加密貨幣產業正出現一股新潮流：主要穩定幣發行商積極爭取美國銀行執照。Paxos Trust Company—以發行 PayPal 的 PYUSD 穩定幣聞名的區塊鏈基礎設施公司—已正式申請將其紐約州信託執照轉換為全國性信託銀行執照。
在這方面，Paxos 緊隨 Circle（大型 USDC 穩定幣的發行商）和 Ripple（以 XRP 支付網路及新推出的穩定幣 RLUSD 著稱）之後行動——這兩家公司僅在數周前剛遞交了聯邦信託銀行的申請。三家公司皆屬更廣泛加密企業努力成為聯邦監管實體、與傳統金融體系深度整合的代表。
Paxos、Circle 和 Ripple 的這些同步動作，標誌產業戰略重心大幅轉移。三家企業本已是穩定幣市場重要玩家：Circle 的 USDC 流通價值約 600–650 億美元，為全球最大美元穩定幣之一。Paxos 所管理的 PayPal USD（PYUSD）自發行一年內市值已突破 10 億美元。Ripple 則以跨境支付的 XRP 著名，並於 2024 年底推出自家美元穩定幣 RLUSD（規模約 4.7 億美元，已名列主流穩定幣之一）。獲得全國性信託銀行執照，將成為這些公司鞏固地位並於美國監管下擴大服務的關鍵一步。
穩定幣——與美元等穩定資產掛鉤的加密貨幣——已成為加密經濟體系的基石，作為數位現金用於交易與支付。近年穩定幣應用爆炸性增長，市場總值已超過 2,600 億美元。交易者用穩定幣在各交易所間快速轉移資金，金融科技業則看好穩定幣因全天候運作而可作為日常支付工具。然而，由於穩定幣成長迅速且游離傳統銀行體系，監管機構始終有所疑慮。透過爭取銀行執照，Paxos、Circle、Ripple 不僅回應了監管疑慮，也意圖將穩定幣納入監管金融體系。關鍵問題是：若這些申請成功，會如何改變企業與整體加密市場生態？
Paxos 再度出擊：從紐約信託到全國性信託銀行
對 Paxos 而言，申請國家級銀行執照，意味再次挑戰聯邦銀行監管。公司早於 2020 年底便首次申請 OCC（貨幣監理署）執照，並於 2021 年 4 月獲得初步有條件核准。但這次申請最終陷入停滯——有條件核准於 2023 年 3 月到期，因 Paxos 未能於 18 個月內啟動銀行。此後，Paxos 繼續以自 2015 年起獲得的紐約金融服務局（NYDFS）發放的有限信託執照營運，可託管數位資產與服務客戶，但僅限於州內監管。
重啟申請體現 Paxos 提升地位與覆蓋範圍的決心。若獲 OCC 批准，Paxos 將把 NYDFS 執照轉為全國性信託銀行執照，轉而受聯邦監管，可於美國 50 州展業，無須逐州申請執照。Paxos 強調，即便執照升級，核心商業模式亦不會有重大變化——將續專注穩定幣發行（如 PYUSD 及自家 USDP）及託管服務，不涉傳統存放款業務。但升級監管預期將帶來重大利多。一名知情人士表示，聯邦執照「代表美國乃至全球最高監管層級」，將大幅提升 Paxos 的國際與大型機構信譽。換言之，作為全國性信託銀行，Paxos 預期能吸引更多國際夥伴與機構客戶。
Paxos 推進時機頗具指標意義。公司剛解決一項重大監管疑慮——2023 年初，NYDFS 要求 Paxos 停止發行 Binance 的 BUSD 穩定幣，指控監管及合規問題。Paxos 最終結束與幣安這全球最大加密交易所的合作，經歷了一段遭受嚴密審查的時期。僅在上週，Paxos 與紐約監管機構達成和解，同意支付 4,850 萬美元以解決關於其未妥善監控 BUSD 可疑交易的指控，並承諾投注 2,200 萬美元於合規升級。如今解決舊案、合規體系重整，Paxos 可望全面轉戰聯邦監管擴展。執行長 Charles Cascarilla 表示，OCC 監督將延續 Paxos「維持最高安全與透明標準的傳統承諾」，意指向監管與客戶宣示已準備符合嚴格聯邦標準。
Circle 的野心：讓穩定幣融入主流金融
USD Coin（USDC）發行商 Circle Internet Financial 早已明確規劃邁向銀行之路。2025 年 6 月 30 日，Circle 正式向 OCC 提出全國性信託銀行執照申請。擬議中機構名「First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A.」，乃專為 Circle 穩定幣業務量身打造的銀行。與已持有紐約信託執照的 Paxos 不同，Circle 一直透過受監管子公司及金流服務執照經營穩定幣。若取得聯邦信託執照，可將旗下業務整合於單一全國監管單位下。
Circle 申請的動機多重。第一，OCC 批准後，Circle 新銀行可直接管理 USDC 的本金儲備。現行 USDC 儲備——確保每枚穩定幣具全額資產支持的現金與美國國債——分佈於合作銀行與託管方。若可自行於聯邦銀行控管儲備，不僅提升儲備掌控度，也將優化營運流程。Circle 於申請書中指，新銀行將成 USDC 儲備官方託管方，並提供其他信託服務，包括數位資產託管。此舉有助強化 USDC 基礎架構，提升穩定幣安全性與即時兌現信心，即便在市場動盪時亦然。
另一推動力在於因應新法規上路。Circle 明言，全國性信託執照可助其遵循美國即將生效的穩定幣相關法案。事實上，Circle 提交申請數周後，美國國會通過並由川普總統簽署《2025 年美國穩定幣國家創新指引法》（GENIUS Act）——首部聯邦層級穩定幣專法，規定發行商須遵守嚴格風控標準（如 100% 儲備、每月資訊公開、防詐配套）。透過提早申請聯邦執照，Circle 主動與新法接軌。執行長 Jeremy Allaire 表示，此舉可「進一步強化 USDC 架構」，並強調將配合最新美國監管規範。Allaire 認為，讓 USDC 納入聯邦監督，將強化美元於數位時代的角色，使其成為主流金融機構可仰賴的核心支付基礎設施。
Circle 爭取監管創舉的腳步不限美國。2024 年，即成為首家符合歐盟 MiCA 加密監管新框架的穩定幣發行商，並已於新加坡、阿布達比等地獲取執照。這展現 Circle 視全球監管合規為競爭關鍵。成為美國聯邦銀行將補足國際牌照，有利 USDC 為國際認可的數位貨幣，更利於 Circle 進一步發展法人託管、支付等業務。值得一提的是，Circle 於 2025 年初以「$CRCL」在紐約證交所上市，資訊揭露水準更高。申請 OCC 執照象徵自金融科技新創邁向合規金融機構的下一步。
Ripple 新局：從加密叛逆者進軍合規玩家
三者之中，Ripple Labs 申請銀行執照最令人意外。Ripple 長期以跨境轉帳用的 XRP 和與美國證券交易委員會（SEC）爭論 XRP 是否屬未註冊證券的訴訟聞名。2023 年 7 月，美國法官裁定 XRP 次級交易不屬於證券，為公司打下一劑強心針，也讓美國業務更具發展空間。如今，Ripple 正積極投入穩定幣市場，並計劃……
become a regulated entity in its own right.
