連接加密貨幣與銀行業：為何加密公司渴望銀行牌照及其意義

加密貨幣公司越來越多地追求傳統銀行牌照或執照，業內分析師總結為：「打唔贏，就加入佢。」越來越多加密公司希望跳出邊緣，變身為受規管銀行或準銀行。這一轉變來自接觸支付基建、提升信任和認受性、以及開展新金融產品的潛力。

近期美國、歐盟、香港等地方均出現針對穩定幣的新法例，實際上要求發幣方符合銀行級標準，推動穩定幣公司主動尋求銀行牌照。透過取得銀行執照，加密公司可按自己方式融入現有合規金融體系。

下文會解釋這股趨勢背後的動機、加密公司可選執照類型、全球最新發展、龍頭公司案例、監管驅動因素，以及對使用者和市場的利與弊。

為何加密公司要申請銀行牌照

加密公司一向難以獲得銀行服務。傳統銀行因洗黑錢及合規疑慮，普遍對數碼資產公司有所保留。成為受規管銀行正好釋除這些疑慮。主要原因包括：

• 支付基建及資金出入口（On/Off Ramp）： 取得銀行牌照後，加密公司可以直接接入Fedwire、ACH及結算網絡。有顧問指出，銀行牌照讓「出入金由加密公司自己把控，無需經第三方銀行」。這代表資金進出法幣更快更穩妥。例如Kraken Bank（懷俄明SPDI銀行）計劃為用戶提供美元存款帳戶及電匯功能，並與交易所整合，讓法幣資金一站式入金炒幣。反觀無牌照公司，只能依賴第三方銀行或支付商，而這些機構曾經將加密客戶列入黑名單甚至凍結轉帳。

• 信任及認受性： 持有銀行執照意味受嚴格監管並有更強安全保障。取得銀行執照「讓加密公司多一重信任」，亦可合法提供受監管的存款、放貸等服務。受監管身份亦成為加密公司向用戶及合作夥伴展示實力的標誌。例如Circle的Jeremy Allaire表示，成為全國信託公司是追求「最高信任、透明度及合規」的一部分。銀行監管同時要求資本緩衝、審計及嚴格控制，這些措施能取信機構級客戶。

• 新產品及服務： 持有銀行牌照後，加密公司可推出主流金融產品。例如Kraken Bank表示，取得執照後可為客戶託管加密貨幣和美元，發行扣賬卡、提供利息戶口，甚至開展代幣資產。同樣，Circle計劃中的信託銀行會管理USDC儲備及用戶代幣，未來有機會涉足證券型代幣。總括而言，取得銀行身份能讓加密公司把交易所、資產託管、支付、錢包等業務歸於一身，毋須透過外判供應商各自整合。

• 合規與穩定幣法例： 新法例亦成為最大推動力。在美國，STABLE Act及GENIUS Act等草案規定，穩定幣發行必須由銀行（或旗下子公司）負責並全額備付。歐盟MiCA亦要求穩定幣（電子貨幣通證EMT）發行者持有電子貨幣機構牌照。香港即將實施的穩定幣監管亦要求須由金管局授牌。在這些法規推動下，Ripple及Circle等穩定幣發行方提前申請銀行執照，以確保持牌合法向市場發售代幣。換言之，成為銀行不僅是主動搶佔市場，更是應對監管的防守部署。

綜合以上因素，銀行執照對加密公司吸引力大增。有區塊鏈業界高管認為，經過多年討論，加密公司「願意主動走進主流監管框架」，換來以往難以接觸的客戶和業務機遇，但同時也要承擔銀行監管下的責任。

加密公司可申請的牌照／執照類型

加密公司可選擇多種監管路徑，各有特點和局限，主要包括：

• 傳統商業銀行執照（全面銀行牌照）： 這是一般銀行獲授的標準執照，能合法收取存款、放貸、支付等金融服務，受全部銀行規限。取得全面執照手續繁複，但授權範圍極廣。部分加密初創已走這路線，例如瑞士的Sygnum及SEBA於2019年雙雙獲FINMA批出全面銀行及證券商牌照，可提供貸款、資產託管及加密和法幣的賬戶。不過，大部分司法區未有針對加密銀行額外創設專屬牌照，大多需要用現有銀行或金融執照框架來運作。

• 懷俄明SPDI牌照（特別目的存款機構）： 懷俄明州（美國）的SPDI是針對數碼資產設計的混合型特別銀行，主要業務為資產託管及存款，並不可放貸。SPDI需全數備付存款，但不受FDIC（聯邦存款保險）保障。例如Kraken Bank可提供加密資產託管賬戶、美金存款及支付服務，但不能用戶存款作借貸。SPDI主打加密資產安全，懷俄明監管機構監察其運作，但不能以貸款損失用戶資金。（Kraken指出，即使全體客戶同時提現，亦能全數支付，因有100%備付。）但由於缺乏FDIC保障，用戶需自行承擔相關風險。

• 全美信託銀行執照（OCC Trust Charter）： 美國貨幣監理署（OCC）可批出國家級信託銀行執照，可提供資產託管、結算及儲備管理，但一般不能經營需求存款或放貸。Anchorage Digital（加密資產託管商）於2021年成為全美首間持OCC信託執照的全國受規管加密銀行。Circle亦正在申請自己的OCC信託牌照以管理USDC儲備。信託銀行突顯高度監管；與SPDI不同，OCC信託銀行可在銀行間結算（即取得FedMaster帳戶）。註：持信託牌照的美國機構如持有受保存款，亦會受FDIC保障，惟大多數加密信託牌照不設受保存款。

• 電子貨幣機構（EMI）牌照： 歐洲MiCA法例下，鎖定法幣的穩定幣被歸為電子貨幣通證（EMT），發行者必須在歐盟成員國取得EMI。這與一般提供預付電子貨幣（如PayPal）的金融科技牌照類似，只是應用於加密貨幣。舉例，2023年Circle已在法國獲取EMI，涵蓋歐元穩定幣。EMI令公司以1:1發行可兌換法幣的數碼貨幣。但該牌照本身不包括加密資產託管，相關服務須配合其他數碼資產牌照。EMI要求包括全數備付、資金安全隔離、受金融監管。

