डिजिटल संपत्तियाँ
Custodia Bank की फेड मास्टर अकाउंट के लिए लड़ाई की व्याख्या
Securities.io को Google पर अपने पसंदीदा स्रोतों में जोड़ें
क्रिप्टो से बैंकिंग तक
Crypto firms are evolving and converging closer to traditional financial institutions like banks and credit unions. They are also getting into more friendly terms with the regulators, as recently illustrated by the approval for Gemini (GEMI ) from the U.S डिज़ाइनेटेड कॉन्ट्रैक्ट मार्केट (DCM) के रूप में कार्य करने और प्रेडिक्शन मार्केट में प्रवेश करने के लिए.
अन्य क्रिप्टो कंपनियां और भी आगे बढ़ रही हैं, विशेष रूप से Custodia Bank एक फेड मास्टर अकाउंट प्राप्त करने की कोशिश कर रहा है, जो उसे एक “वास्तविक” बैंक के समान विशेषाधिकार (और जिम्मेदारियां) देगा।
However, the path to achieving this goal is not so smooth for Custodia, which has been denied the creation of a Fed master account. कंपनी अब आधिकारिक तौर पर पूर्ण टेंथ सर्किट अपील कोर्ट से यू.एस. फेड के निर्णय की समीक्षा करने का अनुरोध कर रही है, with the legal decision potentially having wide ramifications not just for crypto, but the US banking system as a whole.
सारांश
Custodia Bank का फेडरल रिज़र्व मास्टर अकाउंट के लिए अपील केवल क्रिप्टो से बहुत आगे तक जाती है। यह मामला राज्य अधिकारों, फेडरल रिज़र्व के अधिकार, और क्या गैर-परम्परागत बैंकों को मुख्य यू.एस. भुगतान बुनियादी ढांचे तक पहुंच मिल सकती है, जैसे मौलिक प्रश्न उठाता है।
फेडरल रिज़र्व मास्टर अकाउंट क्या है और यह क्यों महत्वपूर्ण है
The Federal Reserve’s master accounts have been in existence ever since the Fed was created more than a century ago and began maintaining deposit accounts for member banks.
एक फेड मास्टर अकाउंट रिज़र्व बैंक में बैंक का जमा खाता है, जो उस बैंक को केंद्रीय बैंक की भुगतान प्रणालियों, जैसे Fedwire और FedNow, तक सीधी पहुंच प्रदान करता है।
यह खाता सभी संघीय चार्टर वाले बैंकों के पास होता है, और मास्टर अकाउंट को प्रदान की जाने वाली सेवाएं उन सेवाओं के समान हैं जो ग्राहकों को उनके बैंकों से मिलती हैं।
इस प्रकार, यह खाता एक वित्तीय संस्थान द्वारा निधियों को रखने और बैंकों के बीच इलेक्ट्रॉनिक धन हस्तांतरण करने के लिए उपयोग किया जाता है, क्योंकि खातों को विभिन्न संस्थानों के बीच भुगतान को सुविधाजनक बनाने के लिए आपस में जोड़ा गया है। भुगतान प्रणालियों तक पहुंच रखने वाले को लेनदेन को इलेक्ट्रॉनिक रूप से क्लियर और सेटल करने की भी अनुमति देती है।
वर्तमान में, कई क्रिप्टो-उन्मुख वित्तीय संस्थान सीमित नियामक ढांचों जैसे राज्य ट्रस्ट चार्टर, मनी सर्विसेज़ बिजनेस (MSB) पंजीकरण, या व्योमिंग के विशेष उद्देश्य जमा संस्थान (SPDI) चार्टर के तहत कार्य करते हैं। जबकि ये संरचनाएं कस्टडी और फिड्यूशियरी सेवाओं जैसी कुछ बैंकिंग-समतुल्य गतिविधियों की अनुमति देती हैं, वे पूर्ण बैंकिंग शक्ति जैसे उधार देना या फेडरल रिज़र्व मास्टर अकाउंट तक स्वचालित पहुंच नहीं देतीं।
This limited charter allows these firms to perform some banking tasks, like custody of digital assets, fiduciary services, etc. But they do not allow for lending, for example, and a traditional bank charter also grants FDIC बीमा for its deposits.
स्क्रॉल करने के लिए स्वाइप करें →
| संस्था प्रकार | जमा रख सकता है | उधार दे सकता है | फेड मास्टर अकाउंट | FDIC बीमा |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| संघीय रूप से चार्टरित बैंक | हाँ | हाँ | हाँ | हाँ |
| राज्य बैंक (गैर-फेड सदस्य) | हाँ | हाँ | शर्तीय | अक्सर |
| व्योमिंग SPDI | हाँ | नहीं | विवादित | नहीं |
| क्रिप्टो एक्सचेंज | सीमित | नहीं | नहीं | नहीं |
Custodia Bank का फेडरल रिज़र्व के खिलाफ कानूनी अपील
पृष्ठभूमि
For now, Custodia Bank is a Wyoming-chartered special purpose depository institution that is not a member of the Federal Reserve.
