Do you fear an "Operation Choke Point 2.0" in your country? (Poll)

[Peter90]

Operation Choke Point 2.0 Is Underway, And Crypto Is In Its Crosshairs

Detailing the Biden Admin's coordinated, ongoing effort across virtually every US financial regulator to deny crypto firms access to banking services

"For crypto firms, obtaining access to the onshore banking system has always been a challenge. Even today, crypto startups struggle mightily to get banks, and only a handful of boutiques serve them.
This is why stablecoins like Tether found popularity early on: to facilitate fiat settlement where the rails of traditional banking were unavailable.

However, in recent weeks, the intensity of efforts to ringfence the entire crypto space and isolate it from the traditional banking system have ratcheted up significantly. Specifically, the Biden administration is now executing what appears to be a coordinated plan that spans multiple agencies to discourage banks from dealing with crypto firms.
It applies to both traditional banks who would serve crypto clients, and crypto-first firms aiming to get bank charters. It includes the administration itself, influential members of Congress, the Fed, the FDIC, the OCC, and the DoJ.

In sum, banks taking deposits from crypto clients, issuing stablecoins, engaging in crypto custody, or seeking to hold crypto as principal have faced nothing short of an onslaught from regulators in recent weeks.
Time and again, using the expression “safety and soundness,” they’ve made it clear that for a bank, touching public blockchains in any way is considered unacceptably risky


Beginning in 2013, Choke Point was a scheme which sought to marginalize specific industries operating legally — not through lawmaking, but by applying pressure via the banking sector.
The Obama DoJ had already cut its teeth with its successful effort to sideline the online poker space in 2011 and 2012 with threats issued to banks supporting poker companies. With Choke Point, the Department decided to scale up its efforts and target other industries, starting with uncontroversial targets like payday lenders.

Then, the DoJ coordinated with the FDIC and OCC to pressure member banks to “redline” — determine as too risky to do business with — certain legal but politically disfavored sectors, chief among them firearms manufacturers and adult entertainment. Banks and payment processors internalized this guidance, and even after the program was formally shuttered under Trump in 2017, its shadow lingered.
Today, banks simply ascribe a higher risk to activities that they suspect might draw the government’s ire, even if no specific guidance exists.

In 2017, Trump and Republican lawmakers like Rep. Luetkemeyer were able to put a stop to Choke Point for a time, but it didn’t last. One of the first moves from Biden’s OCC was to undo Brian Brook’s Fair Access rule that prohibited political discrimination in banking. Biden’s deputies picked up where Obama’s regulators had left off. And now, after the time it took to digest Biden’s Executive Orders, regulators are tightening the screw.


In some key respects, Crypto Choke Point 2.0 differs from the original. It appears that the administration has learned from the efforts of its predecessors.
In Choke Point 1.0, guidance was mainly informal and involved backdoor, off-the-record conversations. Its main tool was the threat of investigation from the DoJ and FDIC if financial institutions didn’t internalize the administration’s risk standards. Because this was patently unconstitutional, it gave Republicans the collateral to ultimately repeal the program.
In 2.0, everything is happening in plain sight, in the form of rulemaking, written guidance, and blogs. The current crypto crackdown is being sold as a “safety and soundness” issue for banks, and not merely a reputational risk issue.

Jake Chervinsky of the Blockchain Association calls it “regulation by blog post.” No need to ask Congress for new laws if federal regulators can simply make policy by publishing guidance which dissuades banks from doing business with crypto."

--------------------------------------------------------------------


1) Do you think similar policies will expand to other countries - or continents - outside of the USA?

2) Do you think they will expand to your country?
Or are similar policies in your country already in place?

3) Do you think political authorities' anti-cryptos bias will go away in the next future? Or will get stronger?
What is necessary for them to go away?

Your vote in the poll is much appreciated 

[Don Pedro Dinero]

The article would be fine except that the source is unreliable and that it is a year old. I have searched and I only see marginal sites referring to this in news from a year ago.

If it had been published today I would doubt whether Biden wants to shoot himself in the foot by killing the crypto industry in his country and leaving it to other countries to take advantage of it.

But if after a year things are not only not worse, but, for example, spot ETFs have been approved in the USA, we can clearly say that this is fake news.

I hesitated to give you negative karma but I didn't because we all make mistakes.