• 虛擬資產服務提供者（VASP）/ 金錢轉移牌照： 多個國家（如歐盟MiCA的VASP、美國金錢轉移牌照、新加坡支付服務牌照等）都設有適用於交易所、託管及錢包的執照。此類牌照可合法提供加密貨幣買賣或轉帳，但本身並不等同銀行功能。加密公司常持有多重執照，例如持歐盟VASP作交易所，美國金錢轉移許可和信託執照，以涵蓋不同地區及業務。VASP特別強調KYC/AML合規，多數定位於交易/託管，而非存款業務。欲轉型為加密銀行的公司，仍會保留這些交易所牌照應對現行監管。

• 其他數碼銀行／金融科技執照： 某些地區提供「數碼銀行」或支付機構牌照。例如新加坡有Digital Full Bank適用於本地零售銀行，Payment Institution適用於數碼代幣支付；英國則有金融監管局批出的電子貨幣許可應付加密支付。這類執照側重數碼支付或放貸，有否能與加密資產整合視乎當地政策。值得留意，美國及歐盟等主要地區目前仍以上述幾類（商業銀行、SPDI、信託銀行、EMI）為主，未額外設立專屬加密金融科技牌照。

每類牌照都涉及不同取捨：SPDI和信託銀行更針對數碼資產，但商業空間有限；全面銀行執照則規管最嚴，但能提供最多元服務。大多數加密公司都針對最能符合其本業定位的方案（如穩定幣發行方多數選擇信託或EMI處理儲備）。

全球發展及監管狀況

加密銀行現象席捲全球，各地區發展步伐不一：

• 美國： The U.S. has been at the forefront of crypto bank charters. Wyoming’s crypto-friendly laws produced the SPDI model, first used by Kraken Bank and now by others like Custodia. Federally, the OCC under recent leadership has signaled openness: it eliminated previous restrictions (no-objection letters) and granted a charter to Anchorage Digital. Media reports in 2025 confirm that stablecoin issuers Ripple and Circle have applied for OCC charters, and Coinbase says it is “actively considering” a federal bank charter. These moves coincide with U.S. legislation: Congress is advancing stablecoin bills (STABLE Act, GENIUS Act) that would require issuers to be regulated by federal or state banking entities. Importantly, the Federal Reserve recently told its regional banks to drop “reputational risk” as a criterion for granting master accounts, which many saw as a green light for crypto firms to access Fed services. Still, some hurdles remain: Custodia Bank’s Fed master account application was denied in Jan 2023 on safety grounds, and AML concerns continue to loom.
  美國一直處於加密銀行牌照的前沿。懷俄明州友善加密的法律創立了 SPDI（特殊目的存款機構）模式，最先由 Kraken Bank 使用，現時如 Custodia 等其他機構亦跟隨。聯邦層面上，現任 OCC（貨幣監理署）領導展現開放態度：取消了以往的限制措施（無異議信），並向 Anchorage Digital 發出執照。2025 年的媒體報道證實，穩定幣發行商 Ripple 和 Circle 已申請 OCC 執照，而 Coinbase 表示正“積極考慮”申請聯邦銀行執照。這些行動與美國的最新立法同步：國會正推進穩定幣法案（STABLE 法案、GENIUS 法案），要求發行商必須受聯邦或州銀行監管機構規管。值得注意的是，美國聯邦儲備局最近通知地區銀行不應再以“聲譽風險”作為批出主賬戶的標準，外界普遍視為加密公司開通聯儲服務的綠燈。不過，仍有一些障礙：Custodia Bank 於 2023 年 1 月因安全理由被拒絕獲批聯儲主賬戶，而反洗黑錢（AML）憂慮仍然揮之不去。

Europe (EU & UK): Europe’s regulatory regime is crystallizing under MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets). MiCA requires issuers of stablecoins (called Asset-Referenced Tokens or Electronic Money Tokens) to obtain an e-money license from an EU member state; for example, Circle took an EMI license in France for its Euro stablecoins. MiCA also demands 100% backing and public disclosures for stablecoins. In practice, major crypto firms want to be compliant: Kraken Ireland received a full EU VASP license to serve EU markets under MiCA. Traditional banks in Europe are also entering the stablecoin space – a Cointelegraph article notes that after initial reluctance, several European banks have applied to issue their own stablecoins. The UK (post-Brexit) is treating stablecoins as e-money under FCA guidance, meaning issuers will also need FCA authorization. While the ECB and Eurozone banks have been cautious on CBDCs, Europe broadly is preparing for crypto integration. Regulatory focus remains on stablecoins and AML rules (the ECB continues warnings on crypto liquidity and fraud).
歐洲（歐盟及英國）： 歐洲的監管制度正隨 MiCA（加密資產市場法規）逐步成形。MiCA 規定穩定幣（稱為資產參考代幣或電子貨幣代幣）發行商需取得歐盟成員國的電子貨幣許可證；例如，Circle 已於法國獲取 EMI 許可證以發行歐元穩定幣。MiCA 亦要求穩定幣需有 100% 資產儲備及公開披露。實際上，主要加密公司均欲合規經營：Kraken Ireland 取得完整歐盟 VASP（虛擬資產服務供應商）執照，根據 MiCA 服務歐盟市場。歐洲傳統銀行亦開始進軍穩定幣領域——Cointelegraph 報道指多間歐洲銀行於最初猶豫後，現已申請發行自家穩定幣。英國脫歐後遵照 FCA 指引將穩定幣視為電子貨幣，發行商同樣需要獲得 FCA 授權。雖然歐洲央行及歐元區銀行對央行數碼貨幣（CBDC）持審慎態度，歐洲整體則正準備加密資產的整合。監管重點仍在穩定幣及反洗黑錢規定（ECB 持續就加密流動性及欺詐發出警告）。