成為一個具有自身法律地位的受監管實體。
Ripple’s application, submitted in early July 2025, seeks to establish Ripple National Trust Bank as a new subsidiary.
Ripple於2025年7月初提交的申請，旨在設立Ripple National Trust Bank為旗下新子公司。
This bank would effectively bring Ripple’s fledgling stablecoin, RLUSD, under federal oversight.
這家銀行將實質上使Ripple新發行的穩定幣RLUSD納入聯邦監管之下。
Ripple launched RLUSD (short for “Ripple USD”) in late 2024 as a U.S. dollar-pegged token within its ecosystem.
Ripple於2024年底推出RLUSD（全名為「Ripple USD」），這是一種與美元掛鉤的代幣，運行於其生態系統之內。
Although RLUSD is much smaller than USDC or Tether’s USDT, it has grown to a market capitalization of nearly half a billion dollars and is integrated into some of Ripple’s payment products.
雖然RLUSD目前規模遠小於USDC或Tether的USDT，但其市值已增長至接近五億美元，並且整合至部分Ripple的支付產品中。
The company’s vision is to use RLUSD alongside XRP to facilitate instant global transfers – RLUSD for staying in dollar terms, XRP for bridging between currencies – thereby offering clients a spectrum of crypto liquidity options.
公司的願景是將RLUSD與XRP共同應用於全球即時轉帳業務——以RLUSD維持美元本位，以XRP作為跨幣種的橋樑——從而為客戶提供多元化的加密資產流動性選項。
By obtaining a bank charter, Ripple aims to bring the custody and management of RLUSD reserves in-house, similar to Circle’s goal with USDC.
透過取得銀行執照，Ripple計劃將RLUSD的儲備托管及管理業務收歸自營，這與Circle對USDC的策略方向一致。
Currently, RLUSD is issued and managed via Standard Custody & Trust Co., a New York state-chartered trust company that is a Ripple subsidiary.
目前，RLUSD由Standard Custody & Trust Co.（一家紐約州特許信託公司，亦為Ripple的子公司）負責發行與管理。
Standard Custody handles RLUSD under state supervision; the new plan is for Ripple National Trust Bank to take over that role under OCC supervision.
Standard Custody依照州政府監管處理RLUSD，而新計劃則是將該職能交由Ripple National Trust Bank負責，並由美國貨幣監理署（OCC）監督。
This would allow Ripple to ensure that RLUSD’s backing assets (dollar deposits, T-bills, etc.) are safeguarded under consistent federal standards, and that the stablecoin can be used seamlessly across the U.S. without navigating state-by-state regulations.
這將讓Ripple確保RLUSD的儲備資產（美元存款、國庫券等）受到統一的聯邦標準保護，同時讓該穩定幣全美無縫流通，省去逐州合規的煩瑣。
Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse framed the move as part of a “next frontier” in crypto-traditional finance integration.
Ripple執行長Brad Garlinghouse將此舉定位為加密貨幣與傳統金融整合的「下一個前沿」。
By being a regulated bank, Ripple can settle transactions more efficiently and “bypass intermediary banks” for certain payments.
作為受監管銀行，Ripple可更高效地處理交易，針對特定支付場景更可「繞過中介銀行」。
For a company whose mission is to disrupt the slow correspondent banking networks for international transfers, having its own charter could be a game changer.
對於致力於顛覆國際匯款緩慢對應銀行網絡的公司而言，擁有自己的銀行執照將會是徹底改變局面的舉措。
Ripple is also seeking a Federal Reserve master account in conjunction with the OCC charter.
Ripple亦計畫在申請OCC執照的同時，申請聯準會總帳戶（Federal Reserve master account）。
A Fed master account would grant Ripple direct access to the Federal Reserve’s payment infrastructure, enabling it to clear and settle payments (and possibly stablecoin redemptions) with central bank money.
聯準會總帳戶可讓Ripple直接連接聯邦儲備體系的支付基礎設施，使其能以央行貨幣清算和結算支付（甚至可能涵蓋穩定幣的兌換）。
It could also let Ripple hold RLUSD’s cash reserves at the Federal Reserve itself, which is considered the safest possible custody, eliminating commercial bank counterparty risk.
更有可能允許Ripple將RLUSD的現金儲備存放在聯準會，這被認為是最安全的銀行托管方式，完全消除商業銀行的對手風險。
In a social media post announcing the charter bid, Garlinghouse emphasized the legitimacy that a charter would confer after years of being “sidelined” by regulators.
Garlinghouse在宣布申請銀行執照的社群平台貼文中強調，經歷多年被監管機構「邊緣化」後，擁有執照所帶來的正統性意義非凡。
This marks a striking evolution for Ripple: from fighting regulators in court to voluntarily embracing bank-like oversight.
這標誌著Ripple一個重大轉型：從過去與監管機構法庭攻防，到現在主動迎接銀行級監督。
Ripple has been staffing its proposed bank with serious pedigree.
Ripple正為擬成立的銀行延攬資深專業人才。
The OCC filing reveals that Jack McDonald, CEO of Standard Custody (and an experienced custody-bank executive), will lead Ripple’s trust bank.
