The US banking system is edging into a structural shift as regulators move crypto policy from discussion to execution. Bank of America says faster stablecoin rules and new federal charters are pulling blockchain activity inside traditional finance, setting up a gradual but lasting onchain transition.
Regulation, not rebellion, is pushing banks forward
Bank of America’s message is clear. This shift is not being forced by crypto startups alone.
Instead, US regulators are laying down a framework that nudges banks onto blockchain infrastructure, step by step. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has already granted conditional national trust bank charters to five digital-asset firms, a move analysts say signals federal acceptance of crypto custody and stablecoin activity within banking walls.
That matters.
These charters allow digital-asset services to operate as fiduciary offerings under strict compliance, liquidity, and risk controls. In plain terms, crypto is no longer sitting outside the system, knocking on the door. It’s being invited into the building, with rules.
One analyst described it as crypto “losing its outsider status.”
Stablecoin rules are lining up quickly
Momentum is not stopping with the OCC.
Bank of America expects the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to release proposed rules imminently on how payment stablecoins can be issued by subsidiaries of FDIC-supervised banks. These rules are required under the GENIUS Act and must be finalized by July 2026, with implementation starting January 2027.
That timeline is tight by regulatory standards.
The Federal Reserve is also involved. Officials have already indicated coordination with the OCC and FDIC on capital, liquidity, and diversification standards for stablecoin issuers. These are not vague principles. They are technical guardrails that determine who can issue stablecoins, how reserves are held, and how risk is managed.
Bank of America’s analysts say this trio of agencies is effectively sketching a regulatory perimeter around stablecoins in the US.
Once that perimeter exists, banks move.
A global backdrop adds pressure
This shift is not happening in isolation.
Bank of America pointed to similar moves abroad, including a recent Bank of England proposal to regulate systemic sterling stablecoins. That proposal includes asset-holding rules and caps on exposures, ideas that echo what US regulators are now considering.
Global banks do not like fragmentation.
If Europe and the UK develop one set of standards while the US lags, competitive pressure builds. The result is often convergence, or at least parallel rulebooks that allow institutions to operate across borders without reinventing systems each time.
That international context adds urgency to US action.
Why banks are suddenly more open to blockchain
Banks have talked about blockchain for years. What’s different now is usage.
Instead of experimental labs with no clear endpoint, banks are running pilots that connect directly to deposits, payments, and settlement. Bank of America cited examples from JPMorgan and DBS, both of which have tested tokenized deposits on public and permissioned blockchains.
Tokenized deposits are not stablecoins, though they share DNA.
They represent actual bank deposits, recorded on a blockchain, backed one-for-one by balances on a bank’s books. For regulators, that distinction matters. For banks, it offers a way to use blockchain rails without issuing a new form of money.
And for clients, it can mean faster settlement and better transparency.
One banker summed it up simply: “Same money, faster pipes.”
Tokenized deposits versus stablecoins
The report draws a clear line between two models that are often lumped together.
Here is the difference, stripped of jargon:
| Feature | Tokenized Deposits | Stablecoins |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Regulated banks | Banks or non-banks |
| Backing | Bank deposits | Reserves, often cash or Treasuries |
| Regulation | Existing banking rules | New, evolving frameworks |
| Use case | Payments, settlement | Payments, trading, transfers |
Bank of America does not frame this as a winner-takes-all contest.
Instead, analysts suggest both models may coexist. Tokenized deposits could dominate within the banking system, while stablecoins might serve broader markets, especially where programmability or cross-platform use matters.
The common thread is blockchain infrastructure underneath both.
From talk to plumbing
One sentence in the report stands out.
Crypto policy, Bank of America said, is shifting “from talk to implementation.”
That shift is subtle but critical.
For years, banks waited. They watched hearings, read speeches, and sat on the sidelines, unsure which direction regulators would go. Now, with charters issued and timelines written into law, uncertainty is shrinking.
Banks plan when uncertainty drops.
That does not mean an overnight switch. The report emphasizes this is a multi-year transition, not a sudden flip. Core systems take time to change. Compliance teams move cautiously. Clients adopt new rails slowly.
Still, direction matters more than speed.
What an onchain future actually looks like
The phrase “onchain future” can sound abstract. Bank of America’s view is more grounded.
It does not mean retail customers suddenly managing wallets or private keys. It means parts of the banking backend, settlement layers, and interbank payments moving onto shared ledgers.
In practice, that could look like:
-
Faster settlement for large-value payments
-
Tokenized deposits used between institutions
-
Stablecoins issued by regulated entities for specific use cases
-
Reduced reconciliation costs across systems
Most customers may never notice directly. Transfers just clear faster. Liquidity becomes more visible. Errors shrink.
Behind the scenes, though, the pipes change.
Why this matters for banks’ business models
Banks are not embracing blockchain out of curiosity.
Margins in payments are thin. Settlement delays tie up capital. Reconciliation is expensive. Blockchain rails promise efficiency gains that legacy systems struggle to deliver.
There is also a defensive angle.
If non-bank stablecoin issuers capture payment flows, banks lose relevance. By bringing stablecoins and tokenized deposits inside the regulated system, banks keep control of customer relationships.
Bank of America’s analysts see this as adaptation, not disruption.
It’s the system bending, not breaking.
Risks remain, optimism stays cautious
The report is not starry-eyed.
Analysts note that capital requirements, liquidity rules, and exposure limits could restrict how quickly banks roll out onchain products. Cybersecurity risks remain. Operational failures on shared ledgers could have wider consequences than isolated system outages.
Regulators know this. That is why rules are being layered carefully.
One paragraph in the report uses a phrase that captures the mood: “measured acceleration.”
Banks move forward, but with guardrails tight.
A slow shift with lasting impact
Bank of America’s conclusion is understated but firm.
US banks are not dabbling anymore. They are preparing for a future where blockchain infrastructure becomes part of mainstream finance, driven by regulation, global alignment, and practical economics.
It will take years. There will be false starts. Some models will fail.
Still, the direction appears set.
What began as an experiment outside the system is being folded in, piece by piece, until it simply becomes part of how banking works.
