1.13 - Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Overview
The FDIC insures the deposit accounts of retail banks and savings and loan associations up to $250,000. If a bank fails and has insufficient assets to pay its depositors at least $250,000 each, the FDIC steps in and pays them. The FDIC thus provides a key backstop in the retail banking system to reduce the risk of depositor panic in economic downturns that could result in a bank run. (The National Credit Union Administration plays the same role for the nation's credit unions.)
The FDIC's engagement with cryptocurrency and digital assets has passed through several distinct phases. Beginning in mid-2021, the agency adopted a cautious, information-gathering posture, issuing a formal Request for Information on digital assets and coordinating with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") and the Fed on a joint policy sprint. In April 2022, the FDIC escalated to requiring prior notification from all supervised institutions seeking to engage in any crypto-related activity, through Financial Institution Letter FIL-16-2022. That notification requirement, as later acknowledged by FDIC leadership, functioned as a de facto gatekeeping mechanism that effectively prevented many banks from pursuing crypto activities.
Between 2022 and early 2025, the FDIC entered what critics have termed an aggressive gatekeeping era. The agency issued approximately 25 "pause letters" to banks directing them to halt or refrain from expanding crypto activities, joined two interagency statements warning of heightened crypto-asset risks, and used informal supervisory channels to discourage bank engagement with the digital asset industry. These actions formed a central pillar of what became known as "Operation Chokepoint 2.0" -- an alleged coordinated effort by banking regulators to sever the crypto industry's access to the traditional banking system.
The March 2023 failures of Silvergate Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, and Signature Bank -- each connected to the crypto ecosystem in varying degrees -- represented a watershed moment. The FDIC invoked the systemic risk exception for the first time since the 2008 financial crisis, guaranteeing all deposits at SVB and Signature Bank at an estimated cost of $16.7 billion to the Deposit Insurance Fund. The exclusion of approximately $4 billion in crypto-related deposits from the sale of Signature Bank to Flagstar Bank intensified allegations that regulators were deliberately severing crypto companies' banking relationships.
The FDIC's posture reversed sharply beginning in January 2025 under Acting Chairman Travis Hill. Within nine months of taking office, Hill rescinded FIL-16-2022, released previously secret pause letters, withdrew the 2023 interagency joint statements, issued new constructive guidance on crypto-asset safekeeping, and proposed eliminating "reputational risk" from supervisory examinations. Hill was confirmed as the 23rd FDIC Chairman in December 2025 and sworn in January 2026.
With the enactment of the GENIUS Act on July 18, 2025, the FDIC assumed a new statutory role as the licensing and supervisory authority for bank subsidiary stablecoin issuers. The FDIC Chair also serves on the newly created Stablecoin Certification Review Committee. As of early 2026, the FDIC has published a notice of proposed rulemaking establishing application procedures under the GENIUS Act, positioning the agency to transition from gatekeeper to facilitator of bank participation in the digital asset ecosystem.
Regulatory Action
Starting in May 2021, the FDIC sent a formal information request to banks and the general public asking for information about the digital asset work that banks are doing. Specifically, it asked, among other questions:
what digital asset services are insured institutions providing?
what digital asset services are most in demand from insured institutions?
what kind of risks, and risk management policies, apply to digital assets?
how are operations being integrated with traditional banking systems?
what kind of guidance is needed from the FDIC?
what distinctions apply to fiat-backed stablecoins and stored value products?
what challenges arise from the FDIC taking over digital assets as a receiver?
FDIC, RIN 3064-ZA25, Request for Information and Comment on Digital Assets (2021.05.17). Other than revealing what questions it was considering, this RFI provided no guidance to insured institutions.
FIL-16-2022: Notification Requirement
In April 2022, the FDIC took more aggressive action. It required all insured institutions to notify the FDIC regarding what crypto-related activities the institutions are engaging in, or intend to engage in. FDIC, Financial Institution Letter, Notification of Engaging in Crypto-Related Activities (2022.04.07). The letter begins by noting that "[c]rypto-related activities may pose significant safety and soundness risks, as well as financial stability and consumer protection concerns." Id.