根據OCC申請文件，Standard Custody執行長Jack McDonald（一位資深的託管銀行高管）將出任Ripple信託銀行的領導者。
Ripple’s board selections include Stuart Alderoty, the company’s chief legal officer who formerly held senior roles at HSBC and American Express, and David Puth, the former CEO of Centre (the consortium behind USDC) and a veteran of CLS Bank’s global FX settlement system.
Ripple董事會成員還包括公司首席法務長Stuart Alderoty（曾任職於滙豐及美國運通高階主管）、以及前Centre（USDC背後的聯盟）執行長、並具有CLS銀行全球外匯清算系統經驗的David Puth。
These appointments signal that Ripple’s strategy for RLUSD and related services will focus on compliance, payment network integration, and high-level financial expertise.
這些人事安排說明Ripple針對RLUSD及相關業務的策略重點將放在合規、支付網絡整合與高階金融專業。
The bank charter, if granted, would provide Ripple a regulated channel to offer services to banks and fintechs that require strict compliance – a pivot from the company’s earlier position where regulatory uncertainty around XRP limited its U.S. business.
若Ripple順利獲准銀行執照，將能以受監管身分為追求高合規水準的銀行與金融科技公司提供服務，這與公司先前因XRP監管不確定性而受限於美國市場的處境形成對比。
Why a National Trust Bank Charter? Benefits and Limitations
為什麼選擇全國信託銀行執照？優勢與限制
At first blush, the term “bank charter” conjures images of traditional commercial banks – institutions that hold deposits, make loans, and offer checking accounts.
乍看之下，「銀行執照」這個詞讓人聯想到傳統商業銀行——收取存款、發放貸款、提供支票帳戶的機構。
It’s important to clarify that the OCC charters being sought by Paxos, Circle, and Ripple are trust bank charters, which come with a different scope of activities.
必須明確指出，Paxos、Circle與Ripple此次申請的OCC執照屬於信託銀行執照，其業務範圍與一般商業銀行不同。
A national trust bank is a federally regulated bank that does not have the authority to accept retail deposits or extend loans.
全國信託銀行是受聯邦監管的機構，但未獲許可辦理零售存款或貸款業務。
Instead, these charters allow companies to custody assets, act as fiduciaries, and facilitate payments on behalf of clients under OCC oversight.
這類銀行執照允許公司在OCC監管下進行資產託管、信託人身份以及協助客戶付款等活動。
This model was originally designed for entities like trust companies or custody banks.
這種模式最初是為信託公司與託管銀行等機構設計。
In the crypto context, it fits companies whose business is safeguarding digital assets and handling transactions, rather than traditional lending.
在加密產業背景下，此模式適合專注於數位資產保管及交易流通業務而非傳統放款的業者。
For the stablecoin issuers, the trust bank charter is attractive because it offers a federal stamp of approval and uniform regulatory regime without some of the burdens of full-service banks.
對穩定幣發行者而言，信託銀行執照具聯邦認可、全國統一監理優勢，卻又不必擔負全方位銀行業務的所有負擔。
By managing stablecoin reserves under a trust bank, Circle and Ripple could offer a product that “functions similarly to a demand deposit” – i.e., a stable value store of money – without being subject to federal deposit insurance or bank capital requirements.
以信託銀行身分管理穩定幣儲備，Circle和Ripple可提供類似「活期存款」的穩定幣產品——即穩定之貨幣價值儲存，但無需納入聯邦存款保險或銀行資本適足率等規範。
In essence, the OCC charter would let them operate nationally and directly interface with the financial system, but their stablecoins would remain an investment product or payment instrument rather than insured bank deposits.
本質上，OCC銀行執照使其能全美營運並直連金融體系，然穩定幣仍屬投資或支付工具，而非受保護的銀行存款。
From a user’s perspective, a USD Coin or Ripple USD token held in a digital wallet could start to feel as reliable as money in a bank account for everyday use, apart from the fact that stablecoins are not insured by the FDIC.
對用戶而言，數位錢包存有USD Coin或Ripple USD代幣，日常使用時的可靠性可媲美帳戶存款，惟需注意穩定幣並不享有聯邦存款保險（FDIC）保障。
The advantages of a national charter are significant.
全國性銀行執照賦予的優勢不可小覷。
First, it could enable faster and more cost-efficient payment settlement.
首先，它能促進更快、成本更低廉的支付清算。
As Reuters reported, a federal charter lets crypto companies settle transactions more rapidly while bypassing middleman banks, which can reduce fees and friction.
根據路透社報導，擁有聯邦執照的加密公司可更迅速結算交易，繞過中間銀行，進一步降低手續費與摩擦成本。
For example, when a customer redeems USDC for actual dollars, Circle’s bank could directly send those funds through Fed clearing systems or other banks, potentially 24/7, rather than relying on third-party banking partners’ timelines.
例如，當客戶將USDC兌換成美元時，Circle的銀行可直接透過聯邦清算系統或其他銀行、甚至全年無休地匯出款項，而不需受限於第三方協力銀行的時程。
Likewise, Paxos’s charter could allow it to integrate directly with payment networks to speed up conversions between PYUSD and traditional dollars.
同理，Paxos的執照也有望讓其直接整合支付網絡，加快PYUSD與傳統美元的轉換效率。
Second, a charter provides a “stamp of legitimacy” after years of regulatory uncertainty in crypto.
其次，獲得銀行執照能為歷經多年監管不確定性的加密業界帶來「正當性象徵」。
It signals to the market that these companies meet the stringent standards of U.S. banking regulators, which could attract more institutional participants who were previously cautious.
這表明業者已通過美國銀行監管嚴格標準，對曾持觀望態度的機構投資人具吸引力。
Large financial institutions or corporations might be more willing to use a stablecoin or entrust funds to a crypto platform that is under federal supervision and examined like a bank.
大型金融機構或企業會更願意使用受聯邦監管、接受銀行級查核的加密平台或穩定幣。
Another key benefit, as mentioned, is the potential to access Federal Reserve services.
另一關鍵優勢，如前述，即有機會獲取聯準會服務。
Although not automatic, a national bank (even one without deposits) can apply for a Federal Reserve master account, which is essentially a direct checking account with the central bank.
雖然非自動取得，任何全國性銀行（即使不辦理存款）皆可申請聯準會總帳戶，本質上即為央行的直接往來帳戶。
Both Circle and Ripple have indicated they will seek Fed accounts for their trust banks.
