Major US banking groups have requested a 12-month pause before allowing crypto companies access to the Federal Reserve’s payment channels. Meanwhile, some have already requested immediate access to reduce obstacles and align with the proposed regulatory framework.
The Federal Reserve’s proposal for so-called “skinny master accounts,” first floated last October, introduced a highly restricted access model for non-bank payment companies. The central objective was to limit risks to financial stability by explicitly excluding lending and interest payments on balances held in these accounts.
Under this scheme, the accounts would not offer credit facilities or yields and would include strict balance limits, which in preliminary discussions were set at around $5 billion or 10% of the company’s assets. Furthermore, access would be restricted to certain Fed services, such as FedACH, and operational limits would be imposed, forcing companies to rely on partner banks for liquidity processes.
Crypto companies, including stablecoin issuers, argued that these conditions render the accounts functionally inadequate. According to their position, the design perpetuates dependence on the traditional banking system and prevents banks from earning interest on reserves, significantly reducing the operating profits that would justify direct access to the Fed.
Banking groups, on the other hand, defended a restrictive approach. They argued that broader access could facilitate deposit substitution and increase the risk of bank runs, and cited estimates of potential outflows of up to $500 billion by 2028 as a reason for adopting a cautious waiting period.
Regulatory gridlock and legislative tensions
Positions hardened during a meeting at the White House on February 10. The debate highlighted a divergence of priorities: banks emphasized stability and prudential oversight, while digital asset companies called for greater efficiency and less reliance on correspondent banks.
Meanwhile, the CLARITY Act emerged as a key point of contention. The project aimed to define clear regulatory roles for token issuance and market oversight, including provisions for Permitted Payment Stablecoins and expedited registration processes.
However, disagreement over whether stablecoins should generate returns fractured the consensus: some crypto firms, such as Coinbase, withdrew their support due to limitations on rewards and access to DeFi, while banks opposed it on grounds of competitive neutrality and the risk of deposit flight.
This clash is already influencing product, compliance, and risk management strategies. Direct access to the Fed could reduce settlement chains and operational latency for stablecoin issuers and custodians, but it would also require new supervisory frameworks for custody, KYC/AML, and liquidity management.
