Highlights: The court ruling supports the Federal Reserve’s right to deny Custodia Bank access to its payment network. Custodia Bank’s appeal highlights the limits facing crypto institutions seeking full access to the US financial system. Judges affirmed that the Federal Reserve can reject risky applications to protect national financial stability. A United States appellate court has ruled in favor of the Federal Reserve, ending another chapter in Custodia Bank’s push for a master account. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision that supported the Fed’s authority to deny the request. The ruling strengthens the central bank’s position in deciding which institutions can access its payment system. Crypto News Crypto bank Custodia Bank suffers another court rejection in its pursuit of a Federal Reserve master account. pic.twitter.com/2v3Th9vHBf — Nexus News (@Nexus_News_AI) November 1, 2025 The opinion delivered by Judge David Ebel said that the Federal Reserve is at liberty to safeguard the financial system of the country. According to him, the law is clear that the Fed can decline access requests in situations where the risks are perceived to be high. The ruling came after years of courtroom battles that started after Custodia initially requested an account in 2020. Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented, arguing that the law requires the Fed to grant access to all eligible institutions. However, the majority opinion confirmed that the central bank can exercise judgment when approving or rejecting applications. Custodia initially sought entry into the Fed’s network through the Kansas City branch. The branch declined the request based on the risks associated with digital assets and the business model of the bank. In June, the Federal Reserve also removed “reputational risk” from its supervision manuals. Examiners now focus only on measurable financial exposure, aligning the Fed with the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. This demonstrates the Fed’s growing focus on clear financial criteria. Custodia Bank Appeal Marks Pivotal Moment for Digital Asset Institutions The appeal has drawn attention across the financial sector. Custodia filed its appeal after the lower court ruled against it last year. The bank argued that the Federal Reserve had no authority to deny a master account to an eligible institution. It claimed the Fed unlawfully delayed its application before rejecting it. The appellate court disagreed. It determined that the Fed did not overstep its mandate and did not contravene the law. The judges ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are allowed to reject the requests when they detect any threats to the larger system. Custodia responded on X, saying it was disappointed but still evaluating its options. The bank indicated plans to consider a rehearing in the same appellate court. It described the dissenting opinion as important because it raised constitutional questions about the Fed’s role. Statement of @custodiabank: pic.twitter.com/6U0FPzaKCm — Custodia Bank (@custodiabank) October 31, 2025 The case has also renewed industry debate over the fairness of the Fed’s approach to crypto-focused institutions. So far, no digital asset bank has secured a master account. Such access would allow direct participation in the Fed’s payment network and easier nationwide operations. Custodia continues to operate under Wyoming’s Special Purpose Depository Institution charter, which allows limited banking activities within the state. The ruling now leaves the path forward uncertain for firms hoping to blend blockchain-based banking with traditional financial systems. Future Policy May Shape Access for Crypto Banks Custodia has the option to request a rehearing of the case. The bank has not yet confirmed if it will proceed with that step. Meanwhile, industry observers are watching for changes in the Federal Reserve’s stance toward crypto institutions. Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller made recent comments on the concept of skinny master accounts that are intended to support innovation-oriented banks. This may allow restricted access to the payment system and lower systemic risks. The Fed also watered down a previous directive on bank interactions with cryptocurrencies and stablecoins in April. The change indicates a rising tolerance to the activity of digital assets within stringent control. eToro Platform Best Crypto Exchange Over 90 top cryptos to trade Regulated by top-tier entities User-friendly trading app 30+ million users 9.9 Visit eToro eToro is a multi-asset investment platform. The value of your investments may go up or down. Your capital is at risk. Don’t invest unless you’re prepared to lose all the money you invest. This is a high-risk investment, and you should not expect to be protected if something goes wrong. Highlights: The court ruling supports the Federal Reserve’s right to deny Custodia Bank access to its payment network. Custodia Bank’s appeal highlights the limits facing crypto institutions seeking full access to the US financial system. Judges affirmed that the Federal Reserve can reject risky applications to protect national financial stability. A United States appellate court has ruled in favor of the Federal Reserve, ending another chapter in Custodia Bank’s push for a master account. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision that supported the Fed’s authority to deny the request. The ruling strengthens the central bank’s position in deciding which institutions can access its payment system. Crypto News Crypto bank Custodia Bank suffers another court rejection in its pursuit of a Federal Reserve master account. pic.twitter.com/2v3Th9vHBf — Nexus News (@Nexus_News_AI) November 1, 2025 The opinion delivered by Judge David Ebel said that the Federal Reserve is at liberty to safeguard the financial system of the country. According to him, the law is clear that the Fed can decline access requests in situations where the risks are perceived to be high. The ruling came after years of courtroom battles that started after Custodia initially requested an account in 2020. Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented, arguing that the law requires the Fed to grant access to all eligible institutions. However, the majority opinion confirmed that the central bank can exercise judgment when approving or rejecting applications. Custodia initially sought entry into the Fed’s network through the Kansas City branch. The branch declined the request based on the risks associated with digital assets and the business model of the bank. In June, the Federal Reserve also removed “reputational risk” from its supervision manuals. Examiners now focus only on measurable financial exposure, aligning the Fed with the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. This demonstrates the Fed’s growing focus on clear financial criteria. Custodia Bank Appeal Marks Pivotal Moment for Digital Asset Institutions The appeal has drawn attention across the financial sector. Custodia filed its appeal after the lower court ruled against it last year. The bank argued that the Federal Reserve had no authority to deny a master account to an eligible institution. It claimed the Fed unlawfully delayed its application before rejecting it. The appellate court disagreed. It determined that the Fed did not overstep its mandate and did not contravene the law. The judges ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are allowed to reject the requests when they detect any threats to the larger system. Custodia responded on X, saying it was disappointed but still evaluating its options. The bank indicated plans to consider a rehearing in the same appellate court. It described the dissenting opinion as important because it raised constitutional questions about the Fed’s role. Statement of @custodiabank: pic.twitter.com/6U0FPzaKCm — Custodia Bank (@custodiabank) October 31, 2025 The case has also renewed industry debate over the fairness of the Fed’s approach to crypto-focused institutions. So far, no digital asset bank has secured a master account. Such access would allow direct participation in the Fed’s payment network and easier nationwide operations. Custodia continues to operate under Wyoming’s Special Purpose Depository Institution charter, which allows limited banking activities within the state. The ruling now leaves the path forward uncertain for firms hoping to blend blockchain-based banking with traditional financial systems. Future Policy May Shape Access for Crypto Banks Custodia has the option to request a rehearing of the case. The bank has not yet confirmed if it will proceed with that step. Meanwhile, industry observers are watching for changes in the Federal Reserve’s stance toward crypto institutions. Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller made recent comments on the concept of skinny master accounts that are intended to support innovation-oriented banks. This may allow restricted access to the payment system and lower systemic risks. The Fed also watered down a previous directive on bank interactions with cryptocurrencies and stablecoins in April. The change indicates a rising tolerance to the activity of digital assets within stringent control. eToro Platform Best Crypto Exchange Over 90 top cryptos to trade Regulated by top-tier entities User-friendly trading app 30+ million users 9.9 Visit eToro eToro is a multi-asset investment platform. The value of your investments may go up or down. Your capital is at risk. Don’t invest unless you’re prepared to lose all the money you invest. This is a high-risk investment, and you should not expect to be protected if something goes wrong.

