加密貨幣與銀行業的橋樑：為何加密公司追求銀行執照及其意義

加密公司日益積極追求傳統銀行執照與牌照——這一趨勢被行業分析師總結為「無法打敗，就加入他們」。與其留在邊緣，許多加密公司現今主動努力成為受監管的銀行或準銀行。這一轉變的動力，來自能夠接觸支付基礎設施、大幅提升信任度與公信力，以及拓展新金融商品的可能。

新法規（美國、歐盟、香港等）對穩定幣的管理，實質上要求發行方達到銀行級的標準，促使穩定幣業者尋求銀行牌照。簡言之，取得銀行執照讓加密業者以自己的條件融入受監管的金融體系。

以下說明這波趨勢的動機、現行及主要的牌照種類、全球動態、領先企業的案例、監管推動力，以及對用戶和市場的利弊影響。

為何加密公司積極申請銀行執照

加密公司長期以來都面臨銀行服務的困難。傳統銀行因洗錢疑慮和不確定性，常對數位資產產業有所保留。成為受監管銀行有助克服這些難題。主要動機包括：

• 支付基礎設施與出入金： 取得銀行執照後，加密公司可直接連接 Fedwire、ACH 和代理銀行等系統。如某顧問所言，銀行牌照讓「出入金管道由加密業者自行掌控，不必經由中間銀行」。這代表加密公司能更迅速且可靠地轉換法幣。舉例來說，Kraken Bank（懷俄明 SPDI）即計畫開設美元存款帳戶與電匯服務，與自家交易所無縫結合，實現方便的法幣入金；相較之下，沒有銀行執照的加密公司只能仰賴第三方銀行或支付服務，有時還會被「標記」而遭到凍結轉帳。
• 信任與公信力： 擁有銀行執照象徵高度監管與安全。取得銀行牌照「能帶來某種層次的信任」，也可在監管下提供存款與放貸等服務。對加密客戶和合作夥伴來說，受監管身份多被視為正派的象徵。Circle 執行長 Jeremy Allaire 強調，成為全國信託公司是追求「最高的信任、透明與合規標準」的一環。銀行監管還要求資本緩衝、審計及嚴格控管，能提升機構客戶信心。
• 新產品與服務： 銀行執照可讓加密業者推出主流金融產品。像 Kraken Bank 稱其牌照可守護加密資產和美元全額儲備，還能推出金融卡、利息帳戶與規劃代幣化資產。同樣，Circle 所規劃的信託銀行，能監管 USDC 準備金與代管客戶代幣，甚至拓展到代幣化證券。成為銀行等於讓加密業者將交易所、託管、支付與錢包服務整合為一，相較於從外部廠商拼湊更有效率。
• 合規及穩定幣法規： 新立法也是關鍵推手。美國像 STABLE Act、GENIUS Act 等草案規定，穩定幣必須由銀行或銀行子公司發行且全額準備。歐盟 MiCA 框架亦將穩定幣歸為電子貨幣代幣（EMTs）並要求持有電子貨幣機構執照。香港即將公布的穩定幣法也明訂需申請金管局牌照。為因應規定，像 Ripple、Circle 等穩定幣發行商正提前尋求銀行執照，以合法推行加密代幣。簡單說，成為銀行既是合規防衛策略，也是業務成長的前置條件。

這些因素令銀行執照極具吸引力。有一名區塊鏈高管說過，經過數十年產業探索，如今加密產業「主流化」就在於願意接受和銀行同等的監管規範。這不僅打開了原本無法觸及的市場與業務，也意味著必須承擔受監管銀行的相應責任。