The letter then identified key risks in the areas of (1) safety and soundness; (2) financial stability; and (3) consumer protection. Among others, those risks include:
ownership identification, "including whether it is possible for ownership to be clearly validated and confirmed";
risks of anti-money laundering / countering the financing of terrorism;
IT security;
credit risk exposure;
market valuation/pricing;
liquidity risk, particularly due to volatility;
run risk on fiat assets backing crypto-assets
consumer confusion regarding crypto-assets compared to traditional banking products
application of consumer protection laws to crypto-assets
To permit the FDIC to evaluate these and other risks, insured financial institutions are required to submit current and proposed crypto-asset use to the FDIC. After receiving that information, the FDIC will then "request that the institution provide information necessary to allow the agency to assess the safety and soundness, consumer protection, and financial stability implications of such activities," which requests "will vary on a case-specific basis depending on the type of crypto-related activity." After its review, the FDIC will then provide "relevant supervisory feedback."
Finally, the FDIC reminds institutions that it has authority pursuant to Federal Deposit Insurance Act to set safety and soundness standards for insured institutions, pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 364, and that regulated entities must "be able to demonstrate their ability to conduct crypto-related activities in a safe and sound manner" using those standards.
On March 28, 2025, the FDIC rescinded FIL-16-2022 through the issuance of FIL-7-2025. See FDIC, Financial Institution Letter, FDIC Clarifies Process for Banks to Engage in Crypto-Related Activities (2025.03.28).
Interagency Joint Statements (2023)
Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Risks (January 3, 2023)
The FDIC, the Fed, and the OCC issued a joint statement highlighting risks associated with crypto-assets and the crypto-asset sector, designated as FIL-23-001. FDIC, Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Risks to Banking Organizations (2023.01.03). The statement observed that events of the preceding year "were marked by significant volatility and exposed vulnerabilities in the crypto-asset sector." Id. The agencies identified key risks including fraud and scams, legal uncertainties regarding custody practices and ownership rights, inaccurate or misleading representations by crypto companies (including misrepresentation of FDIC insurance), significant market volatility, contagion risk, and immature risk management and governance practices. The statement declared that the agencies were "issuing this joint statement to highlight key risks" and further stated that "issuing or holding as principal crypto-assets that are issued, stored, or transferred on an open, public, and/or decentralized network, or similar system is highly likely to be inconsistent with safe and sound banking practices." Id.
The OCC withdrew from this statement on March 7, 2025, through OCC Bulletin 2025-02. OCC, Bulletin 2025-02 (2025.03.07). The Fed and FDIC jointly withdrew on April 24, 2025. FDIC, Agencies Withdraw Joint Statements on Crypto-Assets (2025.04.24).
Joint Statement on Liquidity Risks (February 23, 2023)
The same three agencies issued a second joint statement, designated as FIL-23-008, focusing specifically on liquidity risks posed by deposits from crypto-asset-related entities. FDIC, Joint Statement on Liquidity Risks to Banking Organizations from Crypto-Asset Market Vulnerabilities (2023.02.23). The statement warned that banks relying on deposits from crypto-asset-related entities "may be exposed to heightened liquidity risks due to the unpredictability of the scale and timing of deposit inflows and outflows." Id. Two specific sources of concern were identified: deposits placed by a crypto-asset-related entity for the benefit of the entity's customers, and deposits constituting stablecoin-related reserves. This statement was issued just weeks before the March 2023 bank failures -- effectively a prescient warning about the exact risks that would contribute to the failures of Silvergate and Signature Bank.
This statement was also withdrawn by the OCC on March 7, 2025, and by the Fed and FDIC on April 24, 2025. Id.
2023 Bank Failures
Silvergate Bank
On March 8, 2023, Silvergate Capital Corporation announced the voluntary liquidation of Silvergate Bank, a state-chartered bank supervised by the FDIC and the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation ("DFPI"). Silvergate had built its business model around the crypto industry, with approximately 90% of its deposits coming from digital asset companies. The bank operated the Silvergate Exchange Network ("SEN"), a proprietary real-time payments platform used extensively by crypto exchanges and institutional traders. Following the collapse of FTX in November 2022, Silvergate's crypto-industry customers withdrew deposits rapidly, forcing Silvergate to sell securities at significant losses and report a $1 billion quarterly loss in Q4 2022.
On June 1, 2023, the Federal Reserve Board and the DFPI issued a joint consent order to facilitate and oversee the voluntary liquidation. Federal Reserve Board, Consent Order (2023.06.01). The enforcement action was terminated on July 26, 2024, confirming that Silvergate had completed its liquidation and repaid all deposits. Federal Reserve Board, Termination of Enforcement Action (2024.07.26).
