例，GENIUS法案（Scott參議員等）與STABLE法案（Frankel眾議員等）建議穩定幣發行人必須取得聯邦牌照，全額資產支持，並符合法規保障。歐洲的MiCA同樣將主要穩定幣分類為電子貨幣，需要類似銀行的發牌。香港新法例亦規定法幣掛鈎穩定幣需獲金管局發牌。這些法律實際上強制穩定幣公司（如Tether或USDC發行商）納入銀行框架運作。據CoinDesk報導，Ripple、Circle等正明確配合這股潮流。

• Payment System Access: Central banks recognize that having crypto firms on the Fedwire or equivalent can improve payments efficiency, especially for tokenized assets. The U.S. Federal Reserve recently signaled a policy shift: it told regional Fed Banks to stop using “reputational risk” as an excuse to deny accounts and is providing clearer guidance for banks to service crypto businesses. This change was part of President Biden’s 2022 Executive Order to ensure “fair and open access to banking services” for crypto (addressing crypto de-banking concerns). By unlocking master accounts and clarifying rules, regulators are creating the conditions for crypto banks to actually hold reserves and settle transactions, which is a precondition to fully becoming banks.

• 支付系統開放： 各國央行已認識到，讓加密公司接入Fedwire等系統能提升支付效率，尤其是針對通證化資產。美國聯邦儲備局近日釋出政策新訊號：要求地區性聯儲銀行停止以「聲譽風險」為藉口拒絕開戶，並為銀行服務加密企業提供更清晰指引。這個變化源於拜登總統2022年行政命令，確保加密行業「公平及公開接入銀行服務」（針對加密去銀行化問題）。隨著母行賬戶開放及規則明確，監管機構正為加密銀行真正持有儲備並結算交易創造條件，這是成為真正銀行的前提。

• AML and Compliance Pressure: Ironically, the stringent AML and KYC requirements that deterred banks from crypto are now being baked into law for crypto licenses. FinCEN and the OCC already require “extensive due diligence” on crypto clients. New charters will force crypto firms to adopt the same anti-money-laundering regimes as any financial institution. For example, the Wyoming SPDI and U.S. trust charters must adhere to banking-age AML rules. In Europe, MiCA imposes AML obligations on crypto-asset service providers (exchanges, wallet providers) as well as stablecoin issuers. In practice, these regulations make operating outside the formal banking system riskier, incentivizing firms to legitimize via charters.

• 反洗錢及合規壓力： 諷刺地，昔日令銀行抗拒加密的嚴格反洗錢及KYC要求，現已納入加密公司牌照法規之中。FinCEN及OCC已要求對加密客戶「深入盡職審查」。新牌照制度將迫使加密公司採用與任何金融機構一致的反洗錢機制。例如，懷俄明SPDI及美國信託牌照必須遵守銀行業的反洗錢規則。歐洲的MiCA亦規定交易所、錢包商及穩定幣發行商均需承擔反洗錢責任。事實上，這些規例令在正規銀行體系外營運風險大增，間接鼓勵公司以牌照合法化自身業務。

• Global Financial Integration: Beyond specific laws, there is a broader trend of integrating crypto into the traditional system. Central banks and regulators (e.g. ECB, Fed) are experimenting with wholesale CBDCs and tokenized central bank money. Financial market infrastructures are considering supporting tokenized assets. In this context, crypto firms want to be on the inside. A digital currency or stablecoin that flows through regulated banks can be used in everyday finance (payments, remittances, markets). As one industry observer noted, stablecoins have evolved from “bridges” to crypto into “core plumbing” of finance. Becoming a bank allows crypto companies to plug their technology into the plumbing, which in turn motivates regulators to license them properly.