Circle與Ripple均表示將爭取旗下信託銀行申請聯準會帳戶。
If they succeed, they could hold their stablecoin reserves at the Fed and directly clear payments.
倘若申請成功，他們便可將穩定幣儲備存放聯準會、並可直接進行支付清算。
That would be a game-changer: stablecoin reserves held 100% in central bank money would greatly reduce any risk of a run (short of the U.S. government defaulting).
這將是顛覆性的作法：穩定幣儲備若有百分之百存放於央行貨幣，幾乎可杜絕擠兌風險（除非美國政府違約）。
It could also enable new functionality – for instance, instant stablecoin redemption; a user could cash out a stablecoin on a weekend night and the backing funds could move on the Fed’s books immediately via systems like FedNow.
此外可帶來創新功能——例如即時兌換穩定幣；使用者即使在週末夜裡兌現，也能透過FedNow等系統，相關資金即刻於聯準會帳簿間移轉。
This blurs the line between stablecoins and central bank digital money, effectively creating privately issued digital dollars that are fully supported by central bank-held assets.
這將模糊穩定幣與央行數位貨幣的界線，實質上產生完全由央行資產背書的「民間版數位美元」。
Such an arrangement might require additional approvals (the Federal Reserve has been cautious, previously denying some crypto-related applicants), but the new stablecoin law and OCC’s support might tip the scales in favor of access with appropriate safeguards.
這種安排或仍需額外核可（聯準會過去對相關申請持審慎態度並曾拒絕部分加密業者），惟新接納的穩定幣法案及OCC支持，有可能在妥善控管下傾向放行。
It’s worth noting the limitations too.
同時也有諸多限制。
A trust bank charter cannot offer retail banking services – so these companies won’t suddenly be opening branches or offering checking accounts to the general public.
信託銀行執照無法提供一般零售銀行服務——所以這些業者不會突然開設分行、或對大眾開放支票帳戶。
Their business remains focused on digital asset markets and institutional clients.
其核心業務仍侷限於數位資產市場與機構客戶。
They also won’t have FDIC insurance for their stablecoin liabilities, meaning consumers must rely on the issuer’s reserves and safeguards rather than government-backed insurance.
這些信託銀行發行的穩定幣債務亦不受聯邦存款保險（FDIC）保障，消費者只能信任發行商的儲備與風控措施，無政府擔保。
The GENIUS Act does provide that stablecoin holders have a priority claim on reserve assets in case of issuer insolvency, which is a critical protection, but it’s not the same as an FDIC guarantee.
GENIUS法案規定，一旦發行方破產，穩定幣持有者可優先求償儲備資產，這確實是一大保障，但與FDIC保險仍有本質區別。
This means stablecoin issuers with charters will need to maintain ironclad transparency and risk management to ensure they never face a run scenario.
也就是說，持有銀行執照的穩定幣發行商，必須維持高度透明與風險控管，以確保絕不遭遇擠兌危機。
Additionally, the OCC charter process is rigorous – initial conditional approval is just the start.
此外，OCC的申請流程極為嚴謹，初步附條件核准僅為起點。
The companies must fulfill various capital, liquidity, and operational criteria to actually open the bank.
企業還須達成多項資本、流動性及營運指標，方能真正開業。
As Paxos’s earlier experience showed, even with a conditional green light, a project can lapse if all requirements aren’t met in time.
如Paxos早前案例所示，即使獲附條件同意，未能及時符合同步條件，計畫仍可能流產。
So success isn’t just getting the charter; it’s implementing it effectively thereafter.
因此，真正的成功不僅在於取得執照，更需落實後續推動與實質營運。
Regulatory Tailwinds: A New Era of Clarity for Stablecoins
監管順風：穩定幣明確化監管新時代
The coordinated timing of Paxos, Circle, and Ripple’s applications is no coincidence.
Paxos、Circle和Ripple聯袂申請的時機絕非巧合。
It comes amid the most supportive U.S. regulatory climate for stablecoins to date.
這正值美國監管環境對穩定幣前所未有地友善。
In mid-2025, the United States enacted its first federal stablecoin legislation, providing long-sought clarity on how these digital dollars can be issued and supervised.
2025年中，美國通過首部聯邦級穩定幣法案，解決業界長久以來對數位美元發行和監管標準的疑慮。
The GENIUS Act of 2025, signed into law on July 18, 2025, is a comprehensive framework that essentially brings stablecoins into the regulatory fold of the financial system.
2025年7月18日正式生效的GENIUS法案，為美國首部全面納管穩定幣的法規，標誌穩定幣納入主流金融體系。
For the crypto industry, this was a landmark victory – a “massive validation” of efforts to legitimize crypto, as President Trump remarked during the signing ceremony.
這對加密產業而言是一大里程碑——特朗普總統在簽署儀式上即形容，這是產業力圖獲得正當性努力的「巨大肯定」。
Under the GENIUS Act, any payment stablecoin (stablecoins intended for use in payments) must be fully backed by high-quality liquid assets like cash or Treasury bills.
根據GENIUS法案，所有作為支付工具的穩定幣必須由現金或國庫券等高流動性資產百分百實體儲備支持。maintain 100% reserves and publish monthly reports detailing the composition of those reserves.
這要求穩定幣發行方必須維持100%的準備金，並且每月公布詳細的準備金組成報告。這實際上禁止了準備金不足的穩定幣狀況，並確保用戶與監管機關的透明度。法律同時明確規定穩定幣發行人需接受標準金融監管，例如銀行保密法，並強制要求有強健的反洗錢措施與合規於制裁監控。重要的是，發行方必須具備在合法要求時凍結或「銷毀」（作廢）穩定幣的技術能力，這與傳統銀行在應對法院命令或制裁時的義務一致。雖然加密貨幣原教旨主義者可能對這類控制感到不滿，但這正好解決了執法部門對於數位美元被非法使用的關切。
The GENIUS Act sets up a structure where stablecoin issuers can be either state-qualified or federally-qualified, with federal oversight as the gold standard.