In coordinated enforcement actions announced July 1, 2024, Silvergate agreed to pay $63 million in combined penalties -- $43 million to the Federal Reserve Board and $20 million to the California DFPI -- for deficiencies in Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering compliance, including the failure to detect nearly $9 billion in suspicious transfers among FTX and its related entities. Federal Reserve Board, Enforcement Action (2024.07.01). The SEC separately charged Silvergate Capital Corporation, its former CEO, and its former Chief Risk Officer for misleading investors about the strength of the bank's compliance program. SEC, Press Release (2024.07.01).
Silicon Valley Bank
Silicon Valley Bank was closed by the California DFPI on March 10, 2023, and the FDIC was appointed as receiver. FDIC, Press Release (2023.03.10). SVB's failure was primarily driven by interest-rate risk mismanagement rather than direct crypto exposure. During a period of low interest rates, SVB invested heavily in long-duration securities without adequate hedging; as rates rose, the bank incurred significant unrealized losses, triggering a catastrophic bank run when depositors became aware of its financial position.
While SVB was not primarily a crypto bank, its failure had significant crypto-sector implications. Circle, the issuer of the USDC stablecoin, disclosed that $3.3 billion of its USDC reserves were held at SVB. The disclosure caused USDC to temporarily depeg from the dollar, falling below $0.90 on March 11, 2023, before recovering after the government's systemic risk announcement. The estimated cost of SVB's failure to the Deposit Insurance Fund was approximately $20 billion.
Signature Bank
Signature Bank was closed by the New York State Department of Financial Services ("NYDFS") on March 12, 2023, with the FDIC appointed as receiver. FDIC, Report on Signature Bank (2023.04.28). Signature Bank had been a major banking partner for crypto companies since 2018, operating the Signet blockchain-based payments platform. The bank had pursued rapid growth through an overreliance on uninsured deposits without implementing fundamental liquidity risk management practices.
The FDIC's post-mortem identified the root cause of failure as "poor management." The board and management "pursued rapid, unrestrained growth without developing and maintaining adequate risk management practices and controls appropriate for the institution's size, complexity, and risk profile." Critically, the FDIC found that Signature Bank "failed to understand the risk of its association with and reliance on crypto industry deposits or its vulnerability to contagion from crypto industry turmoil." FDIC, FDIC's Supervision of Signature Bank (2023.04.28).
On March 19, 2023, the FDIC announced that Flagstar Bank would assume substantially all deposits and certain loan portfolios of Signature Bridge Bank. FDIC, Subsidiary of New York Community Bancorp, Inc., to Assume Deposits of Signature Bridge Bank, N.A., from the FDIC (2023.03.19). However, the transaction explicitly excluded approximately $4 billion in deposits related to Signature's crypto businesses and the Signet platform. The FDIC stated it would return crypto-related deposits directly to customers. The estimated cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund was approximately $2.4 billion.
Systemic Risk Exception
On March 12, 2023, the Secretary of the Treasury, upon the recommendation of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, invoked the systemic risk exception under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to guarantee all deposits at SVB and Signature Bank, including uninsured deposits. This was the first invocation of the systemic risk exception since the 2008 financial crisis. The FDIC estimates the total cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund at approximately $16.7 billion. To recoup these losses, the FDIC finalized a special assessment rule imposing a rate of approximately 13.4 basis points annually on banking organizations with uninsured deposits exceeding $5 billion. FDIC, Special Assessment Pursuant to Systemic Risk Determination, 88 Fed. Reg. 80094 (2023.11.29).
Operation Chokepoint 2.0
Pause Letters
Between March 2022 and May 2023, the FDIC sent approximately 25 letters to 24 supervised institutions directing them to pause, suspend, or refrain from expanding crypto-related activities. See FDIC, FDIC Releases Documents Related to Supervision of Crypto-Related Activities (2025.02.05). The letters were issued as individual supervisory communications -- not as formal enforcement actions or published guidance -- and were not disclosed publicly at the time of issuance. Of the letters later released, nine directed banks to refrain from expanding crypto activities and seven directed banks to pause or not provide such activities entirely. The released documents revealed that banks' requests to engage in crypto activities "were almost universally met with resistance, ranging from repeated requests for further information, to multi-month periods of silence as institutions waited for responses, to directives from supervisors to pause, suspend, or refrain from expanding all crypto- or blockchain-related activity." Id.