• 全球金融整合： 除了具體法規外，還有更宏觀的一體化趨勢：加密正融入傳統金融。央行及監管機構（如歐洲央行、美聯儲）正探討批發CBDC及通證化央行貨幣。金融基礎設施亦考慮支援通證化資產。在這個大勢下，加密企業渴望成為「圈內人」。能通過受監管銀行流動的數字貨幣或穩定幣，可直接應用於日常金融（支付、匯款、交易所等）。如有業內人士所說，穩定幣已由加密橋樑演變為金融「核心管道」。成為銀行，讓加密公司可將其技術接駁入主流金融體系，亦鼓勵監管機構更規範地發牌。

In summary, evolving regulation is both a carrot and a stick. On one hand, planned laws reward chartered entities. On the other, they penalize unlicensed crypto activity. Combined with regulators’ interest in modernizing payments, these drivers make banking licenses central to any major crypto firm’s growth strategy.
總結來說，不斷演變的監管同時具備激勵及制約效果。一方面，計劃中的法規獎勵取得牌照的機構；另一方面，則打擊無牌加密營運。加上監管機構推動支付現代化，這些因素都令銀行牌照成為主流加密企業發展策略的核心。

Benefits and Risks for Users, Institutions, and the Financial System

對用戶、機構及金融體系的影響與風險

Becoming banks would have wide-ranging implications:
加密公司轉型成銀行，會帶來多方面的影響：

• For Retail Users: A crypto company with a banking charter can offer customers more traditional products and protections. Consumers could open accounts with familiar features (interest-bearing deposits, ACH transfers, debit cards) directly with crypto firms. They may feel more secure dealing with a bank that is audited and regulated. On the flip side, retail users must be aware of the charter’s limitations. For example, Wyoming SPDIs require 100% reserve backing, but they explicitly lack FDIC insurance. In practice, this means if an SPDI failed, depositors might not get government-backed protection. (Kraken has noted this tradeoff upfront.) Another risk is loss of anonymity: bank regulations force identity verification on customers, changing the privacy profile of some crypto services. Overall, users gain convenience and regulatory oversight at the cost of the extreme privacy and decentralization once touted by crypto.

• 對零售用戶： 具備銀行牌照的加密公司可為客戶提供更傳統化的產品與保障。消費者可直接在加密公司開設帶有傳統特色（有息存款、ACH轉賬、扣帳卡）的賬戶，並享有監管審核下的安全感。不過，零售用戶亦須留意牌照的限制。例如，懷俄明SPDI規定100%儲備支持，但明確不受聯邦存款保險公司（FDIC）保障。實際上，若SPDI倒閉，存戶可能無法獲得政府擔保的保障（Kraken早已明確提示這點）。另一個風險是匿名性喪失：銀行法規要求強制認證客戶身份，改變部分加密服務原有的私隱特質。總體而言，零售用戶換來便利與監管保障，但同時失去加密技術一度標榜的高度私隱與去中心化。

• For Institutions: Traditional financial institutions could see benefits and competition. Crypto-native banks could partner with or undercut incumbents. For example, a crypto exchange with a bank charter could on-ramp new retail investors more cheaply. Conversely, big banks themselves may issue their own stablecoins (as some U.S. and German banks have started) or even acquire crypto bank subsidiaries. Institutional crypto custodians benefit from charters by being able to keep client assets on balance sheet with Fed privileges, making them appear as credible custodians. However, these institutions also take on new risks: operating a bank means strict capital, liquidity, audit and compliance obligations. Any misstep (cyberattack, fraud) can also result in regulators pulling charters. The collapse of crypto-friendly banks in 2023 (Silvergate, Signature, SVB) is a cautionary tale that integration brings heavy scrutiny.

• 對機構： 傳統金融機構既看到新機遇，同時面對新競爭。原生加密銀行既可與現有機構合作，亦有機會以更低成本爭奪新零售投資者。例如，一家擁有銀行牌照的加密交易所，可更便宜地承接新用戶。與此同時，大型銀行亦有機會自行推出穩定幣（正如部分美國及德國銀行已開展）、甚至直接收購加密銀行子公司。機構級加密託管機構因取得牌照，可憑聯儲優惠將客戶資產計入自身資產負債表，更具信譽。不過，機構也需承擔新風險：營運銀行意味著必須應付資本、流動性、審計及合規等嚴格要求。任何疏忽（如網絡攻擊或詐騙）皆可能導致監管機構撤牌。2023年多家「加密友好」銀行（Silvergate、Signature、SVB）倒閉，是一個警示：與加密融合帶來更高程度監管。