[DrBeer]

Operation Choke Point 2.0 Is Underway, And Crypto Is In Its Crosshairs

Detailing the Biden Admin's coordinated, ongoing effort across virtually every US financial regulator to deny crypto firms access to banking services


"For crypto firms, obtaining access to the onshore banking system has always been a challenge. Even today, crypto startups struggle mightily to get banks, and only a handful of boutiques serve them.
This is why stablecoins like Tether found popularity early on: to facilitate fiat settlement where the rails of traditional banking were unavailable.

However, in recent weeks, the intensity of efforts to ringfence the entire crypto space and isolate it from the traditional banking system have ratcheted up significantly. Specifically, the Biden administration is now executing what appears to be a coordinated plan that spans multiple agencies to discourage banks from dealing with crypto firms.
It applies to both traditional banks who would serve crypto clients, and crypto-first firms aiming to get bank charters. It includes the administration itself, influential members of Congress, the Fed, the FDIC, the OCC, and the DoJ.

In sum, banks taking deposits from crypto clients, issuing stablecoins, engaging in crypto custody, or seeking to hold crypto as principal have faced nothing short of an onslaught from regulators in recent weeks.
Time and again, using the expression “safety and soundness,” they’ve made it clear that for a bank, touching public blockchains in any way is considered unacceptably risky


Beginning in 2013, Choke Point was a scheme which sought to marginalize specific industries operating legally — not through lawmaking, but by applying pressure via the banking sector.
The Obama DoJ had already cut its teeth with its successful effort to sideline the online poker space in 2011 and 2012 with threats issued to banks supporting poker companies. With Choke Point, the Department decided to scale up its efforts and target other industries, starting with uncontroversial targets like payday lenders.

Then, the DoJ coordinated with the FDIC and OCC to pressure member banks to “redline” — determine as too risky to do business with — certain legal but politically disfavored sectors, chief among them firearms manufacturers and adult entertainment. Banks and payment processors internalized this guidance, and even after the program was formally shuttered under Trump in 2017, its shadow lingered.
Today, banks simply ascribe a higher risk to activities that they suspect might draw the government’s ire, even if no specific guidance exists.

In 2017, Trump and Republican lawmakers like Rep. Luetkemeyer were able to put a stop to Choke Point for a time, but it didn’t last. One of the first moves from Biden’s OCC was to undo Brian Brook’s Fair Access rule that prohibited political discrimination in banking. Biden’s deputies picked up where Obama’s regulators had left off. And now, after the time it took to digest Biden’s Executive Orders, regulators are tightening the screw.


In some key respects, Crypto Choke Point 2.0 differs from the original. It appears that the administration has learned from the efforts of its predecessors.
In Choke Point 1.0, guidance was mainly informal and involved backdoor, off-the-record conversations. Its main tool was the threat of investigation from the DoJ and FDIC if financial institutions didn’t internalize the administration’s risk standards. Because this was patently unconstitutional, it gave Republicans the collateral to ultimately repeal the program.
In 2.0, everything is happening in plain sight, in the form of rulemaking, written guidance, and blogs. The current crypto crackdown is being sold as a “safety and soundness” issue for banks, and not merely a reputational risk issue.

Jake Chervinsky of the Blockchain Association calls it “regulation by blog post.” No need to ask Congress for new laws if federal regulators can simply make policy by publishing guidance which dissuades banks from doing business with crypto."



1) Do you think similar policies will expand to other countries - or continents - outside of the USA?

2) Do you think they will expand to your country?
Or are similar policies in your country already in place?

3) Do you think political authorities' anti-cryptos bias will go away in the next future? Or will get stronger?
What is necessary for them to go away?

Your vote in the poll is much appreciated 

With all due respect to you - but the article you link to is very much a "throw-in" for manipulation. Just look at the changes that are happening here and now, in the US market towards cryptocurrencies ?
What I agree with is that the US is always very careful in dealing with financial markets - because it is the backbone of the US, and they really will not allow anyone, with any tool, to enter this market, it is a matter of real financial and national security. Plus the state minimizes the risks that American citizens will be exposed to financial risks, because this is also a big problem for the state. And of course - the state limits the possibilities of tax evasion - it's silly to hide it

PS Look at the "perfect example" of irresponsible attitude to the financial market in the ex-USSR. I'll just write three letters - and you read what it led to, when the state does not care about its citizens at all. "MMM" and Mavrodi

[Peter90]

Currently Operation Choke Point 2.0 is going on in the USA: banks are under pressure - just as one year ago - by the authorities to avoid crypto business and to sever ties with crypto businesses.