FOIA Litigation
In June 2024, History Associates Incorporated, a document research firm acting at Coinbase's direction, filed a FOIA lawsuit against the FDIC to compel production of the pause letters. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes of the District of Columbia issued multiple orders criticizing the FDIC's conduct, expressing concern with what she characterized as the "FDIC's lack of good-faith effort in making nuanced redactions" and warning the agency that it "cannot simply blanket redact everything that is not an article or preposition." The court ultimately required four orders and six productions before all responsive documents were produced. The FDIC agreed to pay $188,440 in legal fees to resolve the litigation. V. Vismaya, Yahoo! Finance, FDIC Agrees to Pay Fees, Drop FOIA Fight Over Crypto 'Pause Letters' (2026.02.08); History Assocs. Inc. v. FDIC, No. 1:24-cv-1857-ACR, Doc. 94 (D.D.C. 2026.02.06).
Document Release
In December 2024, following the court orders, the FDIC released redacted copies of some pause letters. On February 5, 2025, under Acting Chairman Travis Hill, the FDIC voluntarily released 175 documents related to its supervision of banks' crypto-related activities, including the pause letters and additional correspondence with affected institutions. FDIC, FDIC Releases Documents Related to Supervision of Crypto-Related Activities (2025.02.05).
House Financial Services Committee Report
On November 25, 2025, the House Financial Services Committee published a 50-page report entitled "Operation Chokepoint 2.0: Biden's Debanking of Digital Assets." House Financial Services Committee, Operation Chokepoint 2.0: Biden's Debanking of Digital Assets (2025.11.25). The report identified at least 30 entities that were effectively debanked through informal regulatory guidance and supervisory pressure, and cataloged the specific regulatory mechanisms allegedly employed: Federal Reserve supervisory letters requiring notification and non-objection processes, the Fed's Novel Activities Supervision Program, the interagency joint statements, the FDIC's pause letters, and OCC Interpretive Letter 1179 conditioning crypto activities on case-by-case non-objections. On December 1, 2025, OCC Comptroller Jonathan Gould issued a statement largely concurring with the report's central premise and outlining corrective actions the OCC had taken. OCC, Statement by Comptroller Gould (2025.12.01).
Guidance
2022 Priorities
In releasing the FDIC's five 2022 priorities, the FDIC noted that evaluating crypto-asset risks would be among them, and that bank regulators should be ready to provide "robust guidance" to banks to adequately address the "significant safety and soundness and financial system risks." FDIC, Acting Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg Announces FDIC Priorities for 2022 (2022.02.07).
Advisory Letters
Voyager Digital, LLC, is a platform that leveraged a relationship with a traditional bank, Metropolitan Commercial Bank, to permit customers to deposit fiat currency and convert it to cryptocurrency more quickly. Despite leaning on a bank to provide its services, it famously hailed itself as safe (or safer) than a bank. (It subsequently underwent a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.)
On July 28, 2022 the FDIC and the Fed sent a letter to Voyager demanding that it stop "representing or implying that an uninsured deposit is insured." The FDIC claimed Voyager had leaned too heavily on its relationship with MCB, and MCB's FDIC insured-status, in the following ways:
Voyager has made various representations online, including its website, mobile app, and social media accounts, stating or suggesting that: (1) Voyager itself is FDIC-insured; (2) customers who invested with the Voyager cryptocurrency platform would receive FDIC insurance coverage for all funds provided to, held by, on, or with Voyager; and (3) the FDIC would insure customers against the failure of Voyager itself.
FDIC, Joint Letter Regarding Potential Violations of Section 18(a)(4) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (2022.07.28). The regulators demanded that Voyager immediately cease and desist making such representations within two business days.
In October 2023, the FTC reached a settlement with Voyager Digital, permanently banning the company from handling consumers' assets and entering a $1.65 billion judgment against Voyager and its former CEO Stephen Ehrlich for falsely claiming deposits were FDIC-insured. FTC, Press Release (2023.10.12).