• For the Financial System: Overall, bringing crypto into formal banking may improve stability of crypto-based payments and narrow the divide between fiat and digital assets. Tying stablecoins to regulated banks can enhance reserve transparency and trust. Payment systems could become faster and more inclusive with blockchain rails. On the risk side, there is the question of systemic impact: if crypto banks grow large, their problems could spill over. Regulators worry about contagion from algorithmic stablecoins or tokenized assets that behave differently from deposits. Also, crypto “shadow banking” networks might shift to newly chartered entities, potentially evading tougher rules. Effective oversight and coordination among regulators will be needed to mitigate money laundering, fraud or cyber risks introduced by new players. In sum, licenses promise tighter control, but only if properly enforced – otherwise, they could lend legitimacy to risky crypto business models.

• 對金融體系： 整體而言，把加密引入正規銀行，有望提升以加密為基礎的支付穩定性，以及縮窄法幣與數字資產之間的鴻溝。將穩定幣與受監管銀行掛鉤，可促進儲備透明，提升信心。支付系統借助區塊鏈有機會變得更快捷、更包容。但風險層面，最大疑慮是系統性影響：若加密銀行規模做大，其問題有機會蔓延；監管機構擔心像算法穩定幣或通證化資產這類與存款特質不同的產品產生傳染效應。另外，加密「影子銀行」網絡也可能遷移至新獲牌機構，潛在避開更嚴監管。新的玩家帶來的洗黑錢、詐騙或網絡風險，需要監管機構加強合作與監督才能應對。總之，牌照有望帶來更嚴密的監管，但要真正落實，否則只會令高風險的加密模式獲得「合法」包裝。

Traditional Banks Entering Crypto vs. Crypto Firms Becoming Banks

傳統銀行進軍加密 VS 加密公司轉型銀行

The current shift involves both sides of the fence. Established banks are cautiously entering crypto, while crypto companies strive to “become banks” themselves.
目前的變革同時涵蓋兩大方向：一方面是傳統銀行謹慎切入加密領域，另一方面則是加密公司主動「搖身一變」成為銀行。

• Traditional Banks in Crypto: Banks like JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and BNY Mellon have launched crypto custody or token initiatives. In the U.S., some banks resisted stablecoins initially, but later launched their own (e.g. JPM’s token for institutional payments). Large banks may partner with licensed crypto firms or seek regulated stablecoin platforms, rather than directly handling retail crypto. Their advantage is existing charters, capital, and customer bases. But banks must adapt to crypto’s speed and tech: for instance, BNY Mellon manages Circle’s reserves and custody as a trusted partner. Traditional banks also worry about risks and compliance burdens, and may choose to focus on the safest crypto segments (stablecoins, tokenized bonds).

• 傳統銀行涉足加密： 摩根大通、高盛、BNY Mellon等銀行已經推出加密託管或通證化方案。在美國，部分銀行最初抗拒穩定幣，最終亦開始自家推行（如摩根大通用於機構支付的Token）。大型銀行或會選擇與持牌加密公司合作、或接入受監管的穩定幣平台，而非直接參與零售加密生意。她們的優勢包括現成的牌照、資本與客戶基礎。不過銀行要適應加密領域的速度與技術挑戰，例如BNY Mellon作為Circle的信託伙伴管理儲備與託管。傳統銀行亦較關注合規及風險負擔，因此可能集中於最安全的加密資產範疇（如穩定幣、通證化債券）。

• Crypto Firms as Banks: Crypto-native firms were born outside regulation, but now willingly accept oversight to gain legitimacy and reach. This

• 加密公司變身銀行： 原生加密企業過往身處「灰色地帶」，但現在亦願意接受監管，以取得合法地位與開拓新市場。這種……means some erosion of crypto’s anti-establishment ethos. As one analyst noted, firms adopting charters “will lose some independence” as they are folded into the conventional financial framework. On the other hand, crypto firms bring technological innovation: they can pioneer blockchain-based products within a regulated envelope. For example, a crypto exchange-bank might natively integrate on-chain tokens with deposits or loans. They also tend to have global, tech-savvy cultures which can accelerate fintech adoption in banking. In effect, each side offers the other strengths: banks supply trust and scale, crypto firms inject new assets and customers. How this plays out will depend on regulatory clarity and market demand.