Custodia Bank Appeal Fails After Judges Uphold Fed’s Right to Reject Master Account Request

2025/11/01 17:21

Highlights:

  • The court ruling supports the Federal Reserve’s right to deny Custodia Bank access to its payment network.
  • Custodia Bank’s appeal highlights the limits facing crypto institutions seeking full access to the US financial system.
  • Judges affirmed that the Federal Reserve can reject risky applications to protect national financial stability.

A United States appellate court has ruled in favor of the Federal Reserve, ending another chapter in Custodia Bank’s push for a master account. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision that supported the Fed’s authority to deny the request. The ruling strengthens the central bank’s position in deciding which institutions can access its payment system.

The opinion delivered by Judge David Ebel said that the Federal Reserve is at liberty to safeguard the financial system of the country. According to him, the law is clear that the Fed can decline access requests in situations where the risks are perceived to be high. The ruling came after years of courtroom battles that started after Custodia initially requested an account in 2020.

Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented, arguing that the law requires the Fed to grant access to all eligible institutions. However, the majority opinion confirmed that the central bank can exercise judgment when approving or rejecting applications.

Custodia initially sought entry into the Fed’s network through the Kansas City branch. The branch declined the request based on the risks associated with digital assets and the business model of the bank. In June, the Federal Reserve also removed “reputational risk” from its supervision manuals. Examiners now focus only on measurable financial exposure, aligning the Fed with the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. This demonstrates the Fed’s growing focus on clear financial criteria.

Custodia Bank Appeal Marks Pivotal Moment for Digital Asset Institutions

The appeal has drawn attention across the financial sector. Custodia filed its appeal after the lower court ruled against it last year. The bank argued that the Federal Reserve had no authority to deny a master account to an eligible institution. It claimed the Fed unlawfully delayed its application before rejecting it.

The appellate court disagreed. It determined that the Fed did not overstep its mandate and did not contravene the law. The judges ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are allowed to reject the requests when they detect any threats to the larger system.

Custodia responded on X, saying it was disappointed but still evaluating its options. The bank indicated plans to consider a rehearing in the same appellate court. It described the dissenting opinion as important because it raised constitutional questions about the Fed’s role.