加密公司可申請的主要執照類型

加密公司目前有幾種合規管道可選，各具特色與侷限。主要類型包含：

• 傳統商業銀行執照（完全銀行執照）： 這是一般銀行最標準的牌照，允許辦理存款、放貸、支付等全套銀行業務。取得完全銀行執照的門檻高，但能擁有全部銀行功能。少數加密新創走這條路。例如瑞士 Sygnum、SEBA 兩家 2019 年就獲瑞士金融監管局 FINMA 頒發全功能銀行與證券經營執照，得以如同一般銀行，辦理放貸、託管與雙幣支付等。然而，目前大多數法域並無「專門加密銀行」執照，加密公司多半是利用現有銀行或金融執照來轉型。
• 懷俄明 SPDI（特殊目的存款機構）執照： 這是美國懷俄明州獨有的混合型牌照，專為數位資產設計。SPDI 為州特許銀行，業務以託管和存款為主，不辦理放貸。必須 100% 準備金，不受 FDIC 保險保障。例如 Kraken Bank 可辦加密託管、美元存款及支付轉帳，但無法將存款用於放貸。SPDI 被視為加密資產的安全港，受懷俄明監管且不會因放貸操作而破產。（Kraken 宣稱即使所有客戶同時提領也能全數兌付，因為 100% 準備。）不過，由於 SPDI 不受聯邦存款保險保障，存戶須自行承擔保險風險。
• 全國信託銀行執照（OCC Trust Charter）： 美國貨幣監理署（OCC）可核發全國性的信託銀行執照。信託銀行可託管資產、辦理結算與管理準備金，但多數不可承收活期存款與放貸。2021 年 Anchorage Digital（加密託管商）獲得美國首個 OCC 信託牌照，成為完全受監管的國家級加密託管銀行。Circle 也正申請 OCC 信託執照來管理 USDC 準備金。與 SPDI 類似，信託銀行代表高監管層級；不同在於 OCC 牌照核准後可直連聯準會帳戶（FedMaster），實現銀行間清算。（註：美國信託銀行若收保險存款，則亦受 FDIC 保險，但目前多數加密信託銀行並無打算吸收存款。）
• 電子貨幣機構（EMI）執照： 歐洲於 MiCA 條例下，法幣掛鉤的穩定幣被納入電子貨幣代幣（EMT）。發行 EMT 必須持有歐盟成員國 EMI 牌照，相當於科技公司處理預付電子貨幣（類似 PayPal）的牌照，不過對象為加密資產。舉例，Circle 2023 年拿下法國 EMI 執照以營運歐元穩定幣。EMI 牌照允許公司發行可 1:1 贖回法幣的數位貨幣，但不等同自動獲得加密託管權，常須搭配數位資產執照。EMI 法規要求 100% 準備金、資金安全保管，以及監管單位嚴格監督。
• 虛擬資產服務提供者（VASP）／金錢傳輸業執照： 多國對交易所、託管與錢包等加密業務，發放類似的合規執照（如歐盟 MiCA 的 VASP，美國金錢傳輸業執照，新加坡支付服務執照等）。這些執照允許加密資產買賣和轉帳，但不授予銀行權限。加密業者常同時擁有多國 VASP 牌照。例如，某公司可能在歐盟有交易所 VASP 執照，在美國有金錢傳輸業執照，並兼具信託銀行執照來因應不同市場需求。VASP 執照主要聚焦 KYC/AML 合規與客戶託管，並不涵蓋受存款管理。在推動銀行化業務時，加密業者多半也保有原有交易所相關執照，以因應各監管規定下的現貨交易與區塊鏈操作。
• 其他數位銀行／科技金融執照： 少數國家設有「純網銀」或支付機構執照可適用加密公司。例如新加坡有數位全功能銀行執照（服務國內零售）及數位支付機構執照（數位貨幣支付）。英國則有金融行為監管局（FCA）發放電子貨幣執照，可用於加密支付。這些執照多以數位支付或放貸為主，並可能視法規開放加密集成。不過，美國和歐盟等主要法域目前仍以上述商業銀行、SPDI、信託銀行和 EMI 為主體，加密金融科技專屬執照則較少。

各類執照各有取捨：SPDI 與信託銀行牌照針對數位資產服務量身打造，但限制經營範圍；完全銀行執照涵蓋全部業務，但監管資本與合規門檻最高。實務上，加密公司會衡量自身產品屬性選擇合適的執照類型（如穩定幣業者常以信託或 EMI 執照來處理準備金）。

全球加密銀行監管發展現況

加密銀行業已成國際趨勢，不同地區依自身步調展開相關法規：

• 美國： The 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.