Switzerland: Switzerland has actively courted crypto finance. In 2019 FINMA granted the country’s first full “crypto bank” licenses: SEBA Bank and Sygnum Bank (both now rebranded under Swiss law). These banks offer services from token custody to brokerage and asset management for digital assets, under the same supervisory regime as any Swiss bank. FINMA imposed strict AML measures – for example, requiring that token transfers be traceable with sender/recipient info. In 2025 Swiss crypto banks remain innovative: AMINA Bank (a spin-off of SEBA) became the first regulated bank globally to support Ripple’s new RLUSD stablecoin, offering custody and trading of the token for institutional clients. Swiss authorities have also approved CHF-backed stablecoins and tokenized assets in pilot programs, cementing the country’s image as a digital finance hub.
瑞士： 瑞士主動吸引加密金融業。2019 年 FINMA 發出瑞士首批“加密銀行”全牌照：SEBA Bank 及 Sygnum Bank（現已以瑞士法重新命名）。這些銀行可提供代幣託管、經紀、數碼資產管理等全方位服務，受瑞士銀行一般監管制度約束。FINMA 訂下嚴格反洗黑錢條例——例如所有代幣轉帳必須可追蹤，需包括發送人和收款人資料。到 2025 年，瑞士加密銀行仍然具創新性：AMINA Bank（SEBA 的分拆公司）成為全球首間受監管銀行支持 Ripple 新推 RLUSD 穩定幣，為機構客戶提供代幣託管及交易服務。瑞士監管機構亦核准瑞士法郎穩定幣及代幣化資產試點計劃，鞏固其數碼金融樞紐地位。

Asia (Hong Kong & Singapore): Hong Kong and Singapore are emerging as crypto gateways in Asia. Hong Kong has overhauled its rules: in mid-2023 it began licensing virtual asset trading platforms (VASP regime), and in 2025 passed a Stablecoins Bill requiring fiat-backed stablecoins to obtain a license from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. The HKMA will set stringent rules on reserves, operations and consumer protection, essentially creating a “central bank-approved” stablecoin class. This reflects a pro-innovation stance – regulators differentiate stablecoins from CBDCs to foster digital assets alongside Hong Kong’s financial markets. In Singapore, regulators have also been active: MAS released a stablecoin framework (late 2022) demanding 100% high-quality reserves and disallowing certain yields. Singapore granted four digital bank licenses in 2020 (to non-crypto firms like Grab/Sea/Ant), but is not issuing new ones currently; instead, Singapore crypto firms typically operate under Major Payment Institution licenses for digital payment tokens. Overall, both HK and Singapore emphasize stability and compliance (full reserves, audits) for crypto assets, making licenses harder to get but more credible once obtained.
亞洲（香港及新加坡）： 香港及新加坡正冒起為亞洲加密金融樞紐。香港已重整監管制度：2023 年中開始發牌予虛擬資產交易平台（VASP 制度），2025 年通過《穩定幣條例》，要求以法幣支持的穩定幣須取得香港金融管理局（HKMA）發牌。HKMA 會就儲備、營運及消費者保障設下一系列嚴格規則，實際上創建了“中央銀行認可”類別穩定幣。這反映本地監管取向鼓勵創新——規管機構有意區分穩定幣與 CBDC，並推動加密資產與香港金融市場同步發展。新加坡方面監管亦見積極：金管局（MAS）於 2022 年底發佈穩定幣框架，要求 100% 優質儲備，並禁止某些穩定幣提供收益。新加坡於 2020 年批出四個數碼銀行牌照（予 Grab、Sea、螞蟻等非加密企業），現階段不會再發新牌，加密公司多以數碼支付牌照經營虛擬資產。整體而言，香港及新加坡都強調穩定及合規（足額儲備，審計），令牌照更難取得但更具公信力。

Middle East (UAE, etc.): The UAE has created multiple crypto-friendly zones. Regulators like the Dubai Virtual Asset Regulator (VARA) and Abu Dhabi’s ADGM (FSRA) license crypto exchanges and asset managers under clear rules. The UAE is also encouraging digital banking innovation. Notably, Dubai’s Ruya Bank launched as the world’s first Islamic digital bank offering Shariah-compliant crypto trading. While most licensers focus on crypto brokerage, a few fintech players (like Adadash) are pursuing crypto-bank hybrids. The UAE’s approach balances rapid adoption with stringent supervision – for instance, all crypto tokens are regulated under a payments law. Other Middle Eastern centers (e.g. Bahrain) have also issued crypto licenses. Overall, the region sees crypto finance as a growth sector, though the concept of crypto banks is still nascent compared to Western models.
中東地區（阿聯酋等）： 阿聯酋建立了多個加密友善區域。杜拜虛擬資產監管局（VARA）和阿布扎比 ADGM（金管局 FSRA）等監管機構，規定明確，為加密交易所及資產管理公司發出牌照。阿聯酋亦推動數碼銀行創新。值得一提，杜拜 Ruya Bank 正式成為全球首家符合伊斯蘭教法（Shariah）的加密資產數碼銀行。雖然大多數發牌著重加密經紀業務，部分金融科技新創（如 Adadash）則探索加密銀行混合模式。阿聯酋監管取態在高速發展與嚴格監督之間尋求平衡——例如所有加密代幣均受支付法例監管。其他中東中心如巴林亦發出加密執照。整體而言，中東視加密金融為增長板塊，但加密銀行概念與西方模式相比仍處初步階段。

In summary, crypto banking charters are spreading worldwide. In each jurisdiction, firms tailor their strategy to local rules – obtaining a Wyoming SPDI in the U.S., an OCC charter, an EU EMI license, or a FINMA crypto banking license – all with the goal of legalizing their core crypto services.
總結來說，加密銀行執照正在全球擴展。各地公司均需按本地監管調整策略——如在美國取得懷俄明州 SPDI、OCC 執照，在歐盟獲得 EMI 許可證，或在瑞士取得 FINMA 加密銀行牌照——目的都是將其核心加密服務合法化。

Case Studies of Crypto Companies Becoming Banks

Below are examples of notable crypto firms (or related entities) pursuing or obtaining bank-like licenses:

• Kraken Bank (Wyoming SPDI): In 2020, Kraken was the first major crypto exchange to win approval for a Wyoming Special Purpose Depository Institution charter. Kraken’s blog explains that as an SPDI it will maintain 100% fiat reserves and offer USD deposit accounts, crypto custody, wire transfers and other banking services to its clients. Kraken emphasizes that the SPDI lets it act as a “digital-asset bank”, bridging crypto with traditional finance. (Kraken Bank will be regulated by Wyoming’s Division of Banking, with ongoing audits, but – like all SPDIs – will not be FDIC-insured.)