Shortly after the initial cease-and-desist letter, the FDIC issued an advisory letter to all FDIC insured institutions warning them that they must be careful in dealing with crypto companies because of "the risks of consumer confusion or harm arising from crypto assets offered by, through, or in connection with insured depository institutions." FDIC, Advisory to FDIC-Insured Institutions Regarding Deposit Insurance and Dealings with Crypto Companies (2022.07.29). The FDIC called on insured institutions to "monitor that [crypto] companies do not misrepresent the availability of deposit insurance in order to measure and control risks to the bank." Id. See also CFPB Circular 2022-02, addressing the applicability of the Consumer Financial Protection Act's prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices to entities that misrepresent FDIC deposit insurance status.
The FDIC also provided this guidance to crypto companies themselves:
[C]rypto companies . . . that advertise or offer FDIC-insured products in relationships with insured banks could reduce consumer confusion by clearly, conspicuously: (a) stating that they are not an insured bank; (b) identifying the insured bank(s) where any customer funds may be held on deposit; and (c) communicating that crypto assets are not FDIC-insured products and may lose value.
The FDIC further asserts that it has regulatory authority even over non-bank financial institutions -- i.e., crypto companies -- that are not FDIC insured pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 328.100 et seq. which governs "false advertising, misrepresentation of insured status, and misuse of the FDIC's name or logo." Id. That regulation became effective on July 5, 2022, and was directly targeted at expanding the FDIC's enforcement authority against "non-bank entities." See FDIC, Final Rule, False Advertising, Misrepresentation of Insured Status, and Misuse of the FDIC's Name or Logo, 87 Fed. Reg. 33415 (2022.06.02).
On August 19, 2022, the FDIC issued five additional cease and desist letters along the same lines, including to FTX US. The FDIC alleged that FTX US President Brett Harrison had made statements -- including on social media -- falsely representing that FTX US was FDIC-insured and that funds deposited with FTX US were placed in FDIC-insured bank accounts. FDIC, Press Release, FDIC Issues Cease and Desist Letters to Five Companies For Making Crypto-Related False or Misleading Representations about Deposit Insurance (2022.08.19).
2025 Policy Reversal
FIL-7-2025: Rescission of Prior Approval Requirement (March 28, 2025)
On March 28, 2025, the FDIC issued FIL-7-2025, formally rescinding FIL-16-2022 and eliminating the prior notification and approval requirement for crypto-related activities. FDIC, FDIC Clarifies Process for Banks to Engage in Crypto-Related Activities (2025.03.28). The letter clarified that FDIC-supervised institutions "may engage in permissible activities, including activities involving new and emerging technologies such as crypto-assets and digital assets, without notifying the FDIC in advance," provided they adequately manage associated risks and conduct activities in a safe and sound manner consistent with applicable law. The FIL reaffirmed the permissibility of crypto-asset custody, certain stablecoin activities, and participation in independent node verification networks.
Withdrawal of Joint Statements (April 24, 2025)
On April 24, 2025, the FDIC and the Fed jointly withdrew from the January and February 2023 interagency joint statements on crypto-asset risks and liquidity risks. FDIC, Agencies Withdraw Joint Statements on Crypto-Assets (2025.04.24). The agencies stated that the withdrawal was "intended to allow the agencies to address the provision of banking services involving crypto-assets through the normal supervisory process rather than through statements designed to address heightened concerns about safety and soundness and other risks arising in the early stages of crypto-asset markets." The OCC had separately withdrawn on March 7, 2025.
Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Safekeeping (July 14, 2025)
The FDIC, the Fed, and the OCC issued a new joint statement providing constructive risk-management guidance for banks offering crypto-asset custody and safekeeping services. FDIC, Agencies Issue Joint Statement on Risk-Management Considerations for Crypto-Asset Safekeeping (2025.07.14). Rather than emphasizing risks and discouraging activity, the statement addressed practical considerations including distinguishing "safekeeping" from "custody," identifying novel risks associated with distributed ledger technologies, and requiring compliance with BSA/AML, OFAC, and travel rule obligations. The statement expressly stated that it "does not create any new supervisory expectations."
Proposed Elimination of Reputational Risk (October 7, 2025)
On October 7, 2025, the FDIC and the OCC jointly proposed rules to prohibit agencies from criticizing or taking adverse action against institutions on the basis of "reputational risk," and to prohibit agencies from directing institutions to close accounts or refuse services based on customers' political views, constitutionally protected speech, or legally permissible business activities. OCC, Proposed Rule (2025.10.07). This proposed rulemaking directly addresses the supervisory mechanism that had been used to discourage banks from serving crypto companies during the 2022-2024 period.
