Ripple Wins Federal Bank Approval as Hyperliquid Names Kraken Parent First CFTC-Regulated HIP-3 Deployer

Two developments are highlighting different routes towards bringing crypto infrastructure into the US regulatory framework: Ripple has secured final approval for a national trust bank, while Hyperliquid plans to make Kraken parent Payward the first CFTC-regulated deployer on its HIP-3 markets.

The announcements reflect a broader effort to connect digital asset services and blockchain-based trading infrastructure with established regulatory structures. But the approaches differ: Ripple is advancing through federal banking oversight, while Hyperliquid is developing tools that could allow regulated operators to launch markets on its decentralized trading platform.

Ripple Completes National Trust Bank Charter Process

Ripple announced Monday that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has granted final approval for Ripple National Trust Bank (RNTB), completing a process that began with conditional approval in December 2025.

The federally supervised trust bank is authorized to manage reserves backing Ripple USD (RLUSD), serve as collateral trustee for the benefit of RLUSD holders, and provide digital asset custody services, according to Ripple.

The approval does not change RLUSD's issuer. The dollar-pegged stablecoin will continue to be issued by Standard Custody & Trust Company, Ripple's limited-purpose trust company regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services.

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse framed the development as evidence that digital asset companies and traditional financial institutions can operate alongside one another under regulatory supervision.

“We’ve always said crypto and banks work better together; this is what that looks like,” Garlinghouse wrote on X, pointing to innovation, accountability, and federal oversight.

Ripple joins Circle in securing final OCC approval for a national trust bank. Other crypto companies, including Coinbase, Crypto.com, and Stripe-owned Bridge, have also pursued national trust bank charters, although their applications have remained at the conditional approval stage, according to the reports cited.

National trust banks are federally chartered institutions that hold and manage assets on behalf of clients. Unlike conventional commercial banks, they generally do not take deposits or make loans and typically do not carry Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance.

For Ripple, the charter creates a federally supervised structure for specific trust and custody activities. It does not, by itself, mean that every Ripple product or service is covered by the same authorization.

Hyperliquid Plans a Regulated Route for US Perpetual Futures

Separately, Hyperliquid said it intends to make Payward, the parent company of crypto exchange Kraken, the first CFTC-regulated deployer on its HIP-3 markets.

The proposed arrangement could help bring Hyperliquid-linked perpetual futures to US traders through regulated infrastructure, subject to the necessary regulatory approvals.

Under the plan announced Monday, Bitnomial, Payward's CFTC-regulated designated contract market and derivatives clearing organization, would serve as the HIP-3 deployer. If the arrangement receives approval, NinjaTrader Clearing, Payward's CFTC-registered futures commission merchant, would carry client accounts.

The structure follows Payward's September announcement outlining plans to bring onchain perpetual futures to US markets using Bitnomial for deployment, clearing, and settlement. Bloomberg had previously reported that the company was exploring a way to offer Hyperliquid-linked perpetual futures to US traders through the same entity.

Hyperliquid's HIP-3 upgrade is designed to let deployers launch markets while controlling access through onchain allowlists. In principle, this could enable regulated operators to use the protocol's infrastructure while restricting participation to approved users.

However, key implementation details remain unresolved. It is not yet clear how access controls would work in practice or whether a Payward-deployed market would incorporate built-in know-your-customer (KYC) checks.

The functionality is currently available on testnet, and the proposed deployment remains subject to regulatory approval.

Hyperliquid described itself as a neutral infrastructure layer intended to support a broad range of financial activity, emphasizing that individual deployers retain control and responsibility for their markets.

The Hyperliquid Policy Center has also argued in a European Union regulatory submission that regulated firms could use the protocol to operate markets with leverage limits and onchain access restrictions while offering regulated products.

Analysis: Two Routes to Bringing Crypto Under Regulatory Oversight

Ripple's approval and Hyperliquid's proposed Payward deployment point to a shared direction in the digital asset industry: rather than treating crypto infrastructure and regulated finance as separate systems, companies are increasingly exploring ways to connect them.

But the two developments represent distinct approaches.

Ripple is pursuing a federally chartered trust structure to support defined activities involving stablecoin reserves, collateral administration, and digital asset custody. The model brings those activities within a formal federal supervisory framework while leaving RLUSD's issuance with its existing New York-regulated entity.

Hyperliquid's approach is different. Instead of seeking to turn the protocol itself into a traditional financial institution, the proposed HIP-3 arrangement would place a regulated operator between its trading infrastructure and US customers. Bitnomial would handle market deployment, while NinjaTrader Clearing would carry client accounts if the plan receives approval.

That distinction could prove important for the future of decentralized finance. If regulated firms can use onchain infrastructure without abandoning the controls required by their regulators, decentralized platforms may have a route into markets that have historically been difficult to access. At the same time, the model raises practical questions about who controls market access, how compliance requirements are enforced, and where responsibility lies when a platform's infrastructure and a regulated operator work together.

Neither announcement resolves those questions entirely. Ripple's charter covers specified trust and custody activities, not every service the company offers. Hyperliquid's proposed arrangement has not yet received the necessary regulatory approvals, and the practical operation of its access controls remains unclear.

The broader implication is that crypto adoption may depend less on a choice between decentralization and regulation than on how effectively companies combine the two. Federal trust charters and regulated intermediaries could provide established oversight mechanisms, while blockchain infrastructure offers a different way to deliver financial services.

Whether these models can scale will depend on more than regulatory milestones. Their long-term viability will also hinge on how clearly responsibilities are defined, how effectively customer protections are implemented, and whether the resulting services offer meaningful advantages over existing financial systems.