• Kraken Bank（懷俄明 SPDI）： Kraken 於 2020 年成為首間獲懷俄明州“特殊目的存款機構”（SPDI）批准的主要加密交易所。Kraken 官方博客解釋，他們作為 SPDI 將維持 100% 法幣儲備，並為客戶提供美元存款、加密託管、電匯及其他銀行服務。Kraken 強調 SPDI 讓它成為“數碼資產銀行”，接通加密與傳統金融世界。（Kraken Bank 受懷俄明州銀行部監管，需定期審核——但所有 SPDI 均不受 FDIC 存款保險。）

• Custodia Bank (Wyoming SPDI): Custodia is another Wyoming-chartered SPDI intended as a stablecoin bank. In late 2022 it applied for a master account at the Federal Reserve (to connect to payment systems). However, in January 2023 the Fed publicly denied Custodia’s application. The Board cited Custodia’s “novel business model” and crypto focus as posing “significant safety and soundness risks”. In particular, Custodia’s plan to issue digital assets on decentralized networks was deemed inconsistent with safe banking practices. The Custodia episode illustrates that not all regulators share the crypto-friendly approach; although a state SPDI was granted, federal backing remains a barrier. (Custodia has indicated it will continue pursuing Fed membership under revised criteria.)

• Custodia Bank（懷俄明 SPDI）： Custodia 是另一家懷俄明 SPDI，定位為穩定幣銀行。2022 年底申請聯儲“主賬戶”（接駁支付系統），但 2023 年 1 月聯儲公開拒絕其申請。聯儲理事會指 Custodia 的“嶄新業務模式”及以加密為主，構成“顯著安全與健全風險”。尤其 Custodia 計劃於去中心化網絡發行數碼資產，被視為不合安全銀行規範。此事件反映並非所有監管者都友善對待加密產業——州級 SPDI 雖可取得，聯邦支持仍是重大障礙。（Custodia 表示會根據新準則繼續爭取聯儲會員資格。）

• Anchorage Digital (OCC Trust Charter): Anchorage Digital (an institutional crypto custodian) became the first crypto company to receive a national bank charter when the OCC granted it a national trust bank charter in 2021. As a trust bank, Anchorage can act as a qualified custodian for digital assets and participate fully in Fed payment services. CEO Nathan McCauley has noted that working “hand-in-hand” with the OCC over four years delivered regulatory clarity unmatched elsewhere. Anchorage now offers custody, staking and other crypto services under strict regulatory compliance.

• Anchorage Digital（OCC 信託執照）： Anchorage Digital（機構級加密託管商）於 2021 年獲 OCC 頒發國家信託銀行執照，成為首間取得全國銀行攷照的加密公司。作為信託銀行，Anchorage 可作為合資格數碼資產託管人，全面參與聯儲支付服務。行政總裁 Nathan McCauley 指與 OCC 四年來密切合作，帶來無可比擬的監管明確性。Anchorage 現時已在嚴謹合規下提供託管、鎖倉及其他加密服務。

• Circle (OCC Trust Bank Application): Circle Internet Financial, issuer of the USDC stablecoin, announced in mid-2025 that it is applying to charter a national trust bank (to be called “First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A.”). If approved by the OCC, Circle’s trust bank would enable it to directly hold and manage USDC’s dollar reserves on behalf of customers. Allaire explained that this move follows Circle’s IPO and is about achieving the “highest standards of trust, transparency, and governance” for its financial operations. Unlike a commercial bank, Circle’s trust charter would not allow general deposits or loans; it is tailored for reserve management and crypto custody. Circle’s timing closely aligns with impending U.S. stablecoin legislation (the bill passed the Senate in mid-2025), suggesting the bank plan is aimed at being a compliant stablecoin issuer under the new rules.

• Circle（OCC 信託銀行申請）： USDC 穩定幣發行商 Circle Internet Financial 於 2025 年中宣佈申請成立全國信託銀行（名為“First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A.”）。一旦獲 OCC 批准，Circle 信託銀行將可直接代表客戶持有及管理 USDC 美元儲備。Allaire 解釋此舉是繼上市後，為達致資金操作“最高信任、透明度及管治標準”。與一般商業銀行不同，Circle 信託執照不容許存款或放貸，專為儲備管理及加密託管而設。Circle 申請時機與美國有關穩定幣立法呼應（法案 2025 年中已通過參議院），顯示其銀行化計劃明確以新規例下合規發行穩定幣為目標。

• Ripple (OCC National Bank Charter Application & RLUSD): Ripple Labs (associated with the XRP Ledger) disclosed in July 2025 that it has applied to the OCC for a national bank charter. This application makes Ripple the second crypto firm (after Circle) publicly known to seek federal bank status. Ripple’s goal is to “expand its crypto services under federal regulation” as stablecoin laws advance. At the same time, Ripple launched its own stablecoin (RLUSD) and has been integrating it with banking partners. Notably, Swiss crypto bank AMINA announced it will custodially trade RLUSD (see below), indicating Ripple’s push to treat its stablecoin as a licensed banking product. The dual strategy of charter-seeking and stablecoin issuance highlights Ripple’s bet that regulated financial status will be crucial for crypto-native firms.

• Ripple（OCC 全國銀行申請及 RLUSD）： Ripple Labs（XRP 分帳本相關）於 2025 年 7 月公開已向 OCC 申請全國銀行執照，成為繼 Circle 後第二家已知尋求聯邦銀行地位的加密公司。Ripple 目標是隨穩定幣法規推進，“以聯邦監管框架擴展加密服務”。同期 Ripple 推出自家穩定幣 RLUSD，並積極與銀行拍檔對接。值得一提，瑞士加密銀行 AMINA 宣布將為機構客戶提供 RLUSD 託管及交易（見上文），顯示 Ripple 有志令其穩定幣成為具監管牌照的銀行產品。其雙線策略（同時尋求銀行執照及發行穩定幣）反映 Ripple 認為受監管金融地位對原生加密企業至關重要。

• Coinbase (Federal Charter Consideration): Coinbase, one of the world’s largest crypto exchanges, has publicly confirmed it is “actively considering” applying for a federal banking charter. Media reports (WSJ/Banking Dive) identified Coinbase alongside BitGo, Circle and Paxos as planning to seek charters. Coinbase’s interest reflects the broader industry trend. Experts note that recent changes at the OCC (removing the ‘supervisory non-objection’ policy) make such charters more attainable than before. If Coinbase pursues a charter, it could integrate its exchange wallet with insured deposit accounts, though it would have to meet all banking capital

