Anchorage Digital says Fed’s proposed payment account is no 'workable substitute' for master account

Quick Take

• Anchorage Digital said it supports the Fed's efforts to revamp payment system access, but said its proposal would place it and others under a tier that opens it up to intense review.
• Last year, Fed Governor Christopher J. Waller floated the concept, referring to it as a "skinny master account."

Federally chartered national bank Anchorage Digital says the Federal Reserve's proposed payment account that would give some crypto companies access to the central bank doesn't work.

In a comment letter filed this week in response to the Fed's new payment account structure, the bank said it supports the Fed's efforts to revamp payment system access, but said its proposal would place it and others under a tier that opens it up to intense review and alongside other institutions that don't have a federal supervisor.

"ADB supports the Board's effort to modernize payment system access, but the proposed account, which lacks FedACH access, imposes overnight balance limits, offers no intraday liquidity, and pays no interest on reserve balances, isn't a workable substitute for the Master Account that member national banks have held for over a century," the bank said in a statement.

Last year, Fed Governor Christopher J. Waller floated the concept, referring to it as a "skinny master account." A master account, which Anchorage applied for in August 2025, gives financial institutions direct access to the Federal Reserve's payment systems. Institutions without master accounts typically must work through partner banks that have this access to provide payment services.

In May, the Federal Reserve sought public feedback on a proposal to establish a new type of "payment account" that could allow certain crypto companies to access the Fed's clearing and settlement systems. Under the proposal, eligible account holders would be able to use payment services with automated safeguards, but they would not have access to intraday credit, the discount window, or interest payments on balances maintained at the Fed.

Even with these limitations, gaining access to these accounts --- referred to as "master accounts" --- would allow crypto firms to connect directly to the U.S. payment system's core infrastructure rather than depending on intermediary banks.

Specifically, Anchorage has concerns that banks like theirs would not have access to the FedACH, which is a system operated by the central bank that processes electronic payments between banks and other financial institutions.

"The exclusion of FedACH access materially limits the functionality of the Payment Account and would require Payment Account holders to continue to rely on intermediaries for day-to-day payment and settlement activities," the bank said.

Anchorage also said the central bank's proposal would further require firms to work with intermediaries to set a required closing account balance and said a skinny master account should include interest on reserve balances.

What others say

Almost 100 other comment letters have been filed by crypto groups and exchanges, bank associations and lawmakers over the past few days.

In her letter, crypto-friendly Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., said she looked forward to the Fed "finalizing the rules and policies implementing the payment account as soon as possible." The Blockchain Association said the proposed payment accounts could be viewed as a positive step, but said they were not a substitute for master accounts.

"As currently drafted, however, the Payment Accounts established by the proposal come with too many restrictions to achieve the Board's stated goals," the association said. "Most importantly, the proposed lack of FedACH access and zero interest on account balances would make the accounts commercially impractical."

Others voiced concerns about firms' access to the Fed. In a letter from the Financial Services Forum, The Clearing House Association and the Bank Policy Institute, they warned that some institutions would be "subject to less rigorous supervision and regulation."

"The Associations are supportive of private-sector innovation in financial services," they said. "But when that innovation implicates broader issues of financial stability, national security and credit availability, the public interest must appropriately be taken into account."