GENIUS Act Implementation
The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 ("GENIUS Act"), S. 1582, was signed into law on July 18, 2025, establishing the first comprehensive federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins in the United States. White House, Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Signs GENIUS Act Into Law (2025.07.18). The GENIUS Act receives more extensive treatment in Section 1.02 - Federal Statutes
The GENIUS Act restricts payment stablecoin issuance to three categories of permitted issuers: subsidiaries of insured depository institutions regulated by a federal banking agency, nonbank institutions supervised by the OCC, and state-chartered entities. The FDIC is responsible for reviewing applications from state nonmember banks that seek to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries and for supervising those subsidiaries once approved. The FDIC Chair serves on the newly created Stablecoin Certification Review Committee alongside the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chair of the Federal Reserve, with authority over nonbank stablecoin issuers requiring unanimous approval.
Key provisions of the GENIUS Act include: stablecoins must be backed one-for-one by U.S. dollars or other qualifying low-risk assets; payment stablecoins issued by permitted issuers are expressly classified as neither "securities" under federal securities law nor "commodities" under the Commodity Exchange Act; stablecoin issuers are subject to Bank Secrecy Act obligations, including anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance programs; issuers must possess the technical capability to seize, freeze, or burn payment stablecoins when legally required; issuers are forbidden from making misleading claims that stablecoins are backed by the U.S. government, federally insured, or legal tender; and in insolvency, stablecoin holders' claims are prioritized over all other creditors. See Congressional Research Service, The GENIUS Act (2025).
In December 2025, the FDIC Board of Directors approved a notice of proposed rulemaking establishing application procedures for FDIC-supervised institutions seeking to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries. FDIC, FDIC Approves Proposal to Establish GENIUS Act Application Procedures (2025.12); see also Approval Requirements for Issuance of Payment Stablecoins by Subsidiaries of FDIC-Supervised Insured Depository Institutions, 90 Fed. Reg. (2025.12.19).
The GENIUS Act represents the legislative culmination of the 2021 President's Working Group recommendations on stablecoin regulation, which called for limiting stablecoin issuers to insured depository institutions subject to federal supervision.
Leadership
Jelena McWilliams (through early 2022)
Former FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams made several notable remarks on digital assets during the final months of her tenure. In October 2021, McWilliams stated that her goal was to provide "clear guidance to the public on how our existing rules and policies apply to crypto assets, what types of activities are permissible for banks to engage in, and what supervisory expectations we have for banks that do engage in such activities." Jelena McWilliams, Remarks at Money 20/20 (2021.10.27). She noted the substantial innovation occurring in crypto-assets, including "a faster, cheaper, more efficient mechanism for making payments than legacy systems," but cautioned that should stablecoins become dominant, it "could lead to substantial sums of money migrating out of insured banks with significant ramifications for credit creation, financial stability, and bank funding." To mitigate these risks, McWilliams stated that the FDIC's "oversight should rest on the foundation that stablecoins . . . are truly backed 1:1 by safe, highly liquid assets." Id.
In February 2022, McWilliams noted that "banks' engagement in [crypto markets] remains limited, despite substantial demand" and stated that the FDIC was considering whether "a stablecoin, or the funds represented by a stablecoin, meets the definition of 'deposit' . . . and . . . whether stablecoins could be eligible for deposit insurance." She shared her personal view that "bank-issued stablecoins closely resemble digital representations of deposits" (emphasis added) and encouraged a flexible regulatory approach that should vary based on institution size and systemic importance. Jelena McWilliams, Remarks at Bipartisan Policy Center (2022.02.03).
Martin Gruenberg (2022-2025)
Martin J. Gruenberg served as Acting Chairman beginning in early 2022 and was subsequently confirmed as Chairman. A long-serving FDIC official who first joined the agency's board in 2005, Gruenberg oversaw the restrictive crypto-policy era, including the issuance of FIL-16-2022, the pause letters, and both interagency joint statements. His tenure also encompassed the March 2023 bank failures and the invocation of the systemic risk exception. In his 2022 priorities announcement, Gruenberg signaled that crypto-asset risk evaluation would be a top concern. FDIC, Acting Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg Announces FDIC Priorities for 2022 (2022.02.07).
