Key Takeaways
Zero Hash filed for a national trust bank charter with the OCC on March 4, 2026
The proposed bank would offer digital asset custody, stablecoin management, and staking services
The filing is part of a wave of crypto and fintech firms pursuing federal charters in early 2026
Traditional banking groups warn the trend blurs regulatory boundaries and raises systemic risk
Zero Hash filed an application with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, seeking a national trust bank charter – a move that would place the digital asset infrastructure firm under a single federal regulatory umbrella and sidestep a patchwork of state-level money transmitter licensing requirements.
The proposed entity, Zero Hash National Trust Bank, would offer custody services for both digital assets and fiat currency, custodial staking, transfer agent services, and stablecoin management. Stephen Gardner, Zero Hash’s current Chief Legal Officer, is named as the proposed CEO of the trust bank.
A Crowded Race to the OCC
The application arrives as the OCC has become a destination of choice for crypto-adjacent firms looking to establish institutional legitimacy. In late 2025 and early 2026, the regulator granted conditional approvals to Circle, Ripple, BitGo, Paxos, Fidelity Digital Assets, Stripe’s Bridge, and Crypto.com. Coinbase and Trump-linked World Liberty Financial have applications pending.
Morgan Stanley entered the fray in February, filing for a “Morgan Stanley Digital Trust” on the 18th of that month. The bank, notably, plans to use Zero Hash’s infrastructure to roll out spot crypto trading for its E*Trade clients – underscoring the deepening entanglement between traditional finance and the digital asset sector.
What a National Trust Charter Actually Means
For Zero Hash, a federal charter would mean operating under a unified regulatory framework and, critically, benefiting from federal preemption of certain state laws. National trust banks are a narrower instrument than commercial banks – they generally do not take insured deposits or issue commercial loans – but the regulatory efficiency they offer across all 50 states is considerable.
Not everyone views this trend favorably. The Bank Policy Institute and the Independent Community Bankers of America have pushed back, arguing that these firms are pursuing a lighter regulatory touch while effectively offering bank-like products. Their concern is that the charters blur the statutory definition of what a bank is, and that the cumulative effect could heighten systemic risk across the financial system.
Consumer advocates have also raised objections. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition has opposed similar applications from Ripple and Crypto.com, pointing to the absence of core consumer protections that accompany traditional banking relationships.
The Case for Federal Charters
Proponents counter that federal charters provide the structural backbone that institutional adoption of digital assets requires – bringing bank-grade custody and governance standards to a sector that has long operated in a gray area. Whether regulators ultimately agree will shape how much ground crypto infrastructure firms gain in the traditional financial system.
