#加密货币监管政策 OCC's recent move is quite interesting—American banks can now openly engage in crypto trading. As long as they structure it as risk-free principal proprietary trading, they can buy coins from one client and sell immediately to another, almost without taking on position risk. It sounds great, but I need to explain the logic behind it.

The banking sector is furious; ABA and ICBA have directly called for a halt, citing a strong reason: this creates a dual banking system. Crypto companies obtaining national trust licenses enjoy federal coverage and legal benefits but evade FDIC insurance and the full set of capital requirements for traditional banks. This indeed constitutes regulatory arbitrage—simply put, exploiting loopholes. Gould's argument that "technology shouldn't be a dividing line" sounds rational, but the problem is—when you give crypto companies the halo of national banks, how can consumers distinguish which is truly insured and which is just a trading platform in disguise? When risks materialize, the casualties are still ordinary depositors.

From a follow-trade perspective, this has far-reaching implications. The gate for institutional funds has opened, significantly improving liquidity. Large traders within exchanges might see more funds from traditional financial backgrounds entering the scene. But this also means regulatory uncertainty is shrinking—the rules are being clearly defined, and the days of wild growth are over. Strategies that relied on regulatory gaps for arbitrage need to be re-evaluated. The few experts I’m watching now will definitely need to adjust their leverage strategies and risk management considerations, which will impact their risk exposure and return curves.

Honestly, this isn't a bad thing. Clear rules mean a more predictable market. But the premise is that those five approved institutions can truly withstand scrutiny; otherwise, if something goes wrong, the rebound could be fierce.