The case has also renewed industry debate over the fairness of the Fed’s approach to crypto-focused institutions. So far, no digital asset bank has secured a master account. Such access would allow direct participation in the Fed’s payment network and easier nationwide operations.

Custodia continues to operate under Wyoming’s Special Purpose Depository Institution charter, which allows limited banking activities within the state. The ruling now leaves the path forward uncertain for firms hoping to blend blockchain-based banking with traditional financial systems.

Future Policy May Shape Access for Crypto Banks

Custodia has the option to request a rehearing of the case. The bank has not yet confirmed if it will proceed with that step. Meanwhile, industry observers are watching for changes in the Federal Reserve’s stance toward crypto institutions.

Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller made recent comments on the concept of skinny master accounts that are intended to support innovation-oriented banks. This may allow restricted access to the payment system and lower systemic risks. The Fed also watered down a previous directive on bank interactions with cryptocurrencies and stablecoins in April. The change indicates a rising tolerance to the activity of digital assets within stringent control.

eToro Platform

Best Crypto Exchange

  • Over 90 top cryptos to trade
  • Regulated by top-tier entities
  • User-friendly trading app
  • 30+ million users
9.9
Visit eToro

eToro is a multi-asset investment platform. The value of your investments may go up or down. Your capital is at risk. Don’t invest unless you’re prepared to lose all the money you invest. This is a high-risk investment, and you should not expect to be protected if something goes wrong.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

On November 3, the Balancer V2 protocol and its fork projects were attacked on multiple chains, resulting in a serious loss of more than $120 million. BlockSec issued an early warning at the first opportunity [1] and gave a preliminary analysis conclusion [2]. This was a highly complex attack. Our preliminary analysis showed that the root cause was that the attacker manipulated the invariant, thereby distorting the calculation of the price of BPT (Balancer Pool Token) -- that is, the LP token of Balancer Pool -- so that it could profit in a stable pool through a batchSwap operation. Background Information 1. Scaling and Rounding To standardize the decimal places of different tokens, the Balancer contract will: upscale: Upscales the balance and amount to a uniform internal precision before performing the calculation; downscale: Reduces the result to its original precision and performs directional rounding (e.g., inputs are usually rounded up to ensure the pool is not under-filled; output paths are often truncated downwards). Conclusion: Within the same transaction, the asymmetrical rounding direction used in different stages can lead to a systematic slight deviation when executed repeatedly in very small steps. 2. Prices of D and BPT The Balancer V2 protocol’s Composable Stable Pool[3] and the fork protocol were affected by this attack. Stable Pool is used for assets that are expected to maintain a close 1:1 exchange ratio (or be exchanged at a known exchange rate), allowing large exchanges without causing significant price shocks, thereby greatly improving the efficiency of capital utilization between similar or related assets. The pool uses the Stable Math (a Curve-based StableSwap model), where the invariant D represents the pool's "virtual total value". The approximate price of BPT (Pool's LP Token) is: The formula above shows that if D is made smaller on paper (even if no funds are actually withdrawn), the price of BPT will be cheaper. BTP represents the pool share and is used to calculate how many pool reserves can be obtained when withdrawing liquidity. Therefore, if an attacker can obtain more BPT, they can profit when withdrawing liquidity. Attack Analysis Taking an attack transaction on Arbitrum as an example, the batchSwap operation can be divided into three stages: Phase 1: The attacker redeems BPT for the underlying asset to precisely adjust the balance of one of the tokens (cbETH) to a critical point (amount = 9) for rounding. This step sets the stage for the precision loss in the next phase. Phase Two: The attacker uses a carefully crafted quantity (= 8) to swap between another underlying asset (wstETH) and cbETH. Due to rounding down when scaling the token quantity, the calculated Δx is slightly smaller (from 8.918 to 8), causing Δy to be underestimated and the invariant D (derived from Curve's StableSwap model) to be smaller. Since BPT price = D / totalSupply, the BPT price is artificially suppressed. Phase 3: The attackers reverse-swap the underlying assets back to BPT, restoring the balance within the pool while profiting from the depressed price of BPT—acquiring more BPT tokens. Finally, the attacker used another profitable transaction to withdraw liquidity, thereby using the extra BPT to acquire other underlying assets (cbETH and wstETH) in the Pool and thus profit. Attacking the transaction: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x7da32ebc615d0f29a24cacf9d18254bea3a2c730084c690ee40238b1d8b55773 Profitable trades: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x4e5be713d986bcf4afb2ba7362525622acf9c95310bd77cd5911e7ef12d871a9 Reference: [1]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985262010347696312 [2]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985302779263643915 [3]https://docs-v2.balancer.fi/concepts/pools/composable-stable.html
Share
PANews2025/11/04 14:00