The Federal Reserve is weighing 44 public comments on a proposed “payment account” that would give eligible institutions limited access to central bank payment rails. The comment period for the Payment Account prototype, often called a “skinny master account,” closed on February 6, 2026, and the Board is reviewing next steps.
The Fed said the account would support innovation “while keeping the payments system safe,” according to Christopher J. Waller.
Under the proposal, a payment account would serve a narrow purpose: clearing and settling the holder’s own payment activity. The Fed said the model would not change which institutions qualify for Federal Reserve accounts or services, but it would offer a tailored option with a streamlined review.
Reserve Banks would also keep discretion to add extra restrictions on a case-by-case basis. The prototype adds structural limits. The Fed proposed setting an overnight balance cap at the lesser of $500 million or 10% of the holder’s total assets.
The account would not earn interest, would block overdrafts and intraday credit, and would not offer discount-window access or other Fed credit. The term sheet also excludes FedACH and check services.
Crypto-focused institutions and digital-asset groups told the Fed that direct settlement access could reduce reliance on correspondent banks. Anchorage Digital National Bank said the proposed overnight cap could force daily sweeps of client funds back to partner banks, which would add operational and counterparty risk.
Anchorage also asked the Fed to reconsider the balance cap and to revisit service access. The bank said the prototype needs changes on overnight limits, interest treatment, and FedACH access to function as a workable alternative to a full master account.
Also Read: US Federal Reserve Adds Liquidity Through $40B Treasury Bill Purchase Plan
Banking groups urged the Fed to maintain strict controls and to limit broad access to core payment infrastructure. The American Bankers Association said master accounts should remain for federally supervised institutions with federally insured deposits.
It backed limits like no overdrafts, no interest, and no ACH or check services, and it called for direct federal supervision and phased transaction limits.
Financial reform group Better Markets took a harder line. In a February 6 comment letter, it called the proposal an “irresponsible and reckless giveaway” and urged the Fed to rescind it. Better Markets also asked the Fed to cap approvals and transaction volumes until supervisors can measure risks.
The Fed has not set a timeline for a final decision. The agency said it will consider the comments before it decides whether to move toward a formal rule. Any final framework could reshape how nonbank firms connect to Fedwire and FedNow.