Crypto Banks Moved Beyond Targets
Eighteen months can significantly alter the landscape of crypto banking. In October 2023, specialized crypto banks encountered significant challenges from regulators across various continents. . Signature Bank and Silvergate have both collapsed. American institutions such as Customers Bank and United Texas Bank faced regulatory scrutiny regarding their crypto services. The message was unmistakable: engaging with digital assets positioned you as a target. Fast forward to November 2025, and the narrative has taken a dramatic turn. Amina Bank, a trailblazer in Swiss crypto banking, has successfully obtained a Markets in Crypto-Assets license via its Austrian subsidiary. The license provides the firm with passporting rights across thirty European markets. The company aims to reach six billion dollars in assets under management by the end of the year, a significant increase from approximately 300 million just eighteen months prior. Assets surged by 140 percent last year, with revenue increasing by 70 percent. The regulatory environment has seen significant changes. The situation has been entirely reversed. Crypto banks have shifted from being outcasts to trailblazers, and this evolution highlights the importance of regulatory coordination over the actual adoption of cryptocurrency. The 2023-2024 period marked a pivotal moment for crypto banking, presenting an existential crisis. American regulators have approached institutions that serve digital asset companies with a lens of suspicion, viewing them as inherently dubious rather than as regulated entities fulfilling essential financial roles. The strategy extended past mere prudential oversight, resembling a form of organized suppression. Take into account the casualties. In early 2023, both Signature Bank and Silvergate Bank, known for their groundbreaking real-time payment networks that facilitated swift settlements between crypto exchanges, faced collapse. Silvergate’s failure was partly attributed to issues with its business model, while the seizure of Signature by regulators sparked concerns over whether exposure to crypto had become a disqualifying factor.
The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority has initiated a Section 166 investigation, a notable player among the limited European banks catering to crypto clients. Section 166 investigations empower regulators with extensive authority to scrutinize all facets of a firm’s operations. In the latest developments, Customers Bank and United Texas Bank in America are under regulatory scrutiny for their involvement in crypto banking activities. Even inquiring about the motivations behind someone’s decision to become a crypto banker appeared to be a valid question. Franz Bergmueller reflects on the skepticism he faced upon joining the firm three and a half years ago. The regulatory message was clear: crypto banking posed risks, could be deemed illegitimate, and was definitely not a sector that regulators aimed to promote. Traditional banks that ventured into crypto encountered capital requirements that rendered the business unfeasible. New entrants encountered significant challenges in obtaining licenses. The limited number of specialized crypto banks that were in operation faced ongoing scrutiny from regulators. Then Europe executed an unexpected move. In a remarkable feat, thirty countries that often find it challenging to reach consensus on fiscal policy, immigration, or military spending have managed to establish a unified framework for crypto regulation. The Markets in Crypto-Assets framework establishes definitive licensing standards, offers passporting rights among member states, and fosters institutional confidence that is currently absent in American regulation. MiCA establishes a Crypto-Asset Service Provider license that operates throughout the European Union, as well as in Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein. A firm that holds a license in one jurisdiction can extend its services across the entire block through passporting. This removes the fragmented landscape of national regulations that once compelled crypto firms to obtain individual licenses in every market.
Amina received a CASP license. The license permits the custody of crypto assets, facilitates the exchange of crypto assets for fiat currencies or other crypto assets, provides transfer services, and enables portfolio management of crypto assets. The firm has officially informed thirteen more European countries of its plans to operate, positioning itself for expansion throughout the entire MiCA framework. Austria was selected with strategic intent. “Austria was chosen as Amina EU’s European entry point because of its regulatory excellence and strong commitment to investor protection,” according to the firm’s announcement. Smaller jurisdictions often exhibit a swifter pace than their larger counterparts, establishing templates that pave the way for wider adoption. In 2019, Switzerland took the lead by having FINMA issue specialized crypto banking licenses. Austria is mirroring the trend on a European level. Amina is now positioned to offer a comprehensive suite of services across Europe, encompassing all the traditional offerings of banks along with advanced digital asset functionalities: trading, custody, staking, and portfolio management. Professional investors, family offices, corporates, and financial institutions have the opportunity to utilize these services via a regulated provider, steering clear of unregulated alternatives. Amina’s growth underscores the effectiveness of the specialized crypto banking model. The firm aims to achieve six billion dollars in assets under management by the end of 2025, alongside a revenue target of sixty million dollars. Last year experienced a remarkable 140 percent increase in volume and an impressive 70 percent rise in revenue. These are not speculative projections. Their operations showcase genuine demand from clients seeking regulated crypto banking solutions.