美國一直走在加密貨幣銀行特許的前沿。懷俄明州因友善加密的法規打造出SPDI（特殊用途存款機構）模式，最早由Kraken Bank實施，現在包括Custodia等其他機構也紛紛跟進。在聯邦層級，近年OCC（貨幣監理署）展現出更開放態度：取消了先前的“不反對函”限制，並核發特許給Anchorage Digital。2025年的媒體報導證實，穩定幣發行商Ripple和Circle都已申請OCC特許，Coinbase則表示正在「積極考慮」聯邦銀行特許。這些動作與美國國會推動相關立法同步發生：國會正推進像STABLE Act、GENIUS Act等穩定幣法案，規定發行商必須受聯邦或州銀行機構監管。值得注意的是，聯準會近期已指示地區央行在核發主帳戶時，不可再將「聲譽風險」作為標準，這對加密公司進入聯準會服務被視為開綠燈。儘管如此，障礙仍然存在：Custodia Bank於2023年1月基於安全理由申請Fed主帳戶遭駁回，反洗錢（AML）疑慮也仍持續。

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）：**歐洲的監管體系正透過MiCA（加密資產市場規範）逐漸成形。MiCA要求穩定幣發行商（稱為資產掛鉤代幣或電子貨幣代幣）需取得歐盟成員國的電子貨幣執照；例如Circle就在法國取得EMI執照，發行歐元穩定幣。MiCA也規定穩定幣必須100%準備金以及定期公開資訊。實務上，主流加密業者積極合規：Kraken愛爾蘭已取得全歐盟VASP（虛擬資產服務商）執照，以MiCA規範服務歐盟市場。歐洲傳統銀行也開始投入穩定幣領域—Cointelegraph報導指出，儘管先前態度保守，多家歐洲銀行近期亦申請發行自家穩定幣。英國（脫歐後）則根據FCA指引將穩定幣視為電子貨幣，發行商同樣須取得FCA核准。儘管ECB及歐元區銀行對央行數位貨幣（CBDC）較為謹慎，整體歐洲已在為加密產業接軌做準備。監管焦點仍在穩定幣及反洗錢規範（ECB持續對加密流動性與詐欺發出警告）。

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：瑞士積極吸引加密金融業。2019年，FINMA頒發首批「加密銀行」全牌照給SEBA Bank與Sygnum Bank（皆已依瑞士法更名）。這些銀行在瑞士銀行監管下，提供代幣託管、經紀和數位資產管理等服務。FINMA對反洗錢（AML）有嚴格規範—如規定代幣轉帳必須能追蹤到發送人和接收人資訊。2025年，瑞士加密銀行持續領先：AMINA Bank（SEBA的衍生銀行）成為全球首家受監管銀行支援Ripple新發行的RLUSD穩定幣，為機構客戶提供代幣託管及交易。瑞士主管機關也批准了瑞士法郎穩定幣和代幣化資產的試點計畫，鞏固瑞士數位金融重鎮的地位。

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）：**香港與新加坡正成為亞洲的加密資產門戶。香港已大幅修訂法規：2023年中啓動虛擬資產交易平台（VASP）發牌制，2025年又立法通過穩定幣條例，規定法幣擔保穩定幣必須向香港金融管理局（HKMA）申領牌照。HKMA將對準備金、營運、消費者保護設下嚴格標準，本質上建立出「央行認證」穩定幣品類。這反映出支持創新的方針—監管機關會將穩定幣與CBDC做出區隔，促進數位資產與香港金融市場共融。新加坡主管機關同樣活動頻繁：MAS於2022年底公布穩定幣監理框架，要求100%高品質準備金並禁止部分型態收益。新加坡2020年曾發4張數位銀行執照（給Grab/Sea/螞蟻等非加密業者），目前暫停增發；當地加密業者多以數位支付代幣「主要支付機構」執照經營。總結，港、新兩地均強調加密資產穩定性與合規（足額準備金、持續稽核），雖讓發照更嚴格，但執照取得後也更具公信力。