• Coinbase（考慮申請聯邦銀行執照）： Coinbase 作為全球最大加密交易平台之一，已公開證實正“積極考慮”申請聯邦銀行執照。媒體報道（如 WSJ/Banking Dive）指，Coinbase 與 BitGo、Circle、Paxos 等亦有意尋求銀行執照。Coinbase 的舉動反映整個產業趨勢。專家指出 OCC 近期取消了“監理無異議”政策，令這類執照比以往更易取得。若 Coinbase 採取實際行動，有望把交易所錢包與有保險的存款賬戶整合......and consumer-protection requirements. As of mid-2025, no formal application had been submitted, but Coinbase’s public statements indicate it wants to own more of the crypto-to-fiat infrastructure. （以及消費者保障要求。截至2025年年中，尚未有正式申請，但Coinbase公開表示，有意掌握更多由加密貨幣兌換成法定貨幣的基礎設施。）

• Sygnum and SEBA (Swiss Crypto Banks): In August 2019 Switzerland approved the world’s first regulated crypto banks. Zug-based SEBA Bank and Zurich-based Sygnum Bank each received banking and securities-dealer licenses from FINMA. These banks combined traditional finance capabilities with crypto services: offering deposits, asset management, tokenization of securities, and crypto trading/custody. Co-founder Manuel Krieger of Sygnum hailed the license as an “important step towards the institutionalisation of the digital asset economy”. Both banks now serve institutional and private clients who want regulated access to digital assets. They continue to expand services (e.g. Sygnum obtained additional FINMA permissions for tokenized assets, SEBA launched tokenized bond offerings). Their success exemplifies a full “crypto bank” model under strict supervision.

• Sygnum及SEBA（瑞士加密銀行）： 2019年8月，瑞士批准了全球首間受監管的加密銀行。總部位於楚格的SEBA Bank以及蘇黎世的Sygnum Bank分別獲得FINMA的銀行及證券商牌照。呢兩間銀行結合咗傳統金融同加密貨幣服務，包括提供存款、資產管理、有價證券代幣化、加密貨幣交易及託管等。Sygnum聯合創辦人Manuel Krieger形容獲證係「朝著數碼資產經濟邁向機構化的重要一步」。兩間銀行現時都服務希望以受監管渠道接觸數碼資產的機構及零售客戶，並持續擴展服務（例如Sygnum獲得FINMA額外允許處理代幣資產，SEBA推出代幣化債券）。佢哋的成功說明咗在嚴格監管下完全加密銀行模式的可行性。

• AMINA Bank (Swiss Crypto Bank & RLUSD Support): In Switzerland, AMINA Bank (formerly part of SEBA/AMINA) is a new crypto-focused commercial bank licensed by FINMA. In July 2025, AMINA announced it is the first global bank to offer services for Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin. Specifically, AMINA will provide institutional clients with custody and trading for RLUSD, which is backed by U.S. Treasury assets. AMINA CEO said the move “aims to bridge traditional banking and crypto infrastructure”. This is a concrete example of a licensed bank embracing crypto innovation: by integrating RLUSD into its platform, AMINA connects a digital-asset stablecoin directly to regulated banking rails. Other Swiss banks are reportedly exploring similar collaborations.

• AMINA Bank（瑞士加密銀行及RLUSD支援）： 瑞士AMINA Bank（前屬SEBA/AMINA），係一間獲FINMA發牌、專注加密貨幣的新型商業銀行。2025年7月，AMINA宣佈成為全球首間銀行為Ripple的RLUSD穩定幣提供服務，專為機構客戶提供RLUSD的託管及交易服務，該穩定幣以美國國債資產作為支持。AMINA行政總裁表示，此舉「希望連接傳統銀行與加密貨幣基礎建設」。此例顯示獲牌銀行積極擁抱加密創新：AMINA將RLUSD整合進銀行平台，令數碼資產穩定幣可以直接通過受監管的銀行渠道流通。消息指其他瑞士銀行亦正探索類似合作。

Each of these case studies highlights how crypto firms are intersecting with banking. Firms like Kraken and Circle seek charters to solidify core functions (USD custody, stablecoins). Established crypto custodians like Anchorage show how a charter can enhance trust. And forward-looking banks like AMINA demonstrate how incumbents are adopting crypto. Across the board, these companies stress regulatory compliance: they view licenses not as a constraint, but as a foundation to scale digital finance globally. 以上每個案例都展示咗加密貨幣企業如何與銀行產生交叉。好似Kraken、Circle等公司爭取執照，以穩固美元託管、穩定幣等核心功能。已建立的加密託管商如Anchorage則證明持牌如何提升信任度。像AMINA這類前瞻性銀行，示範了傳統機構如何擁抱加密創新。整體而言，這些企業都極為重視合規監管，認為牌照唔係約束，而係全球數碼金融擴展的基石。

Regulatory Drivers: Stablecoins and Financial Integration

監管動力：穩定幣與金融融合

The move toward banking licenses is closely tied to global regulatory changes, especially around stablecoins and “payment rails” integration. Key drivers include: 銀行牌照趨勢與全球監管變化息息相關，尤以穩定幣及「支付基建」融合為主。主要動力如下：

• Stablecoin Legislation: Lawmakers worldwide are drafting bills that treat stablecoins like bank deposits. In the U.S., for example, the GENIUS Act (Sen. Scott et al.) and STABLE Act (Reps. Frankel et al.) propose that stablecoin issuers be federally chartered, fully backed and compliant with banking safeguards. Similarly, Europe’s MiCA classifies major stablecoins as electronic money requiring bank-like licensing. Hong Kong’s new law will require HKMA licenses for fiat-pegged stablecoins. These laws effectively force stablecoin companies (like Tether or USDC issuers) to operate under banking frameworks. As CoinDesk reports, Ripple, Circle and others are explicitly aligning with this trend.