意即加密行業反建制本色有所削弱。正如一位分析員指出，當公司採納銀行牌照時，「會失去一部分獨立性」，因為這些公司會被納入傳統金融體系。不過，加密公司同時亦帶來創新技術：它們可於受監管框架下率先推出區塊鏈產品。例如，一間加密貨幣交易平台銀行可以原生地整合鏈上代幣與存款或貸款。此外，加密公司往往擁有環球及精通科技的企業文化，有助加速銀行界採納金融科技。實際上，雙方各有優勢互補：傳統銀行提供信任和規模，加密公司則注入新資產及新客戶。最終發展如何，將取決於監管清晰度及市場需求。

Compliance Burdens and Regulatory Hurdles

合規負擔與監管障礙

Pursuing a bank license is not easy. Crypto firms face extensive compliance requirements and potential barriers:

申請牌照絕非易事。加密公司會面對大量合規要求及潛在障礙：

• Capital and Prudential Rules: Banks must maintain minimum capital ratios and liquidity buffers. Crypto firms, which until now largely held custodial assets off-balance-sheet, will need to hold their own equity and reserves. For an SPDI, Wyoming requires 100% reserves but no loans; a national bank must meet federal capital requirements. These rules can limit product flexibility (e.g. Circle’s trust bank can’t lend out the U.S. Treasury securities backing USDC).

• **資本及審慎要求：**銀行必須維持最低資本比率同流動資金儲備。加密公司過往通常將託管資產置於資產負債表外，現時則要持有自有資本及儲備。以SPDI（特別用途存款機構）為例，懷俄明州要求100%儲備、不得放貸；而聯邦銀行則必須滿足聯邦資本要求。這些規則會限制產品靈活性（例如Circle的信託銀行不能把用作支持USDC的美國國債拿去放貸）。

• Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and KYC: Banks are subject to stringent AML laws. Crypto firms historically argued that blockchain transparency would mitigate risk, but in practice regulators still demand traditional KYC. FinCEN and the OCC require “extensive due diligence” on crypto clients. Bank examiners will expect crypto banks to have robust transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, and controls over virtual asset flows. For example, bank regulators have flagged crypto remittances as an AML risk. Developing and operating these systems is costly and complex. Firms will need specialized compliance teams and auditors. The nightmare scenarios of “anonymity” on blockchains are being tackled: Swiss rules already forbid anonymous crypto transfers, and U.S. banks (including crypto banks) must freeze transactions for sanctioned addresses.

• **反洗黑錢（AML）及客戶認識（KYC）：**銀行須受嚴格反洗黑錢法例監管。加密公司一向主張區塊鏈透明度可減低風險，但監管機構實際仍要求傳統KYC。FinCEN及OCC要求對加密客戶進行「全面盡職審查」。銀行監管人員預期加密銀行具備嚴謹的交易監控、制裁篩查及虛擬資產流動控制。例如，銀行監管機關已指出加密匯款屬AML風險。建立及營運這些系統極其昂貴且複雜。公司須配備專業合規團隊及核數師。關於區塊鏈“匿名性”的噩夢情景正逐步解決：瑞士已明文禁止匿名加密轉帳，美國銀行（包括加密銀行）亦須凍結被制裁地址的交易。

• Federal Reserve Master Accounts: In the U.S., having a master account at the Fed is critical for payments. Crypto banks have long sought Fed accounts. The 2023 Fed stance change helps, but each institution must still petition a regional Fed bank. Even for a state-chartered SPDI, getting access to FedWire or FedNow is non-trivial: it requires satisfying the Fed’s risk criteria. The denial of Custodia’s Fed application shows regulators remain cautious. Firms must demonstrate they have credible risk management and aren’t a flight risk to crypto-only banking. A master account also comes with supervisory exams and Fed fees, which crypto firms historically lacked.

