“Revocation” has become Recent Washington buzzwords. The term refers to a controversial practice where cryptocurrency companies and other businesses have allegedly been cut off from banking services due to pressure from federal regulators. Many people in our industry call it “Operation Chokepoint 2.0“Compare it to previous Obama-era initiatives, which have left banks reluctant to serve certain legal but high-risk industries. The issue has sparked heated debates, with multiple congressional investigations examining whether regulators are Improper refusal to provide improper services to cryptocurrency companies and other businesses to banks.
I’m testifying Before Congress Today is because my company is a federally regulated bank, but because I am a misunderstanding of being eliminated. To deal with the threat to American values, we first need to understand what is going on.
Rather than issuing a regulator about clear, transparent rules that banks can serve, it is better to revoke through a dark and democratic irresponsible process that causes regulators to warn banks not to serve certain types of customers rather than based on The personal risks they pose are based on the service industry that is hostile or prejudice in the entire service. Banks face threats of enforcement actions, penalties or worse, and have no choice but to comply. Law-abiding individuals and businesses will be isolated from basic banking services, which can be devastating.
This is what we look like: In June 2023, we received an emergency call from a bank for two and a half years. Despite the established banking relationships – we were even in an active discussion about expanding to new partnerships – the bank suddenly told us that they closed our accounts within 30 days because it was not for the transactions of our cryptocurrency customers. Satisfied, even if we tell them that the funds are disputed is the customer paying the custody fee, these fees have been well documented as part of our strict compliance process. Our contacts refuse to provide any further explanation or allow us to speak with the bank’s risk management team.
Read more: Nic Carter- Why You Should (still) Care about Silvergate
Ironically: we are one Federal Chartered Bankregulated and supervised by the OCC, is subject to the same strict capital, liquidity and risk management expectations as any other national bank. During our partnership process, our banking partners never asked questions about our accounts. We are an excellent banking client – well capitalized, well regulated and well run. However, our bank suddenly cuts off our interpretation or recourse from the blue. Although we were eventually able to find banks willing to work with us, the impact of being shut down on the banking system was devastating. This is extremely disruptive to our business and customers and contributes to the difficult decisions we have made in 2023 to free up 20% of our workforce.
And we are not alone. Legal U.S. businesses in our industry find themselves competing for basic banking services, spending time and resources on solutions rather than innovation and growth, causing significant disruption and even driving some outages.
The regulator’s actions are actually forbidden from the fact that the bank’s cryptocurrency industry makes its seemingly arbitrary execution more destructive – no one knows why some companies retain access while others are cut off , thus creating an atmosphere of continuous uncertainty. It should be clear that it would be one thing if the regulator has already made such a major policy decision through appropriate channels such as formal notification and evaluation rulemaking. However, it has never been proposed, public debate or legal review has been conducted. Congress has never passed legislation that authorized the federal banking system to suffocate from much of the industry.
History shows us that this will happen again without a permanent fix. Just seven years ago, FDIC Apologize The first iterationOperate the choke” – A consistent campaign aims to cut off the banking business of regulators in industries that are not conducive to regulators and promises to re-examine their examiners. Fast forward to 2023, and this time there was another political revocation effort in a different industry, and it happened again. No action was taken, it was only a matter of time before 3.0 operations were taken, and any industry could be the next goal.
So, how do we prevent this from happening again? Congress oversight, like the hearing I will testify today, is for revealing the facts and holding the agency accountable. Congress must also take action to establish real safeguards: consider legislation requiring banks to provide fair access to banking services within the scope of existing laws, requiring agencies to prove annually that they will not impose pressure on banks to discriminate against legal businesses, establish ombudsman businesses, Establish a hotline for the Director-General’s Inspectorate Expert, the hotline is the OCC, FDIC and Fed reporting examiners’ misconduct, requiring banks to provide written explanations about account termination and requiring clear appeal proceedings.
Read more: Coinbase’s letters reveal U.S. regulators tell banks to avoid encryption
Such protection will ensure that no federal regulator can abuse its powers to once again quietly reject law-abiding individuals, companies and industries. A more direct step that the new administration and Congress can take is to revoke Guidance from Joint Banking Regulators in January 2023 This is the nails of the coffin of many cryptocurrency businesses and is cancelled OCC’s Interpretation Letter 1179This puts forward the requirements for arbitrary clearing, which effectively places many banks outside of crypto activities.
These are not just procedural changes – they are crucial to protecting American innovation and ensuring democratic responsibility. When regulators must have their own decisions and defend them in the public and courts, the behind-the-scenes pressure movement ends and transparency and the rule of law prevail. The review should be about bureaucratic threats, not legal businesses that follow the rules. Before these reforms are implemented, everyone is in danger.