《GENIUS法案》建立了一個機制，讓穩定幣發行方可以選擇州級資格認證或聯邦級認證，而聯邦監管是黃金標準。這法案協調了州與聯邦規則，在破產時，用戶的贖回權利優先於其他債權人。對於已在州信託制度下運作的公司，如Circle和Paxos，此法律實質上邀請他們升級到全國監管制度。事實上，Circle的管理層曾主張，為了穩定幣體系能夠安全擴展，發行人應被比照銀行或信託公司監管。現在法律上路，Circle申請OCC特許的行動就是實踐對更高標準承諾的證明。
Politically, the stablecoin law’s passage was driven by a recognition that the U.S. wants to maintain leadership in digital currency innovation, while controlling the risks.
從政治層面來看，穩定幣法通過的動力在於美國意識到需要在數位貨幣創新上保持領先地位，同時妥善控制風險。特朗普政府將此立法定位為利用民間創新來強化美元儲備貨幣地位的一種方式。要求穩定幣主要由美國國債支撐，確實可能增加對美債的需求，使穩定幣的成功與傳統金融體系的穩定性緊密相連。與此同時，這條法律並未直接禁止非銀行機構發行穩定幣；它反而提供了一條在監管下合法發行的途徑。這樣的政策選擇——而非堅持只有有保險的銀行才可發行——受到加密產業的歡迎，他們原本擔心會被強制推向「僅限銀行」的局面。產業在推動可行監管的遊說力道非常猛烈。加密公司和相關政治團體在2024年大選周期投入超過2.45億美元，支持友好加密的參選人，助力誕生了有史以來對加密最友善的國會。有了明確的監管框架，像Paxos、Circle和Ripple這類公司已不再處於灰色地帶，未來可安心依法運作。
Already we see the effect: Anchorage Digital – a crypto custody firm – became the first ever OCC-chartered digital asset bank back in January 2021.
這項立法影響已逐漸展現：Anchorage Digital（加密資產託管業者）於2021年1月成為首家獲得OCC特許的數位資產銀行。原本這屬少數案例，如今「申請特許的浪潮」已席捲而來。Paxos、Circle和Ripple之外，像Fidelity Digital Assets（傳統金融巨頭的加密託管部門）及Protego Trust等公司也向OCC遞交了銀行特許申請。這預示著加密公司甚至傳統金融機構逐漸匯聚到聯邦監管下的穩定幣與數位資產領域。如果這些特許被大規模核准，將能迅速讓加密公司在美國金融業界成為常態。GENIUS法案等於是打開了大門，而OCC也認真審視這些申請——當然，每家業者都將依照自身條件與合規計畫仔細評估。
Potential Impact if Approvals Come Through
若申請獲批准，可能產生的影響
Should Paxos, Circle, and Ripple all succeed in obtaining their banking charters, the implications for both the companies and the crypto market are far-reaching.
如果Paxos、Circle和Ripple全數取得銀行特許，這對企業自身及整個加密市場的影響將非常深遠。從大方向來說，這意味著加密原生金融世界與傳統銀行體系正式「橋接」在一起。這些公司將真正成為正規受監管的金融機構，可大幅提升主流玩家對加密市場的信任與參與度。
For the companies themselves, a charter would allow expansion of services and operational improvements.
以企業本身而言，取得特許可拓展業務範圍並改善營運。例如Paxos除了發行穩定幣與區塊鏈後端服務，還有機會直接承作第三方結算，並在聯邦監管下提供機構級資產託管方案。Paxos可為銀行客戶或金融科技公司處理數位資產交易，銀行也能因Paxos等同銀行的監管標準而放心合作。Paxos也透露，獲得特許有助於提升結算速度與資產管理效率，從而強化其基於區塊鏈的證券及商品結算平台等產品。聯邦監管身分還能讓Paxos與國際監管機關合作更加順利，因為國際多認可美國聯邦監管大過於州級拼湊。總體來說，Paxos或許能成為一種加密原生的往來銀行或清算所，介於加密市場與傳統銀行體系的樞紐。
Circle’s stablecoin USDC could likewise gain a competitive edge.
Circle的穩定幣USDC也可能由此獲得競爭優勢。當Circle的銀行分行正式擔任USDC的準備金管理人與託管方，將能更嚴謹地控管流動性與風險。未來我們或許會看到USDC與傳統支付網路更加無縫整合。目前包括Visa在內的支付巨頭，已經利用USDC測試跨境與商戶結算等服務。當Circle在聯邦監管下營運時，這些試點預期將加速落地。Visa近期也擴大穩定幣結算功能，強調穩定幣有望實現金融機構近乎即時、全年無休的結算。如果USDC由全國性銀行管理，更多支付處理公司、金融科技App乃至電子商務平台，將能以銀行級合規認可USDC作為支付選項。此外，Circle也可引入新服務——比如允許企業持有USDC時開立利息帳戶或財資管理服務，將準備金投資於短期國債而回饋部分收益給用戶（類似現行作法）。雖然技術上不一定能名正言順化成穩定幣活期利息，避免被認定為銀行業務，他們還是可以設計出激勵或機構客戶產品，使持有USDC更具吸引力，現在更有銀行主管機關背書。
For Ripple, achieving a charter and a Fed account would supercharge its mission to overhaul cross-border transfers.
對Ripple而言，取得特許並開立聯邦準備帳戶（Fed account）將會極大加速實現其改革跨境支付的目標。Ripple的網路（RippleNet）可以進一步利用RLUSD進行鏈上美元轉帳，即時且最終結算，並與傳統銀行清算後端互通。銀行特許甚至可讓Ripple直接作為同業與其他銀行對接。屆時Ripple不再只是銀行科技服務外包商，而是成為可以參加同業清算系統的合規成員。這或許會讓更多銀行願意採用Ripple的解決方案（無論是基於XRP還是RLUSD的結算），因為對手風險與監管不確定性皆大幅降低。例如，美國銀行客戶可將資金兌換成RLUSD後直接通過Ripple銀行海外劃撥，再於目的地兌換成本地貨幣，實現全程合規。此外，若Ripple在聯準會持有大量準備金，還有機會直接為客戶完成貨幣交換或兌換服務。長遠來看，Ripple的此舉或許能為更多法幣或金融資產的代幣化鋪路，前提是都取得類似的銀行特許。
For the crypto market at large, the success of these bank charters would likely be seen as a bullish signal of integration and maturity.