• 聯邦儲備總帳戶： 在美國，擁有聯儲總帳戶對於支付至關重要。加密銀行長期以來一直爭取獲取聯儲帳戶。2023年聯儲立場有所轉變，但每間機構仍需向所屬地區聯儲銀行提出申請。即使是注冊於州的SPDI，要接入FedWire或FedNow一點都不容易，須符合聯儲的風險標準。Custodia的申請被拒顯示監管機關仍然審慎。公司必須證明自身有可靠風險管理能力，且非只經營加密業務的「跑路」風險。總帳戶還需接受監察及繳付聯儲費用，而加密公司過往一般沒有這些經驗。

• Regulatory Fragmentation: Crypto firms often chase multiple licenses in different jurisdictions. A typical U.S. crypto bank may need federal (OCC) and state (NYDFS or Wyoming) charters, SEC/FINRA approvals for any securities activities, and money transmitter or e-money licenses for U.S. states. In the EU, a MiCA-regulated stablecoin issuer needs an EMI license in one country and passporting to others. Singapore or Hong Kong require local licenses under their frameworks. Maintaining compliance across this patchwork is burdensome: firms face annual exams by different regulators (OCC, FDIC, FINMA, FCA, SFC, MAS, etc.), each with its own rules. Adam Shapiro of Klaros Group notes that a federal charter can reduce the duplicative state exams: “A federal charter would cut down on duplicative requirements” versus holding many state trusts.

• **監管支離破碎：**加密公司往往要在不同司法地區追多個牌照。典型美國加密銀行可能需要聯邦（OCC）及州級（如NYDFS或懷俄明）牌照，涉及證券活動還要有SEC/FINRA批准，經營美國跨州業務則需金錢轉賬或電子貨幣牌照。歐盟情況下，受MiCA監管的穩定幣發行商要先於一國持EMI牌、再申請跨境通行。新加坡或香港都需按本地監管架構申照。要在這套零散系統下維持合規非常沉重：公司要接受多個監管部門（OCC、FDIC、FINMA、FCA、SFC、MAS等）每年巡查，各自有各自規條。Klaros集團的Adam Shapiro指出，聯邦牌照可減少重複州審：「聯邦牌將可減省多州信託的繁瑣重疊要求。」

• Legal Uncertainties: While laws are evolving, they are not fully settled. In the U.S. there remains legal debate over crypto classification (SEC vs. CFTC jurisdiction). A court might rule a particular token is a security or commodity, affecting how it can be held in a bank. Regulatory guidance on crypto accounting (e.g. SAB 121) has discouraged banks from holding assets. Crypto banks must navigate this uncertainty continually. They also risk political shifts: for instance, if a new administration took a hard line on crypto, some prior approvals could be revisited.

• **法律不明朗：**現行法律雖然不斷演變，但尚未完全明確。在美國，如何界定加密資產（屬SEC或CFTC監管）爭議不絕。法院或會判定個別代幣屬證券還是商品，影響其在銀行的持有方式。監管機構對加密會計指引（如SAB 121）使銀行卻步持有此類資產。加密銀行要長期在這種不確定下運作。還要面對政治風險：若新政府嚴打加密，不排除會推翻過往批淮。

In sum, securing and operating under a bank charter demands a full transformation of a crypto firm into a regulated bank. This entails building out compliance staff, implementing banking software and controls, and submitting to continuous oversight – all of which raise costs. Many crypto executives argue it is worth the investment to access banking infrastructure; critics warn the burdens are substantial and may discourage smaller players.

總結而言，成功取得銀行牌照並在其下運作，代表加密公司必須徹底轉型為受規管銀行。這包括擴充合規團隊、導入銀行軟件及監控流程，同時接受持續監督──成本大增。相當多加密高層認為投資進入銀行體系是值得的，但亦有批評指出，沉重的負擔或令小型業者卻步。

Future Outlook

未來展望

The cryptocurrency industry’s relationship with banking is still in flux. As of 2025, a handful of crypto firms have achieved or sought bank charters, but many questions remain about scale and impact. Looking ahead:

加密貨幣業界與銀行的關係仍處變化中。直到2025年，只有少數加密公司已獲或正申請銀行牌照，規模及影響力仍有不少疑問。展望未來：

• Increasing Charter Approvals: With new regulations favoring crypto banks, more applications are expected. Observers note that “more federally chartered digital asset banks” would benefit consumers and markets. Established crypto firms (Coinbase, Paxos, Gemini etc.) may follow the path of Circle and Ripple, especially if Congress passes stablecoin legislation. Banks themselves (large and niche) are laying groundwork to offer crypto services under these new regimes.

