Key takeaways
- Payward, Kraken's parent, is reported to be acquiring Lithuanian Saldo Bank, expanding into deposits and lending.
- A banking licence removes a dependency: the need for a third-party bank willing to hold customer fiat and connect to payment rails.
- On the same day, the OCC reported finding debanking policies at nine major US banks — which is the push factor rather than a coincidence.
- An EU banking licence also passports across the union, the same mechanism discussed here yesterday in the context of MiCA.
- The trade is heavy: capital requirements, prudential supervision and far more intrusive regulation than a crypto licence carries.
Payward, the parent of Kraken, is reported to be buying Saldo Bank in Lithuania, which would make it the first crypto firm to acquire a bank in the European Union, moving into deposits and lending.
On the same day, the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reported that it had found debanking policies at nine major American banks.
Those are not two stories. They are one.
What a crypto exchange is missing without a bank
An exchange handles two different kinds of asset, and they work nothing alike.
Crypto it can custody itself. Keys, wallets, its own infrastructure — no third party required to hold it. Fiat is the opposite. Customer money has to sit in an account at a licensed bank, and connecting to payment systems to move it in and out generally means going through one too.
So the exchange depends on a banking partner for the entire fiat side of its business: deposits, withdrawals, card payments, settlement. That partner is a commercial counterparty, free to reprice the relationship, restrict it, or end it.
Which is where the debanking finding comes in
Losing a banking partner is not theoretical for this industry. Firms have repeatedly had accounts closed or applications declined, sometimes with little explanation, and the pattern has a name.
A regulator now reporting that it found debanking policies at nine major banks puts a formal finding under what the sector has described for years. Whatever one concludes about whether that was reasonable risk management or something else, the practical consequence for a crypto business is the same: its access to the payment system sits with institutions that may not want the relationship.
There are two responses. Keep seeking partners and accept the dependency. Or become the bank, and stop asking.
What a licence actually buys
Worth being specific, because "buying a bank" sounds like branding and is not.
Deposits held directly, rather than pooled in an account at another institution — which also changes the legal position of customer money. Direct access to payment infrastructure instead of reaching it through an intermediary. The ability to lend against deposits, which is a revenue line an exchange simply does not have. Deposit guarantee scheme coverage, which is a materially different proposition to offer a customer. And in the EU, a banking licence passports across the union — authorise once, operate in all member states.
That last point is the mechanism discussed here yesterday. Europe grants it to banks, to funds, to payment institutions, and under MiCA to crypto firms. A banking licence is simply the oldest and most heavily supervised version of the same passport.
And what it costs
This is not a loophole or a shortcut, and anyone reading it as one has it backwards.
A bank holds regulatory capital against its risks, which is money that cannot be deployed elsewhere. It submits to prudential supervision: stress testing, liquidity requirements, governance standards, resolution planning. Its management is subject to approval. Its reporting burden is continuous and large.
Crypto regulation, even under MiCA, is lighter than this by a wide margin. Acquiring a bank means accepting the heaviest supervisory regime in finance in exchange for independence from it.
The part worth sitting with
The original proposition was that this technology would route around banks. The destination, for the largest firms, increasingly looks like becoming one.
That is not hypocrisy, and calling it that misses what happened. If you want to hold customer money, move it through national payment systems and lend against it, you are describing banking, and every jurisdiction regulates that activity rather than the technology underneath it. Arriving at a banking licence is what happens when a firm grows into doing banking.
What is genuinely open is whether the convergence improves things. A supervised bank holding customer fiat with deposit insurance is a stronger position for a customer than an exchange balance at a partner institution. It also means the firm is less distinguishable from what it set out to replace, and that the sector's largest players will be the ones that could afford a licence.
The practical reading
Nothing here is about any asset. It is about where your money legally sits.
Ask whether the fiat balance on a platform is a deposit at a licensed bank or a claim on the platform itself, because those behave completely differently if it fails. Ask whether any deposit guarantee applies, and up to what amount. Notice that a firm with a banking licence is supervised far more heavily than one with only a crypto authorisation, and that this is a point in its favour. And expect more of these acquisitions, because the push factor has now been documented by a regulator.
Education, not investment advice.
Frequently asked questions
Why would a crypto exchange want to own a bank?
Because it can custody crypto itself but not fiat. Customer money must sit at a licensed bank, and payment system access generally runs through one. Owning a bank removes that dependency and adds deposit-taking, lending and direct payment access.
What is debanking?
Banks closing or refusing accounts for customers in a particular sector, sometimes with little explanation. The OCC reporting that it found debanking policies at nine major US banks places a formal finding under what crypto firms have described for years.
Is buying a bank a way to avoid regulation?
The reverse. Banks hold regulatory capital, submit to prudential supervision, stress testing, liquidity rules, governance standards and resolution planning, with management subject to approval. It is the heaviest supervisory regime in finance — considerably heavier than MiCA.
Why a Lithuanian bank specifically?
Because it is in the EU, so a banking licence there passports across all member states — authorise once, operate union-wide. It is the same passporting mechanism that applies to funds, payment institutions and, under MiCA, crypto firms.
Does this make my money safer on such a platform?
Potentially, in a specific way. Money held as a deposit at a licensed bank with deposit guarantee coverage is a different legal position from a balance owed to you by an exchange. The question to ask is which of those your fiat balance actually is.
Doesn't this contradict the whole point of crypto?
It sits awkwardly with the original framing, though calling it hypocrisy misses the mechanism. Holding customer money, moving it through payment systems and lending against it is banking, and jurisdictions regulate that activity rather than the underlying technology. A licence is what growing into those functions leads to.
Sources
Every figure and quote above traces to one of these. Checked on publication day.
- coindesk.com — Kraken parent Payward to become first crypto firm to buy a EU bank as it expands into deposits, lending
- thedefiant.io — OCC Finds Debanking Policies at Nine Major US Banks
- cointelegraph.com — Kraken parent to buy Lithuanian Saldo Bank amid TradFi expansion
- coindesk.com — Dutch central bank grants Qivalis e-money license for MiCA-compliant euro token
- cointelegraph.com — Can crypto users trust the supply chain behind hardware wallets?
Deepmoni Das, Editor
I read the primary filings, exchange notices and post-mortems behind each story and write up what they actually say — with every source linked so you can check me. I am not a trader and I do not hold positions in anything covered here. Research and drafting are AI-assisted; the sourcing, the edits and the mistakes are mine.
Not financial advice. Crypto assets are volatile and unregulated in many jurisdictions. In India, gains are taxed at 30% with 1% TDS on transfers. Do your own research and never invest money you cannot afford to lose.
Editorial note: Crypto Shakti uses an AI-assisted research and drafting workflow. Every article is grounded in the linked primary sources and live market data captured at publication time.