Mentioned in This Article
1. What is Ramp National Trust Bank?
Ramp, the corporate spending and expense management company, has applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for a charter to create Ramp National Trust Bank. The application was submitted on October 16, 2026 and became public on October 19. The proposed bank would focus on fiduciary investment management and custody of digital assets, and it needs OCC approval, which has not been granted.
The New York-based fintech was valued at $60 billion in its most recent funding round and reports annualized revenue of $2 billion. Those figures place it among the largest private financial technology companies, and they make the filing notable even though Ramp built its business around corporate cards and spend controls rather than crypto.
No timeline for the regulator's review has been reported, and the company has not said when it expects a decision. For now the filing is a statement of intent: a request for the legal permission to offer a narrow set of regulated services under a federal framework.
A national trust bank is a very different animal from a conventional retail bank, and understanding the distinction explains why so many technology and digital asset companies are choosing it as their route into regulated finance.
2. What a national trust bank charter allows
Ramp's proposed institution would operate under a federal framework that bars it from accepting deposits and from making commercial loans. That sets it apart from a full-service bank, which funds itself with customer deposits and earns money by lending them out. A trust bank instead earns its living from services performed for clients, such as managing and safeguarding their assets.
The charter centers on two functions. The first is fiduciary activity, meaning the management of assets on behalf of others under a legal duty of care. A fiduciary is expected to put the interests of the client ahead of its own and to follow strict standards of prudence and loyalty. The second is custody, the safekeeping of assets so that clients do not have to hold them directly.
For Ramp, custody would extend to digital assets, subject to the OCC's approval. That would let a company already trusted with business spending hold crypto assets for clients under direct federal supervision, instead of relying on outside custodians for that part of the relationship.
A federal charter also carries a practical benefit. A national bank charter is issued by one regulator and applies nationwide, so a trust bank does not need to obtain a separate license in each state in which it wants to serve customers. For a company with a national customer base, that can be a major attraction.
The distinction also shapes risk. Without deposits, a trust bank does not face the run risk that threatens lenders, and without a loan book it does not carry credit losses in the same way. Its main exposures are operational: errors in handling client assets, failures of security, and lapses in compliance. Regulators therefore concentrate on controls, governance and the separation of client assets from the institution's own funds.
3. The scale behind the application
The size of the applicant is what separates this filing from many earlier ones. Ramp's $60 billion valuation and $2 billion annualized revenue run rate mean that it comes to the OCC as an established business with substantial income, rather than as a start-up in search of a first product.
Ramp has indicated that it intends to keep growing its expense management tools alongside its existing banking partners. In other words, the trust bank is described as an expansion of what the company can offer, not as a replacement for the arrangements that support its present products. The company has not given a detailed account of how the new bank would be used, and the application is early in its life.
The motivation is not spelled out by Ramp in the information available, so any explanation is an inference. A reasonable reading is that a regulated entity of its own would let the company widen its financial services and handle assets directly, and that digital asset custody is one of several areas it may want to serve. That remains an interpretation and not a stated plan.
Scale matters to regulators as well. A larger company is expected to bring deeper compliance staffing, stronger governance and more capital to support a new bank, and the OCC will weigh those factors in the application. A big valuation does not guarantee approval, but it speaks to the resources available to build the institution.
4. Which other companies have sought trust charters?
Ramp is joining a crowded field. During 2025 and 2026, a series of fintech and digital asset companies have applied for national trust charters from the OCC. Circle, Ripple, Paxos and BitGo are among those that have sought charters tied to digital asset activities.
Those four companies were built around crypto from the start. Circle is best known as the issuer of the USDC stablecoin, Ripple is associated with the XRP Ledger and cross-border payments, Paxos issues regulated tokens and runs infrastructure for tokenized assets, and BitGo is an established institutional custodian. Each has a business that depends on digital assets.
Ramp differs because its core business sits outside of crypto. It would arrive at the trust charter from the direction of corporate finance, bringing a large base of business customers and a revenue stream that does not rely on digital assets. That difference is part of why the application is being read as a sign of how far the idea of regulated crypto safekeeping has moved into mainstream business services.
The pattern has not been free of debate. Traditional banking interests have questioned whether non-deposit trust charters should be open to firms with business models far from conventional trust activity, and the OCC's treatment of each application is being followed closely for that reason.
5. Why would a spend management company want crypto custody?
Companies increasingly deal with digital assets in practical ways: holding stablecoins for payments, receiving tokenized instruments, or keeping crypto on their balance sheets. Each of those activities raises the same question of who safeguards the assets and under what rules. A finance platform that already sits inside a firm's day-to-day money operations is a natural candidate to answer it.
A trust bank would give Ramp a regulated way to do so. Holding client assets as a chartered institution means being examined by the OCC and meeting its standards for controls, record keeping and risk management. For corporate clients and their auditors, those standards are often a prerequisite for entrusting valuable assets to a provider.
The charter's limits also matter. Because the bank could not take deposits or lend commercially, it would not compete with Ramp's banking partners in those areas. Its role would be confined to fiduciary and custody work, which keeps its scope comparatively narrow and may make the proposal easier to evaluate.
There is also an operational argument. When a company relies on third parties to hold assets, each hand-off between providers adds complexity and potential points of failure. Bringing custody inside a chartered affiliate could simplify that chain, although it would also make the company directly responsible for the safety of what it holds, which is a heavier obligation than reselling someone else's service.
6. What happens next?
The next step belongs to the OCC. The agency will review the application, and there is no published timetable for a decision. Applications of this kind can take a long time, so Ramp may have to wait before learning whether it will receive a charter, and approval, if granted, may come with conditions.
Observers will be watching how the regulator handles the other pending digital asset trust applications and how quickly it moves. The treatment of the applications from Circle, Ripple, Paxos and BitGo may offer a preview of how Ramp's request is received, though each filing is judged on its own business plan, capital and controls.
For the wider industry, the filing is another data point showing that large companies outside the crypto sector are seeking a regulated foothold in digital asset custody. Whether that translates into approved charters, and how rapidly, will shape the competitive landscape for custody services in the United States.
Public comment and agency questions can also lengthen the process. Applicants are typically asked to supply further information on their business plans, capital levels, security practices and management, and the answers can shift both the timing and the conditions attached to any decision.
7. What this means for fintech and digital assets
The application suggests that demand for regulated crypto safekeeping is reaching mainstream business finance. When a company valued at $60 billion and focused on corporate spending seeks a charter that explicitly covers digital asset custody, it indicates that the service is being treated as a normal part of the financial toolkit, not as a niche reserved for specialist firms.
It also shows how the trust charter has become a favored structure. It provides a federal license and direct supervision without the heavy requirements of full banking, and it lets a firm concentrate on the activities that matter most to it. That balance has attracted companies from several corners of the industry.
At the same time, the filing is only an application. Nothing has been approved, the review period is open-ended, and Ramp has not yet described the services in detail. Readers should treat it as an early indication of direction and not as a launched product.
For customers, the main practical question is when the bank could actually serve them. Until the OCC acts, nothing changes in how Ramp's products work today, and any new custody offering would depend on approval, on the build-out of systems and on the company's decisions about whom to serve first.