• **銀行牌照逐步增多：隨著新監管針對加密銀行而設，預計申請數量會進一步增加。有觀察者指出，“更多聯邦認可的數字資產銀行”**將令消費者及市場受益。現有大型加密公司如Coinbase、Paxos、Gemini等，有可能效法Circle和Ripple路線，尤其一旦國會通過穩定幣法案。大型及專業銀行亦正在新體制下部署加密服務。

• Consolidation or Specialization: We may see consolidation, where only well-capitalized crypto institutions survive as banks, while others partner or exit. Alternatively, new special-purpose banks may emerge serving only stablecoins, tokenization, or custodial functions. Traditional banks might spin off crypto units that seek charters.

• **行業整合或專營化：**有可能出現行業整合，只有資本雄厚的加密公司才能以銀行身份生存，其餘則要麼結盟，要麼退出。另一種情況是專營新型銀行出現，專注於穩定幣、資產通證化或託管服務。傳統銀行亦有機會分拆加密部門並申請牌照。

• Technological Integration: In time, the lines between crypto banking and fintech may blur further. Tokenized securities, crypto lending and on-chain settlements could operate through regulated portals. For instance, tokenized stocks might trade on digital exchanges with real-time fiat settlement, all cleared through chartered crypto banks. If stablecoins indeed become “core plumbing”, then being a licensed custodian of such coins could be as ubiquitous as being a member of SWIFT today.

• **技術深入融合：**隨著時間推移，加密銀行與金融科技界線更趨模糊。通證化證券、加密借貸及鏈上結算都有可能透過受規管平台運行。例如通證化股票可於電子交易所掛牌，即時以法幣結算，最終由持牌加密銀行交收。假如穩定幣真能成為金融“基建”，持有相關牌照將如今日成為SWIFT會員般普及。

• Regulatory Evolution: Regulators around the world will keep adjusting rules. We may see international standards for crypto banks emerge (e.g. from the Basel Committee or FATF). Standardization of capital treatment for crypto assets on bank balance sheets will be critical. Also, as CBDCs advance (or stall), their relationship with regulated private stablecoins will shape demand. Crypto banks will need to adapt to each new policy shift, from tax treatment of digital assets to consumer data rules.

• **監管持續演化：**全球監管機構將不斷調整規則。未來或會出現國際層面的加密銀行標準（例如巴塞爾委員會或FATF指引）。如何統一虛擬資產資本處理指標非常關鍵。而隨著央行數字貨幣（CBDC）發展（或停頓），它們與受監管私人穩定幣的關係將左右市場需求。加密銀行必須應對每一次政策新變化，從數碼資產稅務安排到消費者數據採集等皆然。

• Consumer Impact: Ultimately, how many crypto banks succeed will affect end users. In the best case, consumers gain more choice in payments and earn yields on digital assets through insured accounts. In the worst case, regulatory failures or bank failures could erode trust. The industry’s emphasis on compliance suggests a recognition that long-term viability depends on stability, not on “crypto only” risk-taking.

• **消費者影響：**最終，有多少加密銀行能夠成功，將直接關係到終端用戶。理想情況下，消費者將有更多支付選擇，並通過受保障賬戶為虛擬資產賺取利息。最壞情況則是監管或銀行爆煲、信任流失。業界近年強調合規，反映意識到長遠可持續發展必須以穩定為先，而非「一味冒險」只靠加密。

In the next few years, it is likely we will see a gradual mainstreaming: crypto firms that secure licenses could become just another class of bank, albeit specialized. The “crypto bank” label may fade into the broader category of digital banks or fintech banks. Observers will be watching whether this brings about a truly integrated digital financial system, or just a new chapter in the age-old cycle of regulatory catch-up to financial innovation.

未來數年，我們很可能看到加密牌照公司逐漸成為主流──他們會變身成某類專業銀行。「加密銀行」這名詞或會淡化，隨之歸入數碼銀行或金融科技銀行大類。外界將持續觀察，這會否成就真正全面整合的數碼金融體系，抑或只是監管機關不斷追趕金融創新的又一回合。