對大盤而言，這些銀行特許的成功會被視為加密市場邁向整合與成熟的強勁利多訊號。穩定幣將因此更安全、用途更廣。我們或許會看到，穩定幣在日常商業活動中的普及率大幅提升——例如，更多商家接受USDC或PYUSD，更多匯款公司用RLUSD或USDC跨境轉帳，更多去中心化金融（DeFi）應用以這些全合規穩定幣作為核心流動性。原本觀望的機構投資人也可能藉穩定幣進場，把它當作安全進入其他數位資產的跳板，而無須擔心超越銀行水準的匯率風險或對手風險。如渣打銀行預測，只要法規鼓勵主流應用，穩定幣市值2028年前有望成長至2兆美元。美國主要發行方取得銀行特許，正是法規「綠燈」的最佳寫照，可能成為催生此一成長曲線的關鍵推手。
It could also reshape the competitive landscape among stablecoins.
這情況也可能重塑穩定幣的市場格局。一直以來，Tether的USDT都是市佔第一的穩定幣，流通量常超過800億美元，但其發行與準備金相對不透明，且完全未尋求美國許可。若USDC（甚至PYUSD和RLUSD）被普遍認為更透明且受政府監管，在美國與嚴格法規環境中，交易量和信任度可能部份轉向這些新標的。大型交易場所或金融機構可能為了合規偏好USDC或PYUSD，長期下來Tether的領先地位或許將被削弱。另一方面，Tether仍有機會繼續主宰較重視去中心化或對監管不在意的國家。但差距可能縮小。我們也可能看到有新競爭者加入戰局——例如大型科技公司或傳統銀行，因為現在有清楚明確的監管路徑...exists. The law did not ban Big Tech from issuing stablecoins (something some lawmakers wanted to prohibit).
現行法律並未禁止大型科技公司發行穩定幣（這其實是部分立法者曾想要明令禁止的事情）。
Imagine a scenario where a company like Amazon or JPMorgan decides to issue a stablecoin; they would likely either partner with an entity like Circle or Paxos, or seek a similar charter to do it themselves.
想像一下，如果像亞馬遜或摩根大通這樣的公司決定發行穩定幣，他們很可能會選擇與 Circle 或 Paxos 這類機構合作，或者尋求類似的牌照親自操作。
The success of these three current applications could set precedents for how others can follow.
這三個現有申請案的成功，可能會為其他人效法建立先例。
Moreover, the integration of crypto firms as banks could usher more innovation in payment infrastructure.
此外，加密貨幣公司與銀行業融合，可能會帶來支付基礎設施上的更多創新。
The idea of money moving instantly at any time of day, with the programmability of cryptocurrency, but under the oversight of central bankers and regulators, is quite new.
資金可隨時即時移動，並結合加密貨幣的可編程性，但同時由央行與監管機構監督，這樣的理念是相當新穎的。
Projects like the Global Dollar (USDG) – a consortium that Paxos is involved in – may accelerate, creating international stablecoin standards.
像 Global Dollar（USDG）這類計畫——這是一個 Paxos 參與的聯盟——可能會加速推進，建立國際穩定幣標準。
U.S.-regulated stablecoins might become the preferred medium for digital dollar liquidity globally, reinforcing the dollar’s role but in a tech-forward way.
受美國監管的穩定幣，可能成為全球數位美元流動性的首選媒介，進一步以科技領先的方式鞏固美元角色。
This complements U.S. government interests in extending dollar dominance via innovation, as Treasury officials noted stablecoins could “expand access to the dollar economy and boost demand for U.S. Treasuries”.
這也呼應了美國政府希望透過創新維持美元主導地位的利益——正如財政部官員所指出，穩定幣能「擴大大家進入美元經濟圈的管道，並增加對美國國債的需求」。
If Paxos, Circle, and Ripple become the new model of compliant stablecoin issuers, it’s likely we’ll see more dollar-backed tokens permeating global finance, from capital markets to trade settlements, all riding on private networks but anchored by U.S. oversight.
如果 Paxos、Circle 和 Ripple 成為合規穩定幣發行的全新標竿，我們很有可能會看到更多美元擔保的代幣滲透到全球金融領域，從資本市場到貿易結算，全都建立於私有網路上，但由美國監管把關。
Challenges and Considerations
挑戰與考量
Even if these charters are approved, there are challenges and potential downsides to acknowledge.
即使這些牌照申請獲得批准，仍有不少挑戰與潛在的負面影響需要面對。
One immediate hurdle is opposition from the traditional banking industry.
首先立即要面對的障礙，就是來自傳統銀行業的反對。
Large bank associations and community banks are not entirely pleased about having stablecoin issuers enter their turf.
大型銀行協會與社區銀行對於穩定幣發行商進入自己的地盤，其實並不完全樂見其成。
In fact, groups like the American Bankers Association (ABA) and the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) have formally lobbied the OCC to delay or deny these applications.
美國銀行家協會（ABA）和全美獨立社區銀行家協會（ICBA）等團體，已正式遊說美國貨幣監理署（OCC）延遲或駁回這些申請案。
Their argument is that granting stablecoin firms bank charters (even trust bank charters) lets them effectively compete with banks for deposits, without meeting all the same regulatory requirements that insured depository institutions face.
他們的理由是，若給穩定幣公司銀行牌照（即使只是信託型銀行牌照），這會讓他們有效與銀行競爭爭取存款資金，但卻不需要遵循與有保險存款機構一樣的全部監管標準。
Stablecoins can be seen as deposit substitutes – consumers might hold dollars in USDC or PYUSD wallets instead of in bank accounts, which would drain funds from the banking system.
穩定幣可被視為「存款替代品」——消費者有可能不再把美元放在銀行帳戶，而選擇存放於 USDC 或 PYUSD 錢包，這會讓銀行體系流失資金。
Unlike banks, however, stablecoin issuers under trust charters wouldn’t have to insure those funds or adhere to strict capital ratios and liquidity coverage mandates that banks do.
然而，與銀行不同，持有信託型銀行牌照的穩定幣發行公司不需要保險這些資金，也不必像銀行一樣嚴格遵循資本與流動性覆蓋率等要求。
Bank advocates call this an uneven playing field and a potential risk to financial stability if too much money moves into uninsured, privately managed digital dollars.