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）：**阿聯酋設立了多個加密友善區域。杜拜虛擬資產監理局（VARA）、阿布達比ADGM（FSRA）等監管機構以明確規則發照給加密交易所及資產管理公司。阿聯酋並積極鼓勵數位銀行創新。值得注意的是，杜拜Ruya Bank成為全球第一家伊斯蘭數位銀行，提供合乎沙利亞法的加密交易。大多數執照發放著重於加密券商服務，少數金融科技業者（如Adadash）則展開加密銀行混合業務。阿聯酋的做法是在快速採納和嚴格監管間取平衡—例如所有加密代幣均納入支付法監管。其他中東金融中心（如巴林）也已發放加密牌照。整體來看，該區域視加密金融為成長產業，不過加密銀行的概念較西方發展尚屬初步。

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.

總結來說，加密銀行執照正向全球擴散。各地業者皆會針對當地法規調整布局——無論是在美國取得懷俄明SPDI、OCC特許、歐盟電子貨幣執照，或是瑞士FINMA加密銀行牌，都以使自身核心加密服務合法化為目標。

Case Studies of Crypto Companies Becoming Banks

加密公司成為銀行的案例研究

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

以下是幾家主流加密公司（或關聯企業）申請或取得銀行牌照的代表性案例：

• 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成為首家取得懷俄明特殊用途存款機構（SPDI）特許的大型加密貨幣交易所。根據官方部落格，Kraken作為SPDI會維持100%法幣準備金，並為客戶提供美元存款帳戶、加密貨幣託管、電匯及其他銀行服務。Kraken強調SPDI特許使其能扮演「數位資產銀行」角色，連接加密與傳統金融。（Kraken Bank受懷俄明銀行管理局規範，並持續接受稽核，但和所有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是另一家獲得懷俄明州SPDI特許的機構，以發展穩定幣銀行為定位。該行2022年底申請聯準會主帳戶（以串聯支付系統），但2023年1月遭聯準會公開駁回。聯準會指出Custodia「創新的商業模式」及聚焦加密領域帶來「重大安全與穩健風險」，尤其是Custodia計畫在去中心化網路上發行數位資產，與安全銀行實務不符。Custodia案例顯示不是所有監管單位都持加密友善態度；雖然取得州層級SPDI，但聯邦背書仍是一大障礙。（Custodia已表示將依據新標準繼續爭取聯準會會員資格。）

• 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信託特許）：Anchorage Digital（機構級加密託管商）2021年獲OCC核准成為首家取得全國性銀行特許的加密公司（以信託銀行身分）。作為信託銀行，Anchorage可擔任數位資產的合格託管人，並可全面參與聯準會支付業務。執行長Nathan McCauley表示，與OCC四年密切合作，終令監管清晰無雙。Anchorage現已在嚴格合規下，提供託管、質押與其他加密服務。

• 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，已申請設立全國信託銀行（暫名「第一國家數位貨幣銀行 N.A.」）。一旦獲OCC批准，Circle信託銀行即可直接為客戶持有並管理USDC美元準備金。Allaire解釋，這舉措接續Circle IPO，旨在達成財務運作「最高信任、透明、治理標準」。該信託特許不同於一般商業銀行，無法收受一般存款或發放貸款，重點在準備金管理與加密託管。Circle動作時機，正值美國穩定幣立法即將上路（法案2025年中通過參議院），顯示此銀行規劃是為成為新法下合規穩定幣發行商。

• 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全國銀行特許申請與RLUSD）：**Ripple Labs（與XRP Ledger關聯）於2025年7月公開申請OCC全國銀行特許，成為繼Circle之後，第二家公開爭取聯邦銀行資格的加密公司。Ripple目標在於「於聯邦監管下拓展加密服務」，以配合穩定幣規範的進展。同時，Ripple也發行自有穩定幣（RLUSD）並積極和銀行夥伴整合。值得注意的是，瑞士加密銀行AMINA已宣布將以託管方式交易RLUSD（見下文），顯示Ripple將穩定幣當作獲牌銀行產品經營。追求特許與同步發行穩定幣，突顯Ripple押注受監管金融資格對加密原生公司將至關重要。