Ask any crypto business in the USA how easy it is for them today to make business with a US bank



"1) On Dec. 6, Senators Elizabeth Warren, John Kennedy, and Roger Marshall send a letter to crypto-friendly bank Silvergate, scolding them for providing services to FTX and Alameda research, and lambasting them for failing to report suspicious activities associated with those clients

2) On Dec. 7, Signature (among the most active banks serving crypto clients) announces its intent to halve deposits ascribed to crypto clients — in other words, they’ll give customers their money back, then shut down their accounts — drawing its crypto deposits down from $23b at peak to $10b, and to exit its stablecoin business

3) On Jan. 3, the Fed, the FDIC, and the OCC release a joint statement on the risks to banks engaging with crypto, not explicitly banning banks’ ability to hold crypto or deal with crypto clients, but strongly discouraging them from doing so on a “safety and soundness” basis

4) On Jan. 9, Metropolitan Commercial Bank (one of the few banks that serve crypto clients) announces a total shutdown of its cryptoasset-related vertical

5) On Jan. 9, Silvergate stock falls to a low of $11.55 on bank run and insolvency fears, having traded as high as $160 in March 2022

6) On Jan. 21, Binance announces that due to policy at Signature bank, they will only process user fiat transactions worth more than $100,000

7) On Jan. 27, the Federal Reserve denies crypto bank Custodia’s two-year application to become a member of the Federal Reserve system, citing “safety and soundness” risks

8 ) On Jan. 27, the Kansas City Fed branch denies Custodia’s application for a master account, which would have given it the ability to use wholesale payment services, and to hold reserves with the Fed directly

9) On Jan. 27, the Fed also issues a policy statement which discourages banks from holding cryptoassets or issuing stablecoins, and broadens their authority to cover non-FDIC insured state-chartered banks (a reaction to Wyoming Special Purpose Depository Institutions (SPDIs) like Custodia, which can hold crypto alongside fiat for its banking customers)

10) On Jan. 27, the National Economic Council releases a policy statement not explicitly banning banks from serving crypto clients, but strongly discouraging banks from transacting with cryptoassets directly or maintaining exposure to crypto depositors

11) On Feb. 2, the DoJ’s fraud unit announces an investigation into Silvergate over their dealings with FTX and Alameda

12) On Feb. 6, Binance suspends USD bank transfers for retail clients (Binance US was not affected)

13) On Feb. 7, the Jan. 27 Fed statement is entered into the federal register, turning the policy statement into a final rule, with no Congressional review, or public notice-and-comment period

14) As of Feb. 8, Protego and Paxos’ applications to follow Anchorage and obtain full approval to become National Trust Banks are still outstanding (past the 18 month deadline), and appear likely to be imminently denied by the OCC.



Which one of these measures and statements was withdrawn?

[0t3p0t]

Do you think similar policies will expand to other countries - or continents - outside of the USA?

Yes there is a huge possibility that similar policies will expand outside of the USA.

Do you think they will expand to your country?
Or are similar policies in your country already in place?

Yes, what had happened to Binance banning and other exchanges that are not registered here in my country is for me a gesture, a step or a sign that they are already planning for something that might end up a big deal in the future like implementing similar policies here in my country.

Do you think political authorities' anti-cryptos bias will go away in the next future? Or will get stronger?
What is necessary for them to go away?

Well that kind of idea don't die but multiply so we will expect more of them in the future. I wish that one day they will see potential with crypto and instead of fighting against it they will partake. I think maintaining the good image of crypto will drive them away as it proved them wrong. 

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Currently Operation Choke Point 2.0 is going on in the USA: banks are under pressure - just as one year ago - by the authorities to avoid crypto business and to sever ties with crypto businesses.

You are just repeating the fake news as if the fact that what you are saying happened a year ago is not relevant.

Currently Operation Choke Point 2.0 is going on in the USA: banks are under pressure - just as one year ago - by the authorities to avoid crypto business and to sever ties with crypto businesses.