• 穩定幣立法： 全球多地立法機關正草擬法案，將穩定幣等同銀行存款處理。例如美國方面，GENIUS法案（Scott議員等）及STABLE法案（Frankel眾議員等）要求穩定幣發行人必須獲聯邦執照、全額備付及遵守銀行保障。同時，歐洲的MiCA把主要穩定幣視作電子貨幣，需要銀行類型的牌照。香港新法例將要求以法定貨幣掛鈎的穩定幣必須獲得金管局（HKMA）發牌。這些法律實際上指定穩定幣公司（例如Tether或USDC發行人）需納入銀行監管體系。據《CoinDesk》報道，Ripple、Circle等企業都明確配合這趨勢。

• Payment System Access: Central banks recognize that having crypto firms on the Fedwire or equivalent can improve payments efficiency, especially for tokenized assets. The U.S. Federal Reserve recently signaled a policy shift: it told regional Fed Banks to stop using “reputational risk” as an excuse to deny accounts and is providing clearer guidance for banks to service crypto businesses. This change was part of President Biden’s 2022 Executive Order to ensure “fair and open access to banking services” for crypto (addressing crypto de-banking concerns). By unlocking master accounts and clarifying rules, regulators are creating the conditions for crypto banks to actually hold reserves and settle transactions, which is a precondition to fully becoming banks.

• 支付系統接入： 各國央行意識到，讓加密公司直接接入Fedwire等清算系統，有助提升支付效率，尤其對代幣化資產格外重要。美國聯儲局近期表示政策有變，指示地方聯邦銀行唔可以再以「聲譽風險」為由拒絕加密公司開戶，並提供更明確指引協助銀行為加密業務提供服務。這是拜登總統2022年行政命令的一部分，目標確保加密行業「公平、公開獲取銀行服務」（解決加密被斷絕銀行服務問題）。通過允許主帳戶存取及清晰規則，監管機構為加密銀行儲備資產及結算提供前提條件，這是正式成為銀行的必要步驟。

• AML and Compliance Pressure: Ironically, the stringent AML and KYC requirements that deterred banks from crypto are now being baked into law for crypto licenses. FinCEN and the OCC already require “extensive due diligence” on crypto clients. New charters will force crypto firms to adopt the same anti-money-laundering regimes as any financial institution. For example, the Wyoming SPDI and U.S. trust charters must adhere to banking-age AML rules. In Europe, MiCA imposes AML obligations on crypto-asset service providers (exchanges, wallet providers) as well as stablecoin issuers. In practice, these regulations make operating outside the formal banking system riskier, incentivizing firms to legitimize via charters.

• 反洗錢（AML）及合規壓力： 諷刺地，以前嚴格的反洗錢（AML）及認識你的客戶（KYC）規定令銀行卻步，如今反而納入加密執照新法例。FinCEN、OCC已要求對加密客戶「高度盡職審查」。新牌照將迫使加密公司採用與傳統金融機構一樣的反洗錢制度。例如懷俄明SPDI銀行和美國信託執照必須遵守現有銀行級AML條例。歐洲MiCA亦為加密資產服務供應商（交易所、錢包商）及穩定幣發行人強制AML責任。實際上，這些監管令脫離正式銀行體系更高風險，迫使公司用申領執照方式正規化。

• Global Financial Integration: Beyond specific laws, there is a broader trend of integrating crypto into the traditional system. Central banks and regulators (e.g. ECB, Fed) are experimenting with wholesale CBDCs and tokenized central bank money. Financial market infrastructures are considering supporting tokenized assets. In this context, crypto firms want to be on the inside. A digital currency or stablecoin that flows through regulated banks can be used in everyday finance (payments, remittances, markets). As one industry observer noted, stablecoins have evolved from “bridges” to crypto into “core plumbing” of finance. Becoming a bank allows crypto companies to plug their technology into the plumbing, which in turn motivates regulators to license them properly.

• 全球金融融合： 除了個別法例，更有一個大趨勢就是將加密整合入傳統系統。央行及監管（例如ECB、Fed）正測試批發CBDC及央行數碼貨幣的代幣化。市場基建亦考慮支持代幣資產。在此背景下，加密公司希望能進入「體系內」。透過受監管銀行流通的數碼貨幣或穩定幣，可以在日常金融（支付、匯款、交易）直接使用。正如業界觀察者指出，穩定幣已由「加密橋樑」進化成金融系統的「核心管道」。成為銀行後，加密公司可直接將技術接駁至現有金融基建，推動監管機構積極發牌。

In summary, evolving regulation is both a carrot and a stick. On one hand, planned laws reward chartered entities. On the other, they penalize unlicensed crypto activity. Combined with regulators’ interest in modernizing payments, these drivers make banking licenses central to any major crypto firm’s growth strategy. 總結來講，監管轉變同時係「胡蘿蔔」亦係「大棒」：一方面，準備中法例獎勵持牌企業，另一方面則懲罰無牌行為。加上監管機構有意促進支付現代化，使銀行執照成為主流加密公司擴展業務核心。

Benefits and Risks for Users, Institutions, and the Financial System

對用戶、機構及金融體系的得失與風險

Becoming banks would have wide-ranging implications: 加密公司轉型做銀行，影響深遠：

• For Retail Users: A crypto company with a banking charter can offer customers more traditional products and protections. Consumers could open accounts with familiar features (interest-bearing deposits, ACH transfers, debit cards) directly with crypto firms. They may feel more secure dealing with a bank that is audited and regulated. On the flip side, retail users must be aware of the charter’s limitations. For example, Wyoming SPDIs require 100% reserve backing, but they explicitly lack FDIC insurance. In practice, this means if an SPDI failed, depositors might not get government-backed protection. (Kraken has noted this tradeoff upfront.) Another risk is loss of anonymity: bank regulations force identity verification on customers, changing the privacy profile of some crypto services. Overall, users gain convenience and regulatory oversight at the cost of the extreme privacy and decentralization once touted by crypto.