• 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（考慮申請聯邦特許）：**Coinbase作為全球最大加密交易所之一，已公開確認正「積極考慮」申請聯邦銀行特許。多家媒體（如WSJ、Banking Dive）指出，Coinbase正與BitGo、Circle、Paxos一起規劃申請特許。Coinbase的動向反映產業整體趨勢。專家認為，OCC近期取消「監理不反對」政策，使取得此類特許比以往更可行。若Coinbase申請特許，可望將交易所錢包與受保存款帳戶整合，惟其仍須符合全部銀行資本規定。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，尚未有正式申請案提交，但Coinbase公開聲明顯示其有意擁有更多加密貨幣至法幣的基礎設施。

• 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 與 SEBA（瑞士加密銀行）： 2019年8月，瑞士批准了全球首家受監管的加密銀行。位於Zug的SEBA Bank和位於Zurich的Sygnum Bank分別獲得了FINMA頒發的銀行及證券買賣商執照。這些銀行結合了傳統金融與加密服務，提供存款、資產管理、證券代幣化以及加密貨幣交易/託管等服務。Sygnum創辦人Manuel Krieger形容該執照為「朝向數位資產經濟制度化的重要一步」。兩家銀行現已服務希望受監管地接觸數位資產的機構與私人客戶，並持續拓展服務（如Sygnum取得更多FINMA授權以管理代幣化資產，SEBA亦推出代幣化債券）。他們的成功展現了在嚴格監管下完整的「加密銀行」模式。

• 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（瑞士加密銀行與RLUSD支持）： 在瑞士，AMINA Bank（前身為SEBA/AMINA成員）為一間受FINMA監管、聚焦加密業務的新型商業銀行。2025年7月，AMINA宣布成為全球首家針對Ripple的RLUSD穩定幣提供服務的銀行。具體而言，AMINA將為機構客戶提供RLUSD（由美國國債資產支撐）的託管與交易服務。AMINA執行長表示，此舉「目的是連結傳統銀行與加密基礎設施」。這正是一家有執照銀行擁抱加密創新的實例：AMINA將RLUSD整合至其平台，讓數位資產穩定幣直接銜接受監管銀行機制。有其他瑞士銀行據報亦正探索類似合作。

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.
這些案例都突顯加密業者與銀行業的交匯。Kraken、Circle等公司申請執照以鞏固核心職能（美元託管、穩定幣發行），而台前的加密託管商如Anchorage則展現執照如何提升信任度。至於AMINA等前瞻銀行，則示範傳統機構主動擁抱加密浪潮。這些企業普遍強調合規經營，將執照視為推動數位金融全球化的基礎，而非束縛。

Regulatory Drivers: Stablecoins and Financial Integration

The move toward banking licenses is closely tied to global regulatory changes, especially around stablecoins and “payment rails” integration. Key drivers include:
推動銀行執照化的動力與全球監管環境變化息息相關，特別聚焦於穩定幣與「支付管道」的整合。關鍵驅動因素如下：

• 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： 全球各地立法機構正制定將穩定幣視作銀行存款的新法案。例如，美國GENIUS法案（由Scott參議員等提出）及STABLE法案（由Frankel眾議員等提出），主張穩定幣發行方需取得聯邦執照、擁有完整儲備、並遵循銀行監管規範。歐洲的MiCA規定，主要穩定幣屬於電子貨幣，需銀行級執照。香港則要求以法幣掛鉤穩定幣須取得金管局(HKMA)許可。這些法律實際上強制穩定幣公司（如Tether、USDC發行方）納入銀行監管體系。據CoinDesk報導，Ripple、Circle等業者已明確朝此方向調整。

• 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.

• 支付系統進入門檻： 各國央行意識到，讓加密業者進入Fedwire等大型支付網路可提升結算效率，尤其對代幣化資產帶來助益。美國聯準會近期明確政策轉變：要求地區聯邦銀行不得再以「聲譽風險」為由拒為加密公司開設賬戶，並提供承辦加密業務的明確準則。這一變化也是拜登總統2022年行政命令加強「加密業獲得公平、開放銀行服務」的一部分（回應crypto de-banking問題）。放寬主賬戶限制、釐清規則，讓加密銀行真正具備準備金存放與交易結算能力，這是成為「銀行」的重要前提。

• 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.