The revenue model operates across various lines. Crypto-backed lending yields significant margins. Clients who have amassed bitcoin or ethereum over the years are now seeking liquidity while avoiding the liquidation of positions they anticipate will continue to appreciate. Amina has successfully lent against crypto collateral, maintaining zero bad debt throughout its six years of operation, even amid recent market volatility. “We began our journey six years ago. We have also, through all market cycles, and the last one was like 10 days ago, where the market moved big time, we’ve never lost money,” Bergmueller explains. Client selection is crucial. “Our clients are crypto wealthy.” They do not require financial assistance. “They are solely focused on liquidity.” In times of market downturns and falling collateral values, margin calls become a clear-cut issue. Clients opt to add collateral instead of defaulting. The automated systems operate around the clock, continuously monitoring positions. During periods of volatility, regulators are reaching out to inquire about the bank’s approach to managing market stress. The response remains consistent: all systems are functioning as intended. Trading, especially in the realm of options, yields substantial revenue. Custody services draw in software engineers who were early bitcoin miners and are now scrutinizing the security of alternative storage options. Amina has developed a bespoke cold storage solution that meets the demands of regulators while also catering to the needs of clients with advanced cryptographic knowledge. Staking offers yield on proof-of-stake assets, all while keeping custody intact.
White label services for traditional banks signify an expanding revenue stream. When clients of Julius Baer purchase bitcoin, they are leveraging Amina’s infrastructure. Traditional banks maintain client relationships; however, they fall short in crypto technical capabilities. Specialized crypto banks deliver the unseen framework that enables institutional adoption. The business model is effective as it addresses genuine issues for clients willing to invest in premium services. These individuals are not retail speculators pursuing quick profits. Professional investors, family offices, and institutions are seeking regulated access to digital assets. America’s crypto enthusiasm lacks infrastructure. Despite the new administration’s vocal support for crypto and legislative efforts like the Genius and Clarity Act, Bergmueller observes that America is falling behind Europe in terms of regulatory clarity. There’s a palpable excitement, yet the necessary infrastructure is lacking. “Even with the Genius and the Clarity Act, there is a long way to go for them to sort out things,” Bergmueller notes from New York, where he frequently engages with American institutions. “When I engage with my partners in the United States or business professionals, they express excitement, but there’s a clear need for more clarity.” Traditional American institutions are seeking to provide their clients with exposure to cryptocurrency. Clear pathways to provide it are notably absent. Political backing does not necessarily lead to regulatory structures that enable banks to provide services effectively.
European banks are now able to collaborate with MiCA-licensed providers such as Amina to deliver crypto services. American banks continue to face limitations, even with favorable political conditions. Europe holds the regulatory clarity advantage, independent of America’s history of innovation or the depth of its capital. This opens up avenues for players operating across multiple jurisdictions. Amina is licensed by FINMA in Switzerland, holds Financial Services Permission from the FSRA in Abu Dhabi, and possesses Type 1, 4, and 9 licenses from Hong Kong’s SFC, which includes authorization for digital asset dealing. Additionally, Amina has obtained CASP licensing under MiCA. Every jurisdiction offers unique benefits: Swiss credibility, access to Middle Eastern capital, depth in Asian markets, and scale for distribution in Europe.
Bergmueller positions the present scenario as a contest to determine which region will emerge as the leading crypto financial hub. The Middle East, especially the UAE and Abu Dhabi Global Market, presents a favorable regulatory environment for businesses, along with access to capital from sovereign wealth funds and family offices. Hong Kong is taking bold steps forward as China maintains a more reserved stance on digital assets. Europe has successfully achieved coordination through MiCA, a feat that once appeared impossible due to the continent’s usual regulatory fragmentation. The United States boasts enthusiasm, capital, and innovation; however, it is currently facing a lack of clarity. Jurisdictions that offer certainty will gain an edge, regardless of their historical dominance. For institutional adoption, regulatory clarity holds greater significance than market size. Amina’s strategic presence across four continents, backed by multiple licenses, highlights the potential for opportunity amidst regulatory fragmentation. The firm opted to construct compliance infrastructure that caters to various jurisdictions instead of waiting for a single dominant framework to emerge. With the clarity brought by MiCA, Amina was poised for immediate expansion. The shift from being a regulatory target to embracing regulated expansion signifies a total turnaround. Specialized crypto banks navigated through the hostility that eliminated their competitors and have now emerged strategically positioned to seize institutional adoption. The unexpected element isn’t the success of crypto banking. Digital assets necessitate a banking infrastructure akin to that of any other financial asset class. Europe’s regulatory leadership is the unexpected twist.
MiCA instills institutional confidence via coordination that the United States, despite its innovation advantages, has yet to accomplish. Bergmueller’s experience encapsulates the transition. Three years ago, skepticism surrounded the idea of joining a crypto bank. Traditional institutions are now reaching out, seeking white label services to meet client demand. The real inquiry lies not in the existence of crypto banking, but rather in which jurisdiction will establish the leading framework first. Amina’s impressive leap from 300 million to six billion dollars in assets under management in just eighteen months illustrates the positive impact of clear regulation over hindrance. Throughout the challenging regulatory landscape, institutional demand remained robust. It simply lacked avenues for articulation. MiCA has established those channels in Europe, while the United States continues to debate definitions. The regulatory reversal is complete. Crypto banks have transitioned from being outcasts to trailblazers. The jurisdictions that offered clarity first seized the institutional adoption that ensued. America maintains its enthusiasm and capital; however, it has ceded its first-mover advantage to the coordinated efforts of Europe. The true narrative of crypto banking’s evolution from being a regulatory target to achieving regulated success is unfolding.