• 對零售用戶： 一間獲銀行牌照的加密公司可為客人提供更傳統產品及保障。消費者可直接於加密公司開設具熟悉功能（有息存款、ACH過數、扣帳卡）嘅帳戶；亦可能因為有審計及受監管而更安心。不過，散戶要留意銀行執照有限制。以懷俄明SPDI為例，要求100%儲備支持，但明確沒有FDIC存款保險。實際意味着一旦SPDI倒閉，存戶未必獲政府保障（Kraken已事先公開呢個取捨）。另一風險係失去匿名：銀行監管要求實名核查客戶，令某些加密服務的私隱屬性改變。總結，零售用戶獲得方便與受監管保障，但必須犧牲過去加密世界推崇的極致私隱和去中心化。

• For Institutions: Traditional financial institutions could see benefits and competition. Crypto-native banks could partner with or undercut incumbents. For example, a crypto exchange with a bank charter could on-ramp new retail investors more cheaply. Conversely, big banks themselves may issue their own stablecoins (as some U.S. and German banks have started) or even acquire crypto bank subsidiaries. Institutional crypto custodians benefit from charters by being able to keep client assets on balance sheet with Fed privileges, making them appear as credible custodians. However, these institutions also take on new risks: operating a bank means strict capital, liquidity, audit and compliance obligations. Any misstep (cyberattack, fraud) can also result in regulators pulling charters. The collapse of crypto-friendly banks in 2023 (Silvergate, Signature, SVB) is a cautionary tale that integration brings heavy scrutiny.

• 對機構： 傳統金融機構可能既受惠又面對競爭。加密原生銀行可以與現有大行合作，或者搶佔其市佔。例如持牌加密交易所能更低成本引入新散戶。相反，大型銀行亦可能自行發行穩定幣（如美國、德國部分銀行已開始），甚至收購加密銀行附屬公司。加密資產託管機構持牌後，可以將客戶資產納入資產負債表，享有聯儲特權，強化託管人形象。但經營銀行同時帶來新風險：資本、流動性、審計及合規都要嚴格監控，稍一不慎（例如網絡攻擊、舞弊）都可能被撤牌。2023年多家加密友好銀行倒閉（Silvergate、Signature、SVB）正是一個警號，提示融合帶來高強度監管審視。

• For the Financial System: Overall, bringing crypto into formal banking may improve stability of crypto-based payments and narrow the divide between fiat and digital assets. Tying stablecoins to regulated banks can enhance reserve transparency and trust. Payment systems could become faster and more inclusive with blockchain rails. On the risk side, there is the question of systemic impact: if crypto banks grow large, their problems could spill over. Regulators worry about contagion from algorithmic stablecoins or tokenized assets that behave differently from deposits. Also, crypto “shadow banking” networks might shift to newly chartered entities, potentially evading tougher rules. Effective oversight and coordination among regulators will be needed to mitigate money laundering, fraud or cyber risks introduced by new players. In sum, licenses promise tighter control, but only if properly enforced – otherwise, they could lend legitimacy to risky crypto business models.

• 對金融體系： 整體而言，將加密業務納入正式銀行體系，有機會提升以加密為基礎的支付穩定性，並縮細法幣與數碼資產隔閡。將穩定幣掛接受監管銀行有助提升儲備透明度及信任。以區塊鏈為本的支付系統亦可能更快更普及。不過，潛在風險是系統性影響：如果加密銀行規模壯大，它們的問題或會波及其他板塊。監管機構擔心算法穩定幣、代幣化資產行為有別於傳統存款，可能傳染危機。同時，加密「影子銀行」網絡可能轉移到新持牌實體，規避更嚴厲條例。有效監管及跨部門協作必不可少，以應對由新進者帶來的洗錢、詐騙或網安風險。總結，執照有望實現更嚴格控制，但必須切實執行，否則只會讓高風險商業模式合法化。

Traditional Banks Entering Crypto vs. Crypto Firms Becoming Banks

傳統銀行進軍加密 vs. 加密公司搖身變銀行

The current shift involves both sides of the fence. Established banks are cautiously entering crypto, while crypto companies strive to “become banks” themselves. 目前轉變一方面係大行小心翼翼進入加密，另一方面加密公司則力爭成為銀行。

• Traditional Banks in Crypto: Banks like JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and BNY Mellon have launched crypto custody or token initiatives. In the U.S., some banks resisted stablecoins initially, but later launched their own (e.g. JPM’s token for institutional payments). Large banks may partner with licensed crypto firms or seek regulated stablecoin platforms, rather than directly handling retail crypto. Their advantage is existing charters, capital, and customer bases. But banks must adapt to crypto’s speed and tech: for instance, BNY Mellon manages Circle’s reserves and custody as a trusted partner. Traditional banks also worry about risks and compliance burdens, and may choose to focus on the safest crypto segments (stablecoins, tokenized bonds).

• 傳統銀行進軍加密： 摩根大通、高盛、BNY Mellon等均推出了加密資產託管或代幣化項目。在美國，部分銀行最初抗拒穩定幣，但其後推出自主產品（如摩根大通發行的機構支付代幣）。大型銀行多以合作 licensed 加密公司或選擇受監管的穩定幣平台為主，一般不會直接經營零售加密業務。佢哋自有牌照、資本及客戶群優勢。不過銀行亦要適應加密業的技術及效率，例如BNY Mellon身為Circle儲備與託管合作夥伴。大行亦重視風險及合規負擔，多數選擇聚焦於最安全的加密部分（穩定幣、代幣化債券）。

• Crypto Firms as Banks: Crypto-native firms were born outside regulation, but now willingly accept oversight to gain legitimacy and reach. This

• 加密公司搖身變銀行： 加密原生公司一開始無需監管，但現時積極爭取受監管地位，以提升合法性及拓展業務。這種...means some erosion of crypto’s anti-establishment ethos. As one analyst noted, firms adopting charters “will lose some independence” as they are folded into the conventional financial framework. On the other hand, crypto firms bring technological innovation: they can pioneer blockchain-based products within a regulated envelope. For example, a crypto exchange-bank might natively integrate on-chain tokens with deposits or loans. They also tend to have global, tech-savvy cultures which can accelerate fintech adoption in banking. In effect, each side offers the other strengths: banks supply trust and scale, crypto firms inject new assets and customers. How this plays out will depend on regulatory clarity and market demand.