• 洗錢防制與合規壓力： 諷刺的是，原本令銀行卻步的嚴格洗錢防制(AML)、客戶審查(KYC)條件，如今已寫進加密執照法規中。美國FinCEN及OCC早已要求對加密客戶「徹底盡職調查」。新型執照將迫使加密企業導入與金融機構一致的防洗錢規章。舉例來說，懷俄明SPDI與美國信託執照均採用銀行年代的AML標準。歐洲MiCA也把AML責任擴及於加密資產服務商（交易所、錢包業者）以及穩定幣發行方。實務上，這些規範讓脫離正式銀行體系經營風險增高，激勵業者以合規執照正當化身分。

• 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，整體趨勢亦是將加密技術納入傳統體系。各央行與監管機關（如歐洲央行、美國聯準會）陸續測試批發型央行數位貨幣（CBDC）等代幣化央行貨幣。金融市場基礎設施也評估支援代幣化資產。在此脈絡下，加密業者力求成為「圈內人」。透過受監管銀行運作的數位貨幣、穩定幣可直接用於日常金融（支付、匯款、交易市場），如同產業觀察者所言：穩定幣已從「加密橋樑」演進為金融「核心管道」。成為銀行使加密公司得以將技術安插進金融系統，而這同時驅動監管者正視其執照需求。

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.
總結而言，新興法規同時具備獎勵與懲罰效果。一方面，預期法案會獎勵合規持照企業；另一方面，將嚴格懲處無執照的加密經營。配合監理者希望現代化支付體系的意圖，這些因素讓銀行執照化成為所有主要加密企業發展的核心戰略。

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

Becoming banks would have wide-ranging implications:
加密企業轉型為銀行，將產生廣泛影響：

• 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.

• 對一般用戶的影響： 擁有銀行執照的加密公司能為客戶提供更多傳統金融產品與保障。消費者可以直接在加密業者開戶，享有熟悉的功能（有息存款、ACH轉帳、金融卡等）。受到審計及監管的銀行更能帶來安全感。但用戶也須了解執照的限制。例如，懷俄明SPDI要求百分之百全額準備金，但明確註明不享有FDIC存款保險。實際上，若SPDI破產，存戶未必能獲政府擔保（Kraken已對此公開說明）。另一項風險是隱私流失：銀行規則要求客戶實名認證，使部分加密服務的匿名性不復存在。整體來說，用戶換得便利與監管保障，代價則是曾被加密產業標榜的極致隱私與去中心化。

• 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.

• 對機構影響： 傳統金融機構將同時面臨機會與競爭。新型加密銀行可能與既有機構合作，或直接削價競爭。例如，具銀行執照的加密交易所能以更低成本引進新投資人。反過來，大型銀行也可能發行自己的穩定幣（已有美國、德國銀行嘗試），甚至併購加密銀行子公司。機構型加密託管商因擁有執照，可將客戶資產納入資產負債表並享有聯準會等特權，更具可信度。但這同時帶來新風險：經營銀行必須嚴守資本、流動性、審計、合規等要求，發生資安、詐騙亦可能丟失執照。2023年訴求加密友善的銀行（如Silvergate, Signature, SVB）倒閉，就是整合帶來高監管壓力的警示。

• 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.

• 對金融體系影響： 整體而言，將加密納入正規銀行業有助提升加密支付的穩定性，縮小法幣與數位資產之間的鴻溝。透過將穩定幣綁定受監管銀行，有助提升儲備資訊透明度與市場信任。支付系統若利用區塊鏈底層可加速且拓展普及率。風險層面，關注點在於系統性效應：假如加密銀行規模龐大，其問題恐波及全體。監管者亦憂慮演算法穩定幣或特殊代幣化資產可能與傳統存款完全不同，引發傳染風險。加密「影子銀行」甚至可能遷移至新型持照實體，規避嚴格規範。要防止新型洗錢、詐騙及資安風險，則須跨監管單位有效合作與協調。最後，執照雖承諾加強控管，但僅有嚴落實及時才有效，否則反而為風險事業模式灌輸正當性。

Traditional Banks Entering Crypto vs. Crypto Firms Becoming Banks

The current shift involves both sides of the fence. Established banks are cautiously entering crypto, while crypto companies strive to “become banks” themselves.
當前的變化涵蓋雙向發展：既有銀行謹慎進場加密領域，加密業者則積極爭取轉型成為「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).

• 傳統銀行進入加密領域： 摩根大通（JPMorgan）、高盛（Goldman Sachs）、紐約梅隆銀行（BNY Mellon）等大型銀行已陸續推出加密託管或代幣專案。在美國，有些銀行先前抵制穩定幣，後來卻自發發行自己專用的（例如JPM推出機構支付用代幣）。大型銀行傾向與持有執照的加密公司合作，或尋找合規的穩定幣平台，而非直接承接散戶加密業務。他們的優勢在於既有執照、雄厚資本、龐大客戶基礎，但也須學習加密產業的速度與技術，如BNY Mellon即為Circle管理儲備資產與託管業務。傳統銀行同時顧慮風險與合規成本，往往選擇鎖定低風險加密領域（如穩定幣、代幣化債券）。

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

• 加密業者成為銀行： 天生處於監管體系外的加密企業，現在則主動接受監理檢驗，以獲取正當地位與市場擴張機會。這展現……

（後續內容如需繼續翻譯，請補充下文。）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.

意指加密貨幣反建制精神的某種弱化。正如一位分析師所述，採用銀行章程的公司「將失去部分自主性」，因為它們將被納入傳統金融框架。然而，加密公司帶來了技術創新：它們可以在監管框架下率先開發區塊鏈產品。例如，一家加密貨幣交易所銀行可能將鏈上代幣與存款或貸款原生整合。這些公司也通常具備全球化、高度科技化的企業文化，有助於加速數位金融科技在銀行業的應用。實際上，雙方各有優勢：銀行提供信任與規模，加密公司則帶來新資產和新客戶。未來結果如何，取決於監管的明確性和市場需求。

Compliance Burdens and Regulatory Hurdles

合規負擔與監管難題

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

取得銀行執照並非易事。加密貨幣公司須面對大量合規要求與潛在障礙：

• 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).

• 資本與審慎規範： 銀行必須維持最低資本比率與流動性緩衝。加密公司過去多數將受託資產記在表外，如今則需自持股本與準備金。以SPDI為例，懷俄明州要求100%準備金但不得放款；國家銀行則須符合法定資本要求。這些規則將限制產品靈活性（例如Circle的信託銀行無法動用支持USDC的美國國債來放貸）。

• 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.

• 反洗錢（AML）與KYC： 銀行必須遵守嚴格的反洗錢法規。加密公司過去一度主張區塊鏈的透明能降低風險，但監管單位實務上仍要求傳統KYC。FinCEN和OCC要求對加密客戶進行「嚴格盡職調查」。銀行稽核人員預期加密銀行必須具備健全的交易監控、制裁名單篩查，及虛擬資產流向控管。例如，銀行監管機構已將加密匯款列為AML風險。開發和運營這些系統成本高、複雜，企業需設置專業合規團隊和稽核人員。區塊鏈「匿名」的惡夢局面正被積極處理：瑞士規定已禁止匿名加密轉帳，美國銀行（包括加密銀行）對受制裁地址的交易則必須凍結。

• 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，取得聯準會（Fed）主帳戶對支付至關重要。加密銀行長期以來爭取Fed主帳戶。2023年聯準會態度轉變雖然有助，但每家機構都須向地區聯邦銀行申請。即使是州許可的SPDI，想取得FedWire或FedNow的接入權也不容易，必須達到聯準會的風險標準。Custodia遭拒Fed主帳戶申請顯示監管機構依然謹慎。企業必須證明自身具有可信的風險管理機制，且不會因純加密業務模式成為逃離資金的風險。主帳戶還伴隨監管稽核與聯準會相關費用，這些過去並非加密公司習慣之事。

• 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.

• 監管分散化： 加密公司經常在多個法域申請多重執照。一家美國加密銀行，往往需要聯邦（OCC）和州級（如NYDFS或懷俄明州）銀行章程、持有證券業務還要SEC/FINRA批准，以及各州的資金傳輸或電子貨幣執照。歐盟區域下，MiCA規管的穩定幣發行商需先拿一家國家的EMI執照，然後護照化到其他國家。新加坡、香港則各有當地規範執照申請程序。跨越這種拼圖式監管維持合規極為繁瑣：公司需接受不同監管機關（OCC、FDIC、FINMA、FCA、SFC、MAS等）年度稽核，各有不同規則。Klaros Group的Adam Shapiro指出，聯邦章程有助減少重複的州級稽核：「聯邦銀行章程將減少重複性規定」，比持有多個州信託公司執照來得有效。

• 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.

• 法律不確定性： 法規雖在演進，但尚未完全明朗。在美國，加密資產的歸類（SEC對CFTC的監管權責之爭）仍有法律爭議。法院可能裁定某種代幣屬於證券或商品，影響其在銀行持有模式。針對加密會計處理的監管指引（例如SAB 121）使銀行不願持有此類資產。加密銀行必須持續在這種不確定性中運作。他們也面臨政治風險：若新政府對加密持強硬態度，過去某些許可可能被重新檢視。

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.

總括來說，加密公司取得並運營銀行章程，需徹底轉型成受規範的銀行，包括增加合規人手、導入銀行專用系統和控管措施，並接受持續監督──所有這些都會推高經營成本。許多加密公司高管認為，進入銀行基礎設施值得投資；批評者則警告這些負擔沉重，恐令小型業者卻步。

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:

加密貨幣產業與銀行業的關係仍在變動中。至2025年，只有少數加密公司已獲得或正在申請銀行章程，關於規模與影響仍有許多疑問。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.

• 核准銀行章程案件增加： 隨著新法規利於加密銀行，預期將有更多相關申請。觀察者指出，**「更多聯邦授權的數位資產銀行」**將對消費者和市場帶來好處。大型加密公司（如Coinbase、Paxos、Gemini等）可能會循Circle和Ripple的道路前行，特別是如果國會通過穩定幣相關立法。銀行本身（無論大型或利基型）也正積極佈局，準備在新規下提供加密服務。

• 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.

• 產業整併或專精化： 未來可能出現併購整合，僅有資本充足的加密公司能存活為銀行，其他則選擇結盟或退出。亦有可能出現專門只服務穩定幣、資產代幣化或託管業務的新型特別銀行。傳統銀行也可能分拆加密單位，獨立申請銀行執照。

• 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.

• 技術整合： 隨著時間推進，加密銀行與金融科技的界線將日益模糊。證券代幣化、加密借貸與鏈上結算等業務，可能在受監管的平台通行運作。例如，受代幣化的股票可能在數位交易所進行，且能以法幣即時結算，最終由持照加密銀行統籌清算。若穩定幣成為「核心管線」，其受託管理資格將如同現今成為SWIFT成員一樣普及。

• 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.

• 監管演變： 全球監管機構將持續調整相關規範，未來可能出現針對加密銀行的國際標準（如巴塞爾委員會或FATF制定）。對於加密資產在銀行資產負債表上的資本處理標準化將十分關鍵。此外，隨著CBDC（央行數位貨幣）推進或停滯，與受監管的私營穩定幣的關係將影響市場需求。加密銀行必須隨時調整因應，包括數位資產稅收到消費者個資規範等新政策。

• 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，有多少加密銀行能成功運作，將直接影響最終使用者。最佳情境下，消費者支付選擇將增多，且能經保險帳戶賺取數位資產收益。最壞情況則是監管或銀行本身出現問題而削弱信任。產業強調合規，顯示長期生存仰賴穩定，而非「純加密」的高風險取向。

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.

未來數年內，我們很可能見證一波漸進式主流化：考取執照的加密公司將成為一種新型態銀行（雖專精但同屬銀行業），「加密銀行」標籤也可能逐漸消失於更泛泛的數位銀行或金融科技銀行之中。外界將密切觀察，這究竟會成為真正整合的數位金融體系，還只是金融創新與監管趕進度的又一章。