銀行業倡議者認為，這使競爭環境不公平，且若有過多資金流向未受保險、由私人管理的數位美元，還可能威脅金融穩定。
Regulators will have to balance those concerns.
監管機關需要在這些問題之間取得平衡。
It’s possible the OCC or the Federal Reserve (which would weigh in especially on the Fed account aspect) might impose extra conditions on these crypto banks to mitigate risks.
OCC 或聯邦準備理事會（尤其涉及 Fed 帳戶問題）可能會對這些加密銀行施加額外條件，以降低風險。
They could require, for example, certain capital buffers or heightened supervision given the novel nature of the business, even if not as high as for full banks.
例如，他們可能會要求某些資本緩衝或更嚴格的監管，考量這種業務的新穎特性，即使標準不如一般銀行那麼高。
The GENIUS Act’s requirements (like monthly audits of reserves) already impose transparency that goes beyond what banks disclose for their deposits.
《GENIUS 法案》中的規定（如每月儲備審計）已經比銀行對存款的揭露標準還要透明。
But the systemic question – could stablecoins at scale lead to bank-like runs or affect money supply – will be front of mind.
但從系統性來看，大型穩定幣會否引發類似銀行擠兌，或影響貨幣供給，是首要關切。
Fed officials in the past have voiced worries that if stablecoin issuers aren’t banks, their growth could circumvent mechanisms the Fed uses to control the money supply and manage economic stability.
聯準會官員過去也曾擔心，若穩定幣發行商並非銀行，其成長可能繞過聯準會用以控制貨幣供給、維護金融穩定的機制。
However, if stablecoin issuers become a lot like banks (just without lending), regulators might gain more confidence in managing those implications.
然而，如果穩定幣發行公司變得越來越像銀行（只是沒有放款功能），監管機構或許就會更有信心來管理這些後果。
Another consideration is the international dimension.
另一個考量是國際層面。
The U.S. stepping up oversight of dollar stablecoins might prompt other countries to demand more oversight of stablecoins that operate in their jurisdictions or are tied to their currencies.
美國若加強監管美元計價穩定幣，可能也會促使其他國家要求更嚴格監管在本國營運或掛鉤本國貨幣的穩定幣。
We might see, for instance, calls for stablecoin issuers to hold licenses in each major region or for foreign regulators to scrutinize U.S.-issued coins more since they effectively act as global digital dollars.
比如，未來可能會有要求穩定幣發行商在各主要區域獲取執照，或由外國監管機構更嚴格審查美國發行的穩定幣，因它們實際扮演著全球數位美元的角色。
Collaboration among regulators could increase, and standards harmonization may follow.
各國監管合作可能會增強，標準也可能逐步趨於一致。
The presence of U.S.-licensed crypto banks could also spur allied countries to adopt similar approaches – for example, the U.K. is considering a regime for stablecoins in payments, and some jurisdictions like Singapore and Switzerland have begun offering specialized licenses to crypto firms.
美國特許的加密銀行也可能刺激其他盟國採取類似作法——例如英國正考慮針對支付中的穩定幣訂定新規，而新加坡、瑞士等地則已開始對加密公司發放專屬執照。
A successful integration of stablecoin issuers into U.S. banking could become a model for others, potentially leading to a network of regulated crypto banks worldwide.
穩定幣發行商成功融入美國銀行業，可能成為其他國家的範例，進一步促成全球受監管的加密銀行網絡。
From a user perspective, there is the issue of centralization and control.
從使用者角度看，還有集中化與控制權的問題。
Part of crypto’s allure has been the ability to transact outside of traditional gatekeepers.
加密貨幣吸引力的一部分，在於能繞過傳統把關機制自由交易。
Fully regulated stablecoins will inevitably be more prone to compliance freezes or account blacklisting if ordered by authorities (indeed, as mentioned, the new law requires that capability).
完全符合法規的穩定幣勢必更容易在政府指示下進行資金凍結或帳戶黑名單處理（確實如前面所述，新法也要求具備這項功能）。
We have already seen instances of this: Centre Consortium (Circle’s partner in USDC) froze blacklisted USDC addresses in the past when requested by law enforcement.
這已經有先例：Centre Consortium（Circle 的 USDC 合作夥伴）過去在執法機關要求下凍結了黑名單上的 USDC 地址。
As stablecoins become pillars of mainstream finance, they may lose some of the censorship-resistant qualities that some cryptocurrency users value.
當穩定幣逐步成為主流金融的基石時，它可能會失去部分加密貨幣用戶所看重的抗審查特性。
This could create a split in the crypto community, where regulated stablecoins dominate institutional and consumer payments, while more decentralized or less regulated alternatives either shrink in relevance or find niche use cases (potentially attracting scrutiny if they become avenues for illicit activity).
這會進一步導致加密社群出現分歧：合規穩定幣主宰機構與消費者支付領域，而更加去中心化或缺乏監管的其他選擇，不是逐漸邊緣化，就是只能尋找特殊應用場景（若成為非法用途管道還可能引發監管關注）。
It’s a trade-off between widespread adoption under clear rules and the original crypto ethos of complete decentralization.
這是廣泛應用（有明確規則）與原始加密精神（徹底去中心化）之間的權衡。
Finally, success is not guaranteed.
最後，成功並非唾手可得。
The OCC has granted very few national trust charters so far.
目前為止，OCC 頒發的全國性信託銀行牌照非常稀少。
Anchorage Digital got one in 2021, but others that were conditionally approved around that time (like Protego) never got off the ground, and reportedly the OCC under subsequent leadership grew more cautious.
Anchorage Digital 曾在 2021 年取得，但那陣子有些附帶條件的通過案例（如 Protego）卻最終無疾而終，據傳 OOC 之後態度變得更加謹慎。
The current batch of applications will test how far regulators are willing to go.
目前這一波申請將考驗監管機關願意走多遠。
If any of Paxos, Circle, or Ripple falter in providing satisfactory risk management plans, or if broader economic or political shifts cause a change in regulatory mood, the approvals could be delayed or come with heavy restrictions.
若 Paxos, Circle, Ripple 其中任何一家公司未能提供足夠滿意的風險控管計畫，或外在政治經濟氛圍轉變令監管趨嚴，都有可能讓核准延宕或附加大量限制。
There is also the timeline – even if approved in principle, it might take these firms many months or a year-plus to actually implement the banks.