Ask any crypto business in the USA how easy it is for them today to make business with a US bank



"1) On Dec. 6, 2022 Senators Elizabeth Warren, John Kennedy, and Roger Marshall send a letter to crypto-friendly bank Silvergate, scolding them for providing services to FTX and Alameda research, and lambasting them for failing to report suspicious activities associated with those clients

2) On Dec. 7 2022, Signature (among the most active banks serving crypto clients) announces its intent to halve deposits ascribed to crypto clients — in other words, they’ll give customers their money back, then shut down their accounts — drawing its crypto deposits down from $23b at peak to $10b, and to exit its stablecoin business

3) On Jan. 3 2023, the Fed, the FDIC, and the OCC release a joint statement on the risks to banks engaging with crypto, not explicitly banning banks’ ability to hold crypto or deal with crypto clients, but strongly discouraging them from doing so on a “safety and soundness” basis

4) On Jan. 9 2023,, Metropolitan Commercial Bank (one of the few banks that serve crypto clients) announces a total shutdown of its cryptoasset-related vertical

5) On Jan. 9 2023,, Silvergate stock falls to a low of $11.55 on bank run and insolvency fears, having traded as high as $160 in March 2022

6) On Jan. 21 2023,, Binance announces that due to policy at Signature bank, they will only process user fiat transactions worth more than $100,000

7) On Jan. 27 2023,, the Federal Reserve denies crypto bank Custodia’s two-year application to become a member of the Federal Reserve system, citing “safety and soundness” risks

8 ) On Jan. 27 2023,, the Kansas City Fed branch denies Custodia’s application for a master account, which would have given it the ability to use wholesale payment services, and to hold reserves with the Fed directly

9) On Jan. 27 2023,, the Fed also issues a policy statement which discourages banks from holding cryptoassets or issuing stablecoins, and broadens their authority to cover non-FDIC insured state-chartered banks (a reaction to Wyoming Special Purpose Depository Institutions (SPDIs) like Custodia, which can hold crypto alongside fiat for its banking customers)

10) On Jan. 27 2023,, the National Economic Council releases a policy statement not explicitly banning banks from serving crypto clients, but strongly discouraging banks from transacting with cryptoassets directly or maintaining exposure to crypto depositors

11) On Feb. 2 2023,, the DoJ’s fraud unit announces an investigation into Silvergate over their dealings with FTX and Alameda

12) On Feb. 6 2023,, Binance suspends USD bank transfers for retail clients (Binance US was not affected)

13) On Feb. 7 2023,, the Jan. 27 Fed statement is entered into the federal register, turning the policy statement into a final rule, with no Congressional review, or public notice-and-comment period

14) As of Feb. 8 2023,, Protego and Paxos’ applications to follow Anchorage and obtain full approval to become National Trust Banks are still outstanding (past the 18 month deadline), and appear likely to be imminently denied by the OCC.

The bold highlighting of the year is my own.

Which one of these measures and statements was withdrawn?

Withdrawn? That you rely on parroting things like the DoJ investigating Silvergate and its relationship with FTX and Alameda a year ago to defend a conspiracy theory that is not happening in the US or in any democratic country in the world does not require much explanation.

[Peter90]

Thanks 0t3, I'll comment on your remarks later.
I'm a member of a gold forum, whose admin in May 2023 authored an article titled America's War on Crypto, in which he writes:

Three Pronged Attack​

The American government is currently employing a three pronged attack on the crypto industry in an attempt to suffocate it.

Prong number one makes headlines in most news media and involves the SEC purposefully maintaining vague guidance and attacking companies with lawsuits.
Their behavior has been so egregious that it has drawn dissent from their own ranks and from Congress. The SEC has apparently been tasked to be the Biden administration's Shawshank warden Samuel Norton in obtusely responding to the crypto industry. There really isn't any other way to explain SEC chair Gensler's blatant hypocrisy.

Prong number two has flown under the radar of most news media and involves the revival of Operation Choke Point - an Obama era program that aimed to de-bank lawful industries that the administration disfavored.
The operation was shut down circa 2017, but is now making a comeback targeting the crypto industry.
Cooper & Kirk, a law firm that sued FDIC, OCC & Fed over the original Operation Choke Point, published a detailed summary of Operation Choke Point 2.0.

The third prong involves legislation and executive orders designed to handcuff the crypto industry including increasing taxes on bitcoin miners and regulations.

So, since that guy is from Texas, I asked him whether Operation Choke Point 2 is still going on.
He was nice and replied 




"When a startup crypto business gets denied banking accounts, it doesn't generally make the news."

I wish some users from the USA could chime in...

