Cryptocurrency companies are moving aggressively into financial services traditionally dominated by commercial and investment banks, setting their sights on a lucrative and essential role in United States derivatives settlements, where billions of dollars change hands on a daily basis. This strategic push comes at a time when regulatory agencies are gradually expanding the administrative services that specialized trust companies are permitted to provide. However, this evolution is not unfolding without friction, as traditional banking groups actively challenge parts of the legal and regulatory framework that govern how crypto firms expand into banklike activities.
A pivotal regulatory decision issued on November 5 illustrates this ongoing shift. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) enacted a policy change allowing derivatives clearinghouses to utilize trust companies for daily settlements with their clearing members—a critical financial function that was previously restricted exclusively to traditional banks under the agency’s strict regulatory definitions. While this regulatory relief could unlock substantial new business opportunities for federally and state-regulated crypto custodians, its inherently revocable nature, combined with shifting dynamics in the US political landscape, raises pressing questions regarding the long-term durability of this regulatory opening.
Crypto Firms Eye Billions in Daily Derivatives Settlements
The sheer scale of the derivatives settlement business helps provide essential perspective on the economic opportunity at stake for digital asset firms. According to official regulatory filings, CME Group, which operates as one of the largest derivatives market operators in the world, transferred an average of $8.7 billion per business day through its various clearing systems during the first half of 2026. This figure represents a notable increase compared to the $6.7 billion a day recorded during the full year of 2025.
These massive figures represent the actual funds transferred between clearing member firms to settle daily gains and losses, rather than the secondary fee revenue earned by the underlying settlement banks. Nevertheless, they clearly illustrate the staggering scale of financial flows supported by the underlying clearing infrastructure—an infrastructure that specialized trust companies could increasingly help provide as traditional boundaries continue to blur.
The regulatory shift materialized when the CFTC’s Division of Clearing and Risk issued a formal no-action letter on November 5. This decision followed a formal request submitted on October 29 by derivatives clearinghouse Nodal Clear. The agency’s relief enables derivatives clearinghouses to partner with trust companies for daily settlements, provided those institutions meet the exact same rigorous evaluation and monitoring requirements that are traditionally applied to conventional settlement banks.
This regulatory adjustment addresses a persistent inconsistency between federal commodities law—which permits customer funds to be held securely at either banks or trust companies—and specific agency rules, namely CFTC Regulation 39.14, which historically defined settlement banks strictly as commercial banks.
Nodal Clear previously partnered with Coinbase in 2025 to successfully integrate USDC into the ecosystem of US futures trading. According to industry reporting, Coinbase Custody Trust was already anticipated to provide daily settlement services under the operational framework of that partnership.
Other digital asset companies have similarly expanded their institutional financial service offerings to capture market share. On November 4, BitGo officially launched its Global Markets division, a comprehensive suite combining derivatives trading, advanced financing, collateral management, and settlement capabilities under one institutional umbrella.
Concurrently, Coinbase’s national trust bank charter officially took effect on November 6. This development allows the Coinbase National Trust Company—which operates as an entity distinct from Coinbase Custody Trust—to provide federally supervised digital asset custody services to institutional clients.
Coinbase is not alone in this achievement. Over the preceding months, several other major crypto-native companies successfully secured US national trust bank approvals, including Circle, Ripple, Crypto.com, and Stripe-owned Bridge. These official charters, granted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), vividly reflect the broader financial industry’s ongoing expansion into federally regulated financial services.
Traditional Banks Contest Crypto Firms’ Expanding Role
The rapid expansion of specialized trust companies into traditional financial territory has inevitably prompted strong objections and legal pushback from conventional banking groups.
In October, the Independent Community Bankers of America filed a formal lawsuit against the OCC. The banking trade group argued that the agency’s national trust bank charter rules could potentially allow digital asset firms to conduct complex banklike activities without being subjected to the exact same stringent regulatory requirements and capital standards imposed on traditional commercial banks.
This high-stakes lawsuit reflects a much broader, ongoing philosophical and legal disagreement over how specialized financial institutions should be categorized and regulated as they progressively expand into services traditionally reserved for chartered banks.
Despite these tensions, industry advocates argue that the regulatory adjustments do not grant unfair advantages. Cody Carbone, CEO of The Digital Chamber, noted that the CFTC’s recent relief does not inherently place trust companies in a superior or inferior competitive position compared to traditional banks.
Trust companies and conventional banks already actively compete for various services permitted directly under the boundaries of their respective charters, Carbone explained. He added that the CFTC decision simply provides clearinghouses with additional operational choices without legally preventing traditional banks from retaining their existing business relationships. A trust company charter is not a regulatory shortcut, he emphasized.
Revocable Relief Faces a Changing Regulatory Landscape
Despite the considerable potential opportunities for digital asset firms, the CFTC’s decision leaves significant questions unanswered regarding how securely trust companies can establish a permanent, long-term role in derivatives settlement infrastructure.
Crucially, the agency chose to issue a staff no-action letter rather than formally executing an official amendment to its underlying regulations. The advisory letter explicitly states that CFTC staff will not recommend enforcement action against derivatives clearinghouses that choose to utilize trust companies for daily settlements, provided that specific operational and risk-management conditions are fully satisfied.
Unlike a formal rule amendment, which generally requires a transparent public notice-and-comment administrative process, staff no-action relief does not alter the underlying text of the regulation and can be withdrawn at the discretion of the agency.
A future change in Commission leadership could easily result in the withdrawal of the CFTC letter, legal experts note. More formal Commission action, such as officially amending the underlying regulation itself, would be necessary to permanently eliminate this potential structural risk, according to Jordan Yeagley, a shareholder at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney.
This regulatory uncertainty arrives at a particularly sensitive political moment for the agency. Michael Selig remains the regulator’s sole sitting commissioner, despite a statutory structure that provides for a full panel of five commissioners. Selig has led the federal agency since December 2025, leaving four seats entirely vacant as the commission simultaneously expands its oversight and policy work concerning rapidly evolving digital asset markets.
The broader political environment is also undergoing notable shifts following the US midterm elections, in which Democrats secured control of both chambers of Congress.
The incoming legislative session, scheduled to take office in January, will possess enhanced institutional power to scrutinize the CFTC’s regulatory agenda and strategic priorities. Furthermore, the US Senate retains a direct constitutional role in reviewing and confirming presidential nominees to fill the agency’s vacant commissioner positions, while both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees maintain direct legislative oversight over the regulator.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, who successfully defended his seat in Ohio’s closely watched Senate race despite more than $60 million in heavy opposition spending from crypto-backed political action committees, is positioned to potentially assume a prominent, influential role on the Senate Agriculture Committee as these financial and regulatory debates continue to unfold in Washington.
Crypto Regulation & Policy
Crypto Regulation & Policy
Crypto Regulation & Policy
