デジタル資産
Custodia BankのFedマスター口座取得闘争を解説
Securities.io を Google の優先ソースに追加
暗号資産から銀行業へ
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 指定取引市場（DCM）として運営し、予測市場に参入する.
他の暗号資産企業もさらに先へ進んでおり、特にCustodia BankはFedマスター口座の取得を目指しています。これにより「実際の」銀行と同等の特権（および責任）を得ることができます。
これは多くの暗号資産企業の一般的な傾向 銀行になる、あるいは少なくとも銀行に類似した形態になること。
しかし、Custodiaにとってこの目標を達成する道は順調ではなく、Fedマスター口座の創設は却下されました。同社は現在、米第十巡回控訴裁判所全体に米Fedの決定を見直すよう正式に求めています。この法的決定は暗号資産だけでなく、米国の銀行システム全体に広範な影響を及ぼす可能性があります。
要約
Custodia Bankが連邦準備制度のマスター口座を求める訴えは暗号資産をはるかに超える問題です。この案件は州の権利、連邦準備制度の権限、そして非伝統的な銀行が米国の主要決済インフラにアクセスできるかという根本的な疑問を提起します。
連邦準備制度のマスター口座とは何か、そしてそれが重要な理由
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.
A Fed master account is a bank’s deposit account at the Reserve Bank, which gives that bank direct access to the central bank’s payment systems, like Fedwire and FedNow.
The account is possessed by all federally chartered banks, and the services offered to a master account are similar to what customers get from their banks.
So, this account is used by a financial institution to hold funds and make electronic transfers of money between banks, as the accounts are interconnected to facilitate payments between different institutions. Access to payment systems also allows the holder to clear and settle transactions electronically.
For now, many crypto-focused financial institutions operate under limited regulatory frameworks such as state trust charters, money services business (MSB) registrations, or Wyoming’s Special Purpose Depository Institution (SPDI) charter. While these structures allow certain banking-like activities such as custody and fiduciary services, they do not grant full banking powers such as lending or automatic access to Federal Reserve master accounts.
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保険 for its deposits.
スワイプしてスクロール →
| 機関タイプ | 預金保有可 | 貸付可 | Fedマスター口座 | FDIC保険 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 連邦認可銀行 | はい | はい | はい | はい |
| 州銀行（連邦非加盟） | はい | はい | 条件付き | しばしば |
| ワイオミングSPDI | はい | いいえ | 争議中 | いいえ |
| 暗号資産取引所 | 限定的 | いいえ | いいえ | いいえ |
Custodia Bankの連邦準備制度に対する法的訴え
背景
For now, Custodia Bank is a Wyoming-chartered special purpose depository institution that is not a member of the Federal Reserve.
Previously, Custodia Bank argued that it should be granted automatic master account access because it holds a state banking charter. A request that was denied by the Kansas City Fed regulator.
This came as a surprise to the company, as it initially had received encouraging feedback.
「内部メモランダムでは、スタッフはCustodiaの資本は「十分」で流動性リスクは「低い」と評価し、リスク管理が「強固」で経営陣が「印象的」だと称賛しました。」
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.
州対連邦
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.
「連邦準備制度が州認可の金融機関にマスター口座を否認すると、実質的に州規制当局が承認した銀行認可を拒否することになります。」
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.
恣意的決定と法の支配
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.
「それは35年にわたる歴史からも逸脱しています。何十年もFedはMCAを金融機関をデバンク（銀行業務から排除）する権限と解釈してきませんでした。」
CustodiaのFedマスター口座訴訟の今後の展開
最新の上訴
What Custodia Bank is asking for is a procedure called a “rehearing en banc”. 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.
Statistically, the odds of receiving such a rehearing are extremely low.
However, Custodia insists that it is needed, as the decision erodes states’ rights when it comes to control over banking.
「パネルの決定はFedが州の認可を事実上無効にし、州の歴史的な認可特権をほぼ消し去ることを可能にします。」
「したがって、パネルの判断はFedに州認可に対する拒否権を与えます。」
「Fedが特定の銀行、あるいは銀行全体のカテゴリが認可されるべきでないと考える場合、該当銀行にマスター口座を拒否することができます。」
It also raises constitutional questions about the authority granted to the mid-level Fed officials.
「憲法第II条の下では、地域連邦準備銀行の総裁は「米国の役員」となるような職務を遂行できません。」
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 その Fedの「スキニー」マスター口座計画. 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.
結果
According to Custodia Bank itself, this could spell doom for the company.
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.
「2023年1月27日、カンザスシティFedはCustodiaのマスター口座申請を却下しました。
それ以降、Fedの職員はCustodiaの銀行パートナーに対し「規制圧力」を加えており、明らかにCustodiaを完全にデバンクしようとしているようです。」
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.
Custodiaは実際にFedマスター口座を獲得できるか？
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 rehearing en banc.
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.
投資家への要点
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.
結論
一見すると乾燥した退屈な法的議論（実際にそうでもある）に思えるものが、Custodia Bankだけでなく暗号セクター全体に広範な影響を及ぼす可能性があります。
それは米国の州と連邦準備制度のそれぞれの特権がどのように分配されるか、そして相互に意見が食い違ったときに誰が決定するかという議論にも影響を与える可能性があります。
現在、Custodia BankがFedマスター口座を取得できる可能性はかなり低いようです。
しかし、もしかすると「スキニー」Fedマスター口座の計画は中間的な妥協を可能にするかもしれません。Custodiaの要請を完全に否定したり、「銀行を死刑に処す」ことはせず、しかし訴えの法的根拠を認めない形になるでしょう。この決定の影響は、暗号企業に連邦銀行決済システムへのアクセスを与える議論をはるかに超えるものになるからです。
