Recent materials released by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reflect a consistent regulatory method toward digital asset infrastructure. Rather than announcing new doctrinal categories, the agencies are applying existing statutory definitions and supervisory authorities to custody arrangements, platform intermediation, and payment stablecoin activity.
The approach is visible in staff correspondence, litigation releases, and rulemaking notices. The connective element is statutory application.
Custody as a statutory definition question
In its September 30, 2025 response concerning state trust companies, the SEC’s Division of Investment Management addressed whether certain entities may be treated as “banks” for custody purposes under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940.
The staff analysis turns on the statutory definition itself. Under the Advisers Act and the 1940 Act, a “bank” includes a banking institution or trust company “doing business under the laws of any State or of the United States, a substantial portion of the business of which consists of receiving deposits or exercising fiduciary powers similar to those permitted to national banks under the authority of the Comptroller of the Currency,” and which is supervised and examined by state or federal authority.
The response does not alter that definition. It applies it to representations concerning custody of crypto assets and related transactional cash, including control environments, fiduciary authority, and supervisory status. A public statement issued in connection with the staff position situates the discussion within the statutory custody framework rather than new rulemaking.
The Commission’s public programming on crypto custody similarly frames the issue through safeguarding mechanics and supervisory considerations.
Platform structure and registration architecture
In SEC v. Coinbase, Inc. and Coinbase Global, Inc., the Commission’s litigation release states that it charged Coinbase for “operating as an unregistered securities exchange, broker, and clearing agency.” The release frames the action under Exchange Act registration provisions and definitions applied to the platform functions described.
Separately, in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Payward, Inc. and Payward Ventures, Inc. (Kraken), the SEC’s litigation release included in your document record is a later release announcing dismissal of the Commission’s civil enforcement action. The release states the dismissal “rests on [the Commission’s] judgment” about facilitating its regulatory approach and “not on any assessment of the merits of the claims alleged.”
Read together, the releases illustrate how the Commission’s public enforcement posture has been expressed through registration architecture and platform function framing, while also showing that procedural outcomes and agency posture can be addressed separately from merits assessment in Commission communications.
Payment stablecoins within federal banking supervision
OCC materials implementing the GENIUS Act situate payment stablecoin activity within federal banking supervision. In Bulletin 2026-3, the OCC announced a notice of proposed rulemaking applicable to permitted payment stablecoin issuers under its jurisdiction, explaining that the proposal “would establish regulations to implement the GENIUS Act” and set forth requirements governing activities conducted by entities subject to OCC oversight. The accompanying public release describes the proposal as addressing regulatory standards and supervisory processes applicable to permitted issuers.
Interpretive letters issued by the OCC address national bank authority in connection with certain digital asset activities, situating those activities within existing banking powers and risk-management expectations. Stablecoin oversight, as reflected in these materials, is framed as supervisory authority exercised over regulated activity under federal banking law.
A converging method
Custody is analyzed through statutory definitions in the Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act. Platform conduct is evaluated through registration provisions of the Exchange Act. Payment stablecoins are addressed through rulemaking and supervision under federal banking authority.
The documents do not introduce new legal architecture. They apply existing statutory regimes to digital asset infrastructure functions — custody, exchange operation, brokerage, clearing, and issuance — through definitional interpretation, enforcement pleadings, and supervisory rulemaking.