In 2024, an external investigation conducted by Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP confirmed allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination, and a toxic workplace culture at the FDIC, prompting bipartisan calls for Gruenberg's resignation. Gruenberg announced his resignation effective January 19, 2025 -- one day before President Trump's inauguration.
Travis Hill (2025-present)
Travis Hill, who had served as FDIC Vice Chairman since January 5, 2023, became Acting Chairman on January 20, 2025, following Gruenberg's departure. On January 10, 2025, Hill delivered a speech at the American Bar Association in which he declared the agency "needs a new direction." Travis Hill, Charting a New Course: Preliminary Thoughts on FDIC Policy Issues (2025.01.10). Hill stated he had been "critical of the FDIC's approach to crypto assets and blockchain," asserting the agency's prior approach "has contributed to a general perception that the agency was closed for business if institutions are interested in anything related to blockchain or distributed ledger technology." He condemned debanking, stating "there is no place at the FDIC for anyone who has pushed -- explicitly or implicitly -- banks to stop serving law-abiding customers." Id.
Hill was formally nominated by President Trump on September 30, 2025, advanced by the Senate Banking Committee on a 13-11 party-line vote on November 19, 2025, and confirmed by the Senate 53-43 on December 18, 2025. He was sworn in as the 23rd Chairman of the FDIC in January 2026. FDIC, Travis Hill Sworn In as 23rd Chairman of the FDIC (2026.01). Hill has stated that "deposits are deposits, regardless of the technology or recordkeeping deployed," signaling the FDIC's openness to tokenized deposits and blockchain-based banking infrastructure.
Coordination with OCC and PWG
In November 2021, the OCC coordinated with the President's Working Group on Financial Markets and the FDIC to release a report on the uses, risks, and opportunities for stablecoins. See President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the FDIC, and the OCC, Report on Stablecoins (2021.11). The report outlines the various current use cases for stablecoins, documents their explosive growth over recent years, details the perceived risks (to users, to the payments system, and to the greater financial system), and issues a call to action to Congress to enact a "consistent and comprehensive regulatory framework" for stablecoins.
The key aspects of that regulatory framework, as requested by the report, are:
limiting stablecoin issuers (and those offering redemption and maintenance of reserve assets) to entities that are insured depository institutions, and making them subject to supervision at the depository and holding company levels;
requiring custodial wallet providers for stablecoins to be subject to federal oversight, including restrictions on lending, compliance obligations for risk management, liquidity, and capital requirements;
limits on custodial wallet providers' affiliation with commercial entities or on use of users' transaction data; and
ensuring the federal supervisor of a stablecoin issuer has examination and enforcement authority to require issuers to meet risk-management standards, and also has the authority to implement standards to promote interoperability among stablecoins.
Id. at 16-17. Regarding stablecoins, the report notes that depending on how the stablecoin and its reserves are structured, individual holders of the stablecoin may or may not have FDIC insurance. Id. at 4 & n.6. In order for individual stablecoin holders to qualify for the $250,000 in FDIC coverage, the "stablecoin issuer [must] deposit[] fiat currency reserves at an FDIC-insured bank and do[] so in a manner that meets all the requirements for 'pass-through' deposit insurance coverage" pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 330.5.
The report also notes that other federal regulatory agencies may have a role to play in oversight of stablecoins, including the CFPB, the SEC, the CFTC, Office of Foreign Assets Control, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Id. at 15, 18, 20. The reference to FinCEN is of particular note, because FinCEN's regulations require registering with it as a money services business (MSB), establishing an anti-money laundering program, reporting cash transactions of $10,000 or more, and filing suspicious activity reports (SARs). Id. at 20. Doing so may cause downstream compliance issues because, as the report notes, "[c]urrent [Bank Secrecy Act] regulations require the transfer of certain specific information well beyond what can be inferred from the blockchain resulting in non-compliance." Id.
The GENIUS Act, signed into law on July 18, 2025, represents the legislative culmination of many of the PWG's 2021 recommendations, particularly the call to limit stablecoin issuance to entities subject to federal banking supervision and to impose reserve and redemption requirements on issuers.
