Fed’s ‘Skinny Master Accounts’ Split Crypto Firms and Banks
The Federal Reserve sought public comment on a proposal to offer limited-access “skinny master accounts” to certain fintech and crypto firms; the consultation closed with 44 responses. Most crypto firms and stablecoin issuers (notably Circle and Anchorage Digital Bank) generally supported the plan, arguing it would strengthen U.S. payment rails and align with Congress’ GENIUS Act goals. The Fed’s proposed guardrails include an overnight balance cap equal to the lower of $500 million or 10% of an account-holder’s assets, no interest paid on balances, and no direct access to the Fed’s Automated Clearing House (ACH) and some clearing services. Anchorage welcomed access but flagged practical concerns around the balance cap, lack of interest on reserves, and denied ACH/clearing access. Banking groups, including the American Bankers Association and state bankers associations, warned many eligible nonbank entities lack long-term regulatory records and consistent federal safety-and-soundness standards; they urged stronger governance, risk management and compliance conditions. Watchdog Better Markets opposed the move as an irresponsible concession to crypto. The Fed will review comments and may take months to issue final rules. Traders should monitor regulatory updates because limited central-bank access for crypto firms could affect liquidity, settlement speed and treasury operations in crypto-linked payment services. Primary keywords: Federal Reserve, skinny master accounts, crypto firms, Circle, Anchorage. Secondary keywords: payment infrastructure, ACH limits, overnight balance cap, regulatory standards.
Neutral
The proposal is a mixed signal: official recognition of fintech and crypto firms’ roles in payments could be positive for crypto-linked payment services, but strict limits (balance caps, no interest, no ACH access) constrain operational scale and liquidity. In the short term, the announcement may cause limited volatility: optimistic traders could price in improved legitimacy for crypto payments, while concerns about constrained liquidity and operational hurdles could cap upside. In the medium-to-long term, final rule details will determine impact: permissive limits and clearer compliance pathways would be bullish for stablecoin-linked payment volumes and integrations; stringent restrictions or heavy compliance burdens would be neutral-to-bearish by limiting growth in on‑chain/off‑chain settlement flows. Banking groups’ calls for tougher safeguards and watchdog opposition increase the chance of restrictive final rules, so the most likely net market effect is neutral until rules are finalized and implemented.