意思係加密貨幣界反建制精神將會有所削弱。有分析指出，企業採用銀行牌照後，「將會喪失部分自主性」，因為它們會被納入傳統金融體系。不過，加密公司亦為行業帶來科技創新：佢哋可以係受監管嘅環境下，率先推出基於區塊鏈嘅產品。例如，加密貨幣交易所—銀行可以將鏈上代幣原生整合入存款或者借貸服務。呢啲公司普遍都有國際化、懂科技嘅企業文化，有助推動銀行界更快採納金融科技。總括嚟講，雙方可互補長短：銀行提供信任同規模，加密公司引入新資產同新客戶。最終如何發展，要視乎監管清晰度同市場需求。

Compliance Burdens and Regulatory Hurdles

追求銀行牌照並不容易。加密公司要面對重重合規要求以及潛在障礙：

• 資本及審慎規則： 銀行需保持最低資本比率及流動性緩衝。過去加密公司大多以託管方式將資產留喺資產負債表之外，而家就要持有自己嘅股本及儲備。以Wyoming嘅SPDI做例子，需要有100%儲備但唔可以做貸款；而國家級銀行就要符合聯邦資本要求。呢啲規則會限制產品彈性（例如Circle嘅信託銀行唔可以將USDC背後嘅美國國債外借）。
• 反洗黑錢（AML）及了解你的客戶（KYC）： 銀行受嚴格AML法例規管。加密公司一向認為區塊鏈透明度可減低風險，但事實上監管機構仍然要求傳統KYC。FinCEN同OCC規定對加密客戶「要做深入盡職審查」。銀行監管機構期望加密銀行有完善交易監察、制裁篩查同虛擬資產流動管控。例如，監管機構曾指出加密匯款有AML風險。建立同營運呢啲系統好貴同好複雜。企業需要專業合規團隊同核數師。大家擔心區塊鏈「匿名」會出事，呢方面已經逐步收緊：瑞士已經禁止匿名加密轉賬，美國銀行（包括加密銀行）一樣要對受制裁地址凍結交易。
• 聯邦儲備總帳戶（Fed Master Accounts）： 美國銀行獲得Fed總帳戶對支付系統至關重要。加密銀行一直想要Fed帳戶。2023年聯儲局政策轉變有幫助，但每間機構都要向地方聯儲銀行申請。即使係Wyoming州牌SPDI，要用到FedWire或FedNow都唔容易：必須符合聯儲局風險標準。Custodia申請Fed帳戶被拒反映監管機構依然好審慎。公司要證明有可靠嘅風險管理，而且唔會變成「只做加密」嘅資金外流風險。申請到總帳戶亦代表要接受聯儲局監察，亦有相關費用，加密公司過去未有相關經驗。
• 監管碎片化： 加密公司往往要申請唔同地區多個牌照。一間典型美國加密銀行就要有聯邦（OCC）及州級（NYDFS或Wyoming）銀行牌照，如涉及證券活動還要獲SEC/FINRA批准，而做美國州分錢銀傳輸或電子錢業務都要額外申請牌照。喺歐盟，受MiCA監管嘅穩定幣發行商要有一個EMI牌照再passport去其他歐盟國家。新加坡或香港都要求本地相關牌照。要喺呢個拼圖般的監管環境維持合規相當繁瑣：公司要接受唔同監管部門（OCC、FDIC、FINMA、FCA、SFC、MAS等）每年審查，而且每一間有自己一套規則。Klaros Group的Adam Shapiro指，聯邦牌照可以減低重複審查：「聯邦銀行牌照可以減少好多州份重複性要求」。
• 法律不確定性： 法例不斷演變，但未完全定案。美國仍然討論加密貨幣如何分類（SEC同CFTC誰有管轄權）。法庭可能判定某個代幣係證券定商品，會影響銀行如何持有。監管關於加密會計指引（如SAB 121）亦令銀行卻步。加密銀行要應對呢種長期不穩定。仲有政治風險，換新一屆政府如果對加密採取強硬路線，部分過去審批可能要重審。

總結而言，想獲得及經營銀行牌照，意味住加密公司要全面轉型成受監管銀行。當中包括增聘合規人員、落實銀行級軟件同監控、接受持續監管——全部都增加經營成本。好多加密公司高層話有資格用銀行基建值得投資，但批評者就指出呢啲負擔好重，可能令中小型業者卻步。

Future Outlook

加密貨幣行業同銀行的關係仍然撲朔迷離。去到2025年，只係得少量加密公司取得或申請銀行牌照，但規模同影響仍有疑問。展望將來：

• 銀行牌照批核數目增加： 受惠於新例偏向加密銀行，預計申請數量將增加。有評論認為**「多啲聯邦持牌數碼資產銀行」**對消費者及市場有利。老牌加密公司（Coinbase、Paxos、Gemini 等）如果國會通過穩定幣法案，有機會跟隨Circle同Ripple腳步。傳統銀行（不論大定細）都準備喺新監管下推出加密服務。
• 行業整合或專門化： 未來可能只剩下資本充足嘅加密機構存活為銀行，其他要搵夥伴定直接撤出。亦可能出現新類型專門服務穩定幣、資產代幣化或托管業務嘅銀行。傳統銀行可能拆分出加密單位去申請銀行牌照。
• 科技融合： 隨住發展，加密銀行同金融科技嘅界線會愈來愈模糊。代幣化證券、加密借貸同鏈上結算都可能經過受監管平台運作。例如代幣化股票可以喺數碼交易所即時以法幣清算，而全部過程都會經持牌加密銀行結算。如果穩定幣真係變成「基本金融基建」，咁成為受監管託管人或會同今日SWIFT會員一樣普遍。
• 監管持續演進： 全球監管不斷調整規則。未來可能會有國際加密銀行標準（如巴塞爾委員會或FATF推出）。針對加密資產資本處理標準化好關鍵。另外，隨住央行數碼貨幣（CBDC）推行進度變化，佢哋同受規管私人穩定幣嘅關係都會影響需求。加密銀行要隨時應對每個新政策，由數碼資產稅務處理到消費者數據規範都要適應。
• 對消費者影響： 最終有幾多加密銀行能成功將會影響最終用家。最好情況下，消費者多咗選擇，可以經受保帳戶用數碼資產做支付同收息。最壞的話，監管失效或銀行出事會損害市場信心。行業強調合規已反映長遠發展要靠穩定，而唔係「只靠加密」冒險。

預計未來幾年，加密公司取得銀行牌照後，會逐步成為主流，甚至變成一大類銀行，不過會有專門定位。「加密銀行」這個標籤可能慢慢淡化，變為數碼銀行或金融科技銀行一部分。觀察家會留意，最終係唔係真係做到數碼金融系統融合，抑或只係金融創新與監管追趕的又一回合。