FDIC Inspector General Reports
EVAL-24-01: Crypto-Asset Risk Strategies (October 2023)
The FDIC Office of Inspector General published a report finding that the FDIC lacked "clear procedures" for addressing crypto-related risks, causing "uncertainty for supervised institutions in determining the appropriate actions to take." FDIC OIG, FDIC Strategies Related to Crypto-Asset Risks (2023.10.17). The report noted that 136 FDIC-insured banks had ongoing or planned crypto-asset-related activities. It found that the FDIC had not completed a risk assessment to determine whether the agency could sufficiently address crypto-asset-related risks through its existing guidance framework. The OIG issued two recommendations, with which the FDIC concurred.
EVAL-25-02: Resolution Readiness (December 2024)
The FDIC OIG found that the agency's readiness to resolve large regional banks was "not sufficiently mature to facilitate consistently efficient response efforts in a potential crisis failure environment" at the time of the spring 2023 failures. FDIC OIG, FDIC Readiness to Resolve Large Regional Banks (2024.12.10). The report identified gaps in regional resolution frameworks, interdivisional training, and readiness monitoring, and issued 11 recommendations. The FDIC plans to complete all corrective actions by June 30, 2026.
Index of Sources
Sources are listed in reverse chronological order.
FDIC, Travis Hill Sworn In as 23rd Chairman of the FDIC (2026.01)
FDIC, Approval Requirements for Issuance of Payment Stablecoins by Subsidiaries of FDIC-Supervised Insured Depository Institutions, 90 Fed. Reg. (2025.12.19)
OCC, Statement by Comptroller Gould on Operation Chokepoint 2.0 Report (2025.12.01)
House Financial Services Committee, Operation Chokepoint 2.0: Biden's Debanking of Digital Assets (2025.11.25)
OCC & FDIC, Proposed Rule on Elimination of Reputational Risk (2025.10.07)
White House, Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Signs GENIUS Act Into Law (2025.07.18)
FDIC, Fed, & OCC, Joint Statement on Risk-Management Considerations for Crypto-Asset Safekeeping (2025.07.14)
FDIC & Fed, Agencies Withdraw Joint Statements on Crypto-Assets (2025.04.24)
FDIC, Financial Institution Letter, FDIC Clarifies Process for Banks to Engage in Crypto-Related Activities (2025.03.28)
OCC, Bulletin 2025-02 (2025.03.07)
FDIC, FDIC Releases Documents Related to Supervision of Crypto-Related Activities (2025.02.05)
Travis Hill, Charting a New Course: Preliminary Thoughts on FDIC Policy Issues (2025.01.10)
FDIC OIG, FDIC Readiness to Resolve Large Regional Banks (2024.12.10)
Federal Reserve Board, Silvergate Bank Enforcement Action (2024.07.01)
SEC, Silvergate Capital Corporation Charges (2024.07.01)
FDIC, Special Assessment Pursuant to Systemic Risk Determination, 88 Fed. Reg. 80094 (2023.11.29)
FTC, Voyager Digital Settlement (2023.10.12)
FDIC OIG, FDIC Strategies Related to Crypto-Asset Risks (2023.10.17)
Federal Reserve Board & DFPI, Silvergate Bank Consent Order (2023.06.01)
FDIC, FDIC's Supervision of Signature Bank (2023.04.28)
FDIC, Signature Bank Press Release (2023.04.28)
FDIC, Silicon Valley Bank Press Release (2023.03.10)
FDIC, Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Risks to Banking Organizations (2023.01.03)
FDIC, Final Rule, False Advertising, Misrepresentation of Insured Status, and Misuse of the FDIC's Name or Logo, 87 Fed. Reg. 33415 (2022.06.02)
FDIC, Financial Institution Letter, Notification of Engaging in Crypto-Related Activities (2022.04.07)
FDIC, Acting Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg Announces FDIC Priorities for 2022 (2022.02.07)
Jelena McWilliams, Remarks at Bipartisan Policy Center (2022.02.03)
The Fed, FDIC, & OCC, Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Policy Sprint Initiative and Next Steps (2021.11.23)
President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the FDIC, and the OCC, Report on Stablecoins (2021.11)
Jelena McWilliams, Remarks at Money 20/20 (2021.10.27)
FDIC, RIN 3064-ZA25, Request for Information and Comment on Digital Assets (2021.05.17)
Authors
This article was originally drafted by @Lawtoshi and is subsequently being updated in conjunction with Claude Code.
Last updated