Insightful Editorial Content Reviewed by Industry Leaders
Our editorial team, comprised of top industry experts and seasoned editors, ensures that our content is reliable and well-researched. We are dedicated to providing transparent and accurate information.
Sony Bank’s Ambitious US Crypto Banking Proposal
Advertisement Banner
Sony Bank is seeking to establish a national trust bank named Connectia Trust, as revealed in recent filings and public reports. This initiative aims to enable Connectia Trust to handle reserves for a stablecoin tied to the US dollar while offering custodial and asset management services for digital tokens. In March 2025, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued Interpretive Letter 1183, clarifying the conditions under which national banks can engage in specific crypto activities, provided they adhere to established risk controls.
While trust banks, unlike traditional banks, do not accept FDIC-insured deposits, this distinction is pivotal to the ongoing debate. Advocates suggest that the proposed structure aligns with the OCC’s guidelines outlined in Letter 1183, while critics argue otherwise.
Community Concerns and Regulatory Challenges
Several questions have arisen regarding how reserves would be structured, how redemptions would be handled during periods of stress, and what would occur with custody holdings if the trust entered receivership. Community banking groups and consumer advocates are calling for more transparent public explanations of these mechanisms.
Response from Banking Organizations
On November 6, 2025, the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) formally requested the OCC to refuse Sony Bank’s application. The ICBA’s primary concern is that a trust charter could allow a large corporate entity to provide a product resembling a deposit without accompanying deposit insurance and typical banking responsibilities. They have described this as regulatory arbitrage, warning it could result in unfair competition for smaller banks. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition also voiced opposition, arguing that the OCC should not treat a stablecoin issuer like a conventional bank and advocating for enhanced consumer protections.
Key issues raised by these groups include potential consumer confusion over what is insured, a lack of transparency regarding reserves, and the absence of proven mechanisms to resolve a crypto asset-holding trust bank. They emphasize the possible consequences of a run on a large stablecoin and the complexities of unwinding token custody in a crisis.
Evaluating Systemic and Consumer Risks
The issuance of a widely-used stablecoin by a federally chartered trust could set a precedent that other tech or financial firms might follow. As a result, some advocates suggest the OCC should proceed with caution and impose stricter conditions. Concerns have been raised that retail users might mistakenly equate the token with a bank deposit, despite lacking FDIC protection.
These risks are not merely hypothetical. In times of stress, reserve assets may need to be liquidated swiftly, and transferring digital holdings within a receivership framework, designed primarily for traditional assets, could prove challenging.
Commitment to Editorial Excellence
Our editorial process at Bitcoinist is dedicated to delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We adhere to rigorous sourcing standards, and each article undergoes careful review by our team of leading technology experts and experienced editors. This ensures that our content maintains its integrity, relevance, and value for our readers.
