SEC Broadens Crypto Custody Options via State Trusts

The U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management has issued a no-action stance confirming that registered advisers and regulated funds may use state-chartered trust companies for custody of crypto assets without fear of enforcement under certain conditions.

Under the letter released on 30 September, the SEC staff stated it “would not recommend enforcement action” against advisers or funds that treat state trust companies as a “bank” for purposes of holding digital assets and related cash, provided they adhere to strict safeguards and eligibility requirements. The letter stops short of legal advice, but marks a shift in how crypto custody might evolve under federal oversight.

While the no-action relief does not carry the force of a rule, it addresses long-standing ambiguity over whether state trust companies qualified as custodians under the Investment Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act. The guidance is conditional on advisers performing due diligence to confirm the trust’s authority, maintaining audited financial statements, segregating client assets, restricting rehypothecation without client consent, and verifying internal controls.

The SEC’s letter was precipitated by a request from law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett on behalf of financial advisers seeking formal assurances about using state trust entities for crypto custody. This marks the second such no-action letter from the agency in short order, reflecting a trend towards regulatory clarity in crypto frameworks.

Proponents argue the move broadens the pool of eligible custodians beyond a small set of federally chartered institutions. Many prominent crypto custodians already operate under state trust charters, including affiliates of Coinbase, Paxos, and others. Under previous regulatory interpretations, these firms faced uncertainty about whether they satisfied the “qualified custodian” requirement.

SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce applauded the letter, saying it ends the “guessing game” that advisers confronted in choosing custody providers. She suggested the guidance could pave the way for future reforms of custody rules that are more flexible and technology-aware. However, Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw dissented, warning that the agency’s move bypasses formal rulemaking and could undermine trust in the regulatory process by favouring state trust firms over applicants seeking national charters.

Market observers welcomed the clarity. James Seyffart, an ETF analyst, described the letter as “a textbook example of more clarity for the digital asset space.” Institutional participants, previously wary of custody risk, may now consider deeper allocations to crypto. The move may also prompt competition from new entrants able to operate under state trust frameworks.