The world of cryptography clashes again with traditional finance, and this time, Ripple and Circle are at the center of all this. XRP lawyer and well -known crypto lawyer John Deaton has firmly criticized the American Bankers Association (ABA) for having put pressure on regulators to refuse the licenses of the Federal Trust Bank to these blockchain leaders.
This growing dispute could shape the future of finance, because modern digital innovators have defined a banking system in place for more than a century.
Crypto vs Banks: Deaton pushes
In an ardent article on X, Deaton urged the legislators to reject what he called the ABA’s attempt to block progress. He argued that refusing Ripple and surrounding a national trust charter retain innovation and would keep the financial system stuck in the past.
The expert in industry Vincent Van Code has amplified the position of Deaton, marking the decision of the ABA as “purely anti -competitive”. He congratulated digital companies first like Ripple and Circle for bureaucracy and general costs, declaring, “The century is over. It’s now time for the next genetic finance to replace the cabale. ”
Ripple and Circle make their move
Ripple and Circle asked for charters of the National Trust Bank from the American Currency Controller (OCS). Ripple wants to extend its payment and stablecoin services via a federal license. Circle, on the other hand, plans to create the first national bank of digital currencies, which would contain the USDC reserves under federal surveillance.
The two measures are part of the efforts aimed at aligning the new law on engineering adopted in July 2025. The law obliges stable issuers to operate under direct federal supervision, either as banks, credit cooperatives, or non -banking entities specially regulated supervised by the OCC.
The banking hall repels with legal arguments
ABA, as well as five other financial organizations, including the United States, Credit Cooperatives and the National Bankers Association, ask the West to reject requests. They argue that national trust charters should only be granted to companies that provide fiduciary services such as management of domains or assets.
According to federal law under USC § 92a, Ripple and Circle do not meet this requirement because they focus on the custody and payments of digital assets, and not on traditional fiduciary work.
Concerns concerning the crypto flooded the system
ABA also warned that Ripple and Circle approval could trigger a wave of similar applications from other cryptographic companies. These companies, they support, would have access to the banking system without dealing with the same strict rules as traditional banks must follow, such as those of the Bank Holding Company Act.
Banking groups have also criticized the directives of the OCC. They underlined the letter of interpretation now aforementioned 1179, which had enabled more flexible interpretations of fiduciary duties. The ABA now wants a clear rule: no fiduciary work does not mean a trust charter.
Old System vs New Ideas
Banking defenders claim that the permission of the undulation and the circle could weaken financial stability and move away from the initial objective of trust charters. But Deaton and other supporters of cryptography argue that this resistance is only an effort to protect the status quo.
The biggest question is whether innovation will be adopted or blocked. With the potential of crypto to modernize finances, the outcome of this battle could decide who controls the future of money.