[TomPluz]

In 2017, Trump and Republican lawmakers like Rep. Luetkemeyer were able to put a stop to Choke Point for a time, but it didn’t last. One of the first moves from Biden’s OCC was to undo Brian Brook’s Fair Access rule that prohibited political discrimination in banking. Biden’s deputies picked up where Obama’s regulators had left off. And now, after the time it took to digest Biden’s Executive Orders, regulators are tightening the screw.

This is one reason why I do believe that between Biden and Trump...it is the latter that is a lot more crypto friendly than the former. And that is why the crypto industry as a whole should be wishing that DJT can be back in the WH by January 2025 though I understand that people may have their own perceived differences with Trump and may not be voting for him. Well, I am just wishing they would because I could not vote being non-American myself. Anyway, let's leave politics to the ballots. Now, when I heard about this "Operation Choke Point" it reminds me of those in the top once again using their power to squeeze players in a certain industry...and in this case the cryptocurrency industry. We have seen how SEC is really an enmity to the industry as a whole and if not for a court order we would not have BTC-ETFs today as Gary Gensler  was then quite adamant with this strong opposition to such a facility. What is sinister is that these people are doing their things silently, not letting the people know what they are doing and the mainstream press is agreeing with them all the way as if not capable of committing mistakes and no matter what can be the repercussions. Another four years and the cryptocurrency industry in USA would be a withering plant. Here in my country, after years of being lax with cryptocurrency and its many tax issues, seems to me the current administration is now starting to take a look and see which platforms can continue doing business as there can be some that got some presence but have no required license to do so. I am not so sure yet where there is going to as there is no laid out general roadmap for the industry yet...so this remains to be seen.

[robelneo]

Here in my country, after years of being lax with cryptocurrency and its many tax issues, seems to me the current administration is now starting to take a look and see which platforms can continue doing business as there can be some that got some presence but have no required license to do so. I am not so sure yet where there is going to as there is no laid out general roadmap for the industry yet...so this remains to be seen.

You mean Binance, because in a few weeks, it will be banned in our country, in this the case the government just wants Cryptocurrency platforms to be compliant and run their business with government regulation because they want to protect their people, so far the taxation is not yet laid out for Cryptocurrency users but if they implement it, then the government want to have control on platforms and users, but yes we'll wait and see what the government are planning now because they cannot ignore Cryptocurrency in our country.

[pacar_tiri]

You mean Binance, because in a few weeks, it will be banned in our country, in this the case the government just wants Cryptocurrency platforms to be compliant and run their business with government regulation because they want to protect their people, so far the taxation is not yet laid out for Cryptocurrency users but if they implement it, then the government want to have control on platforms and users, but yes we'll wait and see what the government are planning now because they cannot ignore Cryptocurrency in our country.

When the government tries to regulate cryptocurrency circulation, it will never be able to, but to regulate cryptocurrency platforms such as exchanges that are based in several countries, they will probably have their own financial regulations and must be registered with the government to run smoothly, as is already the case in many countries. which accepts transactions using cryptocurrency, so it is not an important problem to continue to comply with the rules in each country.

[Peter90]

You'll Never Believe What Senator Elizabeth Warren Just Did

Bitcoin Magazine's Mark Goodwin reports that in an unexpected turn of events, Elizabeth Warren, the long-time adversary of Bitcoin on Capitol Hill, has seen the orange-tinted light and quite literally raised a flag to praise the work of Bitcoin’s anonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, celebrating 15 years since the network launched.

In participation of the Capitol Flag Program, Senator Warren’s office submitted a request to commemorate Nakamoto’s accomplishment of creating the first “truly inclusive financial system,” with the colors of the United States being flown above the Capitol on December 18, 2023 – a date known to Bitcoiners as HODL Day.




Only one week before Warren ordered the flag flown, the Senator introduced legislation to give the Treasury more tools to restrict the criminal usage of Bitcoin, making bold comments that they “need new laws to crack down on crypto’s use in enabling terrorist groups, rogue nations, drug lords, ransomware gangs, and fraudsters to launder billions in stolen funds, evade sanctions, fund illegal weapons programs, and profit from devastating cyberattacks.”

zerohedge.com

Honestly... I'm confused ... 

[ABCbits]

While i doubt authenticate of such news, i don't expect such operation have major impact when smaller bank would continue to accept cryptocurrency activity or business for more profit and customer.

You'll Never Believe What Senator Elