Anchorage Digital has urged the Federal Reserve not to treat its proposed “payment account” as a replacement for a master account, arguing that the limited product would leave federally chartered crypto banks dependent on intermediaries for ordinary payments and settlement.
In a comment letter filed in response to the Fed’s proposal, Anchorage said the account’s restrictions would prevent it from delivering the direct operational access that a master account provides. The crypto bank pointed in particular to the proposed exclusion from FedACH, limits on overnight balances, the absence of intraday liquidity and a policy of paying no interest on balances held at the central bank.
Anchorage applied for a Federal Reserve master account in August 2025. Such an account would allow the bank to access the Fed’s payment infrastructure directly, rather than using a correspondent or partner bank to move funds through the system.
The dispute places a practical question at the center of the Fed’s latest effort to open selected payment services to crypto-focused firms: whether a restricted account can reduce the barriers faced by new entrants without giving them the same tools and balance-sheet flexibility available to established banks.
Anchorage challenges the limits of the proposed account
The Federal Reserve requested public feedback in May on a new payment-account framework aimed at eligible institutions, including firms whose business models may not fit neatly into the traditional banking system. Fed Governor Christopher J. Waller previously described the concept as a “skinny master account.”
Under the proposal outlined by the Fed, payment-account holders could gain access to certain clearing and settlement services, supported by automated controls designed to limit risk. The accounts would also carry substantial restrictions. Holders would not receive intraday credit from the Federal Reserve, could not use the discount window and would not earn interest on balances maintained at the Fed.
Anchorage’s letter argues that those limits make the structure materially different from a master account held by a member national bank. The bank said member national banks have maintained master accounts for more than a century, giving them direct connections to the Federal Reserve’s core payment arrangements.
FedACH was the most prominent issue in Anchorage’s response. The system processes electronic payments among banks and other financial institutions, including routine transfers that underpin payroll, bill payments and other automated transactions. Anchorage said a payment account without FedACH access would compel account holders to continue relying on intermediaries for core payment and settlement activity.
That dependency would dilute one of the main commercial reasons a firm might seek a Federal Reserve account in the first place. Direct access can simplify payment flows and reduce the number of outside institutions involved in moving money. A restricted account may offer a connection to central-bank infrastructure while leaving key parts of a firm’s daily operations in the hands of correspondent banks.
Liquidity and balance rules remain central concerns
Anchorage also objected to proposed overnight balance limits and the lack of intraday liquidity. Intraday liquidity refers to funds available during the business day to settle payments before incoming transfers arrive or end-of-day positions are finalized. Banks use it to manage timing differences between payments sent and payments received.
Without that flexibility, payment-account holders could face tighter constraints in managing settlement obligations, especially if outgoing payments need to be completed before offsetting funds arrive. Anchorage said the proposed structure would require firms to use intermediaries to establish a required closing balance.
The bank further argued that an account of this kind should pay interest on reserve balances. The proposed zero-interest approach would make it more costly for firms to retain funds at the Federal Reserve, particularly if those funds are subject to limits or must be held to support payment activity.
The Fed’s design appears intended to offer access while containing risks associated with institutions outside the conventional supervisory model. The proposed framework would place some firms in a tier facing intensive review, alongside institutions without a federal supervisor. The result is a product built around safeguards and restrictions rather than full participation in the central bank’s account services.
Anchorage’s position is that this trade-off leaves federally chartered institutions in an awkward category. A national bank subject to federal oversight may be offered an account that lacks functions available through a traditional master account, despite operating under a federal charter.
Comments reveal division among banks, crypto groups and lawmakers
Nearly 100 comment letters were submitted in recent days by crypto groups, banking associations and lawmakers, reflecting disagreement over how far the Federal Reserve should go.
Senator Cynthia Lummis, a Wyoming Republican, wrote that she wants the Fed to finalize rules and policies for the payment account as soon as possible. Her position would support a clearer route for eligible firms seeking access, even if the proposed account remains narrower than a master account.
The Blockchain Association took a more qualified view. It said the payment account could represent progress, but argued that it should not be presented as a substitute for master accounts. Like Anchorage, the group cited the lack of FedACH access and the absence of interest payments on balances.
Traditional bank-industry groups raised a different concern. The Financial Services Forum, The Clearing House Association and the Bank Policy Institute said in a joint letter that the framework could subject some institutions to less rigorous supervision and regulation. Their argument focuses on whether account access could be extended to firms operating under standards that differ from those applied to banks with full access to the Federal Reserve system.
The comments leave the Fed with a difficult design choice. A payment account with too few services may do little to resolve crypto firms’ dependence on partner banks. A more capable account, meanwhile, would intensify questions about supervisory consistency, liquidity risk and the conditions under which nontraditional financial firms should connect directly to the country’s payment rails.
For Anchorage, the answer is clear: access to a restricted payment account may be better than no access at all, but it would not deliver the direct settlement capability, liquidity tools and balance treatment associated with a master account.
For deeper context on stablecoins, banking rails, and regulation, explore our explainer on central bank digital currencies next.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
