Ripple National Trust Bank’s Charter Is Effective. Who Handles RLUSD Reserves?

What the OCC recorded on October 26

Ripple National Trust Bank’s charter became effective on October 26. Its approved role includes managing the reserves behind Ripple USD and serving as trustee for holders. Standard Custody & Trust Company remains the stablecoin’s issuer. The federal filing establishes the charter date, while the start of customer custody services requires separate evidence.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) records two decisions under control number 2025-Charter-342347. Its December 12, 2025 letter gave preliminary conditional approval to organize a trust bank in New York. Its application register now marks the filing “Consummated/Effective” on October 26, 2026. Reading both entries matters. Someone relying on the December letter alone would miss the final decision. Someone taking October 26 as the first day a customer placed assets with the bank would go beyond the register.

Ripple announced final approval on October 26. The company described institutional custody as a service the bank would be authorized to provide upon opening. TokenPost checked the filing in its November 3 report and found no announced opening date. As of November 8, the records reviewed for this article identify the bank and its approved work. They give no date for a first custody account, transfer of reserve responsibilities or completed customer transaction. Each would be a different operational milestone.

Section sources[1][2][3][4][5]

Standard Custody still issues RLUSD

For a holder of Ripple USD (RLUSD), the first name to look for is Standard Custody & Trust Company. Ripple identifies that New York limited purpose trust company as the continuing issuer. The New York State Department of Financial Services supervises it. CoinDesk and The Block independently reported that the federal charter adds supervision for a separate institution in the same group. Neither the common Ripple name nor the word “bank” on the new charter transfers the issuance function.

Consider a treasury team updating its list of counterparties after the announcement. If its record for the issuer previously named Standard Custody, replacing that name with Ripple National Trust Bank would introduce an error. A better entry would add the trust bank in a separately labeled field, describe its approved role, and give the October 26 OCC filing as the evidence. To record when that role actually took effect for the team’s holdings, the team would need the applicable operating notice or agreement.

That distinction matters when something goes wrong. A discrepancy between RLUSD issued and the amount shown in an issuer report belongs first with the entity making the assertion. A question about custody of assets deposited by an enterprise belongs with the entity identified in its custody contract. Those questions can arise on the same afternoon and concern the same group. The answer to one does not settle the other.

Section sources[2][3][5][6][10]

Who manages RLUSD reserves and who holds them

The OCC decision letter describes an arrangement in which the proposed bank would manage segregated liquid assets for Standard Custody on a directed basis. Ripple’s final approval announcement also identifies the bank as an authorized collateral trustee for RLUSD holders. In plain language, managing the pool concerns what happens to its assets. Serving as trustee concerns whose interests the bank is charged with representing in that role. A holder needs both pieces to understand the structure.

BNY has a different job. Ripple identified BNY as its primary reserve custodian in its final approval announcement. The Block reported BNY’s selection in July 2025, and its October 2026 coverage again identified BNY as primary reserve custodian. Safekeeping a reserve asset and instructing someone how to manage it can involve different institutions. The charter alone gives no reason to assume that BNY handed the pool to a new custodian on October 26.

Here is how the distinction would matter in an institutional review. Suppose a finance director asks where reserve property is held. Naming the authorized trustee leaves the safekeeping question unanswered. Conversely, naming BNY tells the director little about who can give instructions or whose interests the trustee represents. A useful written response would identify the issuer, the party authorized to direct or carry out each function, the custodian, and the date the arrangement applied. Where a start date is unknown, the field should stay open.

Section sources[2][3][5][7][8]

A reserve report signed on charter day measures an earlier period

Ripple’s transparency page, reviewed November 8, displays balances dated November 5. It separately links the September independent accountants’ report. The date on that report makes it particularly easy to misread alongside the bank announcement. The accountants signed on October 26, the same day the OCC filing became effective. But they examined Standard Custody’s reserve assertions for September 21 and September 30. Both measurement dates came before the charter milestone.

The difference matters even without quoting a dollar figure. Suppose someone cites the October signature to answer whether the trust bank had taken charge of the reserves. The report concerns balances at two earlier points in time. Its signature dates the accountants’ conclusion about those balances. It supplies no observation of who performed a new duty on charter day. Likewise, a fresher balance displayed by Ripple does not extend the accountants’ examination to November 5.

For a reader comparing the documents, write down the subject of each statement alongside its date. The OCC records the status of a charter application. Standard Custody makes assertions about the reserve and circulation. The independent accountants examine specified assertions at particular times. A later report covering a post-charter date would provide newer reserve evidence. Establishing that the trust bank actually performed a particular function would still require a disclosure identifying it in that capacity.

Section sources[2][6][9]

What changes for customers evaluating fiduciary custody

An enterprise evaluating Ripple National Trust Bank can now point its procurement team to an effective federal charter and an approved line of business. That answers a real screening question about the prospective provider. To decide whether to place a particular asset with it, the enterprise would still need a service description naming the contracting entity, the assets it accepts and the instructions it can execute. The charter register supplies none of those account-specific terms.

Consider an enterprise that already holds RLUSD and wants custody for its own treasury balance. Its tokens and the assets backing all outstanding tokens sit on different sides of the question. The enterprise is asking who will safeguard its property and act on its instructions. The reserve custodian safeguards backing assets for the stablecoin arrangement. Even if the same group offers several services, a statement naming the reserve custodian cannot tell the enterprise who would take custody of its tokens.

Unresolved for XRP readers is whether any bank activity will require XRP. The announcement describes fiduciary digital asset custody as an approved activity and discusses reserves behind RLUSD. It does not identify an XRP purchase, an XRP balance held for a customer, or a requirement to settle reserve movements on the XRP Ledger. Using the charter date to estimate demand for XRP would require an additional fact linking a specific operating activity to the asset. Neither the filing nor the independent reports cited here supplies one.

Section sources[1][2][4][5]

The next disclosures that would change the assessment

A dated notice that the bank has opened would settle one question. A notice identifying when it assumed reserve-management or trustee duties would settle another. An agreement or announcement about its first fiduciary custody service could establish which clients and assets it can serve. If one disclosure covers several milestones, the useful details will be the named legal entity, the activity and its effective date.

For holders, the most informative follow-up would pair an operating disclosure with a reserve report covering the period in question. The first could identify who assumed responsibility. The second could show what the issuer reported and what an accountant examined after that date. Together those records could answer a question neither can answer alone: who was responsible for the reported pool during the period under review? Until then, the October decision supports a precise conclusion about authority, and the September examination supports a precise conclusion about earlier reserves.

Section sources[1][2][4][6][9]