時程上，即便獲得原則性批准，這些公司實際開展銀行業務，還可能需要好幾個月甚至超過一年。
During that time, market conditions could change.
這段期間，市場情勢也可能變動。
For instance, if a major stablecoin were to face a crisis or if crypto markets faced another downturn, priorities could shift.
舉例來說，若主要穩定幣發生危機，或加密市場再次大跌，各方的優先順序也會改變。
The companies will need to demonstrate not just that they deserve a charter, but that they can operate these trust banks safely over time.
這些公司不僅要證明自己值得獲頒牌照，還要展現其有能力長期安全經營這些信託銀行。
Conclusion: A New Chapter for Crypto and Banking
結論：加密與銀行的新篇章
The simultaneous charter pursuits by Paxos, Circle, and Ripple underscore a transformative moment: the crypto industry is no longer content to exist in a parallel financial universe.
Paxos、Circle 和 Ripple 同步申請銀行執照，正標誌著產業重大轉型時刻——加密貨幣界已不再自外於傳統金融體系。
These leading firms are bringing their innovations into the regulatory framework of traditional finance, betting that long-term success lies in cooperation with regulators rather than bypassing them.
這些領頭公司選擇在監理架構內展現創新，認為與監管單位合作才是長期發展的王道，而不是繞道而行。
If they all succeed, the boundary between crypto companies and banks will blur.
若他們都順利成功，加密貨幣公司與銀行間的界線將變得模糊。
We will have entities that look like hybrids – part crypto platform, part bank – using blockchain-based dollars under the watchful eye of federal regulators.
市面上將出現「混合式」實體——既是加密平台，又像銀行——在聯邦監管機構監督下以區塊鏈操作美元。
The upshot for the crypto market could be profoundly positive in terms of acceptance and growth.
這對加密市場的接納度與成長潛力來說，影響極其正面。
Stablecoins would be legitimized as a daily financial tool, likely sparking broader adoption in commerce and cross-border transactions.
穩定幣將被正式認可為日常金融工具，極有可能促成商業和跨境交易中的更廣泛應用。
We could see the U.S. dollar further cement its global dominance by riding the rails of private stablecoins, now fortified with regulatory safeguards.
我們將見證美元藉由受監管私營穩定幣渠道，進一步鞏固其全球主導地位。
Crypto markets might also enjoy greater liquidity and stability as confidence in regulated stablecoins increases, potentially reducing dependence on more opaque alternatives.
隨著合規穩定幣信心提升，交易市場的流動性與穩定性也會提升，市場對那些較不透明的替代幣種依賴將有望大幅降低。
New financial products and services will emerge – imagine on-chain savings accounts, instant loans or trade finance using stablecoins, all overseen by bank-regulated entities that ensure compliance and safety.
將會有更多新型金融產品與服務誕生——如鏈上儲蓄帳戶、即時貸款或以穩定幣進行的貿易融資，全都由銀行監管、確保法遵與安全。
At the same time, regulatory integration brings responsibility.
然而法規整合帶來的同時也是責任。
Paxos, Circle, and Ripple will be closely watched as precedents.
Paxos、Circle、Ripple 將作為開先例者被密切檢視。
Any misstep – a compliance lapse, a technical failure, or a perceived risk – could invite strict correction and influence how other crypto firms are treated.
只要有合規失誤、技術故障、或潛在風險，都可能招致嚴厲糾正，也會影響其他加密公司的待遇。
They will need to uphold the “highest standards of safety and transparency,” as Paxos’s CEO pledged, to justify the trust placed in them.
他們必須像 Paxos 執行長所承諾的那樣「堅持最高安全與透明標準」，才能對得起所獲得的信任。
The traditional banking sector will be watching too, as these newcomers encroach on functions long held by banks.
傳統銀行界同樣會密切關注這些新進者如何切入銀行長年主導的業務範疇。
It sets the stage for both competition and collaboration: banks may partner with these crypto firms to extend services (some banks might prefer to integrate established stablecoins rather than create their own), or they may double down on lobbying to constrain them.
這也同時創造競爭與合作新局：銀行也可能會選擇與加密公司結盟擴展服務（有些銀行寧願整合現成穩定幣而非自建），或乾脆加強遊說施壓加以限制。
For the average crypto user and the public, this convergence means the Wild West days of stablecoins are yielding to an era of “regulated innovation.”
對一般加密貨幣用戶與民眾而言，這種融合意味穩定幣「西部拓荒時代」迎來「受監管的創新」新紀元。
The core promise of stablecoins – instant, borderless digital money – is now being harnessed with the guardrails of law and oversight.
穩定幣最初的願景——即時、無國界的數位貨幣——如今正被納入法治與監督的保護下發揮。
It’s a development reminiscent of the early internet, which started open and uncontrolled before eventually major companies worked with governments to bring it into everyday life with safety standards.
這就像早期網際網路，從開放、無管制到後來大型企業攜手政府，共同為大眾生活建立安全標準。
Likewise, stablecoins are graduating from niche crypto tools to a recognized part of the financial ecosystem, thanks to companies willing to wear both hats of fintech disruptor and bank executive.
同理，穩定幣正從少數人的加密工具，躍升成被主流接受的金融生態一環，這全賴於敢於同時扮演金融科技顛覆者與銀行執行長角色的公司。
In the coming months, as the OCC reviews these applications, the crypto world will be eagerly awaiting the
未來幾個月，隨著 OCC 審查這些申請案，全球加密貨幣界都將引頸期盼......outcome。若獲得批准，將意味著加密貨幣與傳統金融結合的趨勢獲得了綠燈；而若遭到拒絕或延遲，則可能說明監管機構仍有所保留。不過，目前的動力，由新立法與市場需求支撐，顯然傾向於讓穩定幣納入銀行監管的體系。由此看來，Paxos、Circle 和 Ripple 爭取銀行執照的行動，絕非一段小型監管故事，而是一場攸關貨幣未來的關鍵實驗。若他們取得成功，將有可能從根本上改變我們對加密貨幣與銀行的看法，將加密貨幣的速度與全球性與傳統金融的信任和監管相結合。這標誌著一個新篇章的起點——數位美元與傳統美元逐步融合，相關機構也會隨之調整，這個過程很可能重塑加密貨幣市場，乃至整個金融格局。