पहले, Custodia Bank ने तर्क दिया था कि उसे स्वचालित मास्टर अकाउंट पहुंच दी जानी चाहिए क्योंकि उसके पास राज्य बैंकिंग चार्टर है। इस अनुरोध को कांसास सिटी फेड नियामक ने अस्वीकार कर दिया था।
This came as a surprise to the company, as it initially had received encouraging feedback.
The argument for denying the request was that Custodia’s crypto-focused business model introduced undue risk into the Fed’s payment systems and services.
राज्य बनाम फेड
In its appeal, Custodia argues that the panel has misread the Monetary Control Act, which it asserts entitles any eligible bank to a master account.
It also argues that this decision undermines state banking authority.
This indeed could be the most important part of the argument, as it goes beyond Custodia Bank or even crypto in general.
The USA is organized in a federal structure, and the rights of individual states should not, at least in theory, be submitted to arbitrary decisions by the federal government.
Of course, in practice, legal experts will debate what is and what is not an infringement on states’ rights.
मनमाने निर्णय बनाम कानून का शासन
Another criticism of Custodia Bank about this decision is that it gives excessive power to administrative personnel like mid-level Fed officials (regional bank presidents) who are not appointed as either principal or inferior officers under Article II of the Constitution.
According to Custodia, the decision also represents a departure from the application of the law so far.
Custodia के फेड मास्टर अकाउंट मामले में आगे क्या होगा
नवीनतम अपील
What Custodia Bank is asking for is a procedure called a “रिहीयर एन् बैंक”. This is an “extraordinary procedure” only granted in cases of exceptional public importance, or when a ruling directly contradicts another ruling by the same circuit or the Supreme Court.
सांख्यिकीय रूप से, ऐसी रिहीयर प्राप्त करने की संभावना बहुत कम है।
However, Custodia insists that it is needed, as the decision erodes states’ rights when it comes to control over banking.
The panel’s holding thus gives the Fed a veto over state charters. If the Fed thinks certain banks—or entire categories of banks—should not be chartered, it can deny those banks a master account.”
It also raises constitutional questions about the authority granted to the mid-level Fed officials.
Presidents of regional Federal Reserve Banks, however, are not selected in any of these ways. ”
So the discussion seems to be extending from crypto banks’ access to master accounts, to a broader discussion of the true reach of the Federal Reserve power, independently from US States or elected officials.
However, this decision seems to go in the opposite direction of फेड की “सकीनी” मास्टर अकाउंट योजना. These would not include overdraft privileges or interest on balances, but still represent a major improvement for crypto companies looking to access the sort of privilege reserved for banks until now.
परिणाम
According to Custodia Bank itself, this could spell doom for the company.
“Closing a bank’s master account—or refusing to open one—all but sentences the bank to death.”
The company sees this refusal as part of a larger effort to “debank” it entirely, accusing the Fed officials of aiming for this exact goal.
“On 27 जनवरी 2023, the Kansas City Fed denied Custodia’s master account application.
So not only might Custodia Bank not have its own access to a Fed master account, but it could ultimately lose all access if its banking partners follow this direction and refuse to collaborate in the future.
क्या Custodia वास्तव में फेड मास्टर अकाउंट जीत पाएगा?
In general, there has been a trend over the past decade of members of the administration and judges to take more and more decisions that would maybe have been handled by other parts of the government in the past, be it the Federal Reserve or the Supreme Court.
So even if you believe Custodia Bank is right in its argumentation, this does not necessarily bode well for its chance at winning its appeal and obtaining a रिहीयर एन् बैंक.
And after all, it has been 5 years that Custodia has been trying to obtain a Fed master account, so far unsuccessfully.
So while crypto enthusiasts might hope otherwise, the prospect of a quick reversal of this decision seems rather unlikely.
On the other hand, by escalating the discussion about the constitutionality of the decision as well as making it about states’ rights versus the Federal Reserve legal reach, the appeal might put the hand of the Wyoming legislators and politicians to apply their own pressure on the Fed and judges, as the state is aiming to become a major “crypto friendly” jurisdiction.
निवेशक निष्कर्ष
The outcome of Custodia’s case could materially impact crypto banking valuations and regulatory risk across the sector. While approval odds remain low, even partial reforms—such as “skinny” master accounts—would lower operational barriers for compliant digital asset firms.
निष्कर्ष
What sounds at first glance like a dry and boring legal debate (and it is also that) could have wide-reaching consequences not only for Custodia Bank, but the crypto sector as a whole.
It could even affect the discussion of how the respective prerogatives of the US states and the Federal Reserve are shared, and who decides when they disagree with each other.
Right now, the chances of Custodia Bank getting a Fed master account seem rather slim.
However, maybe the plans for “skinny” Fed master accounts could allow for a compromise midway: not fully denying Custodia’s request or “sentencing the bank to death”, but also not acknowledging the legal basis of its appeal, as the ramifications of that decision would go way beyond the discussion of giving crypto firms access to the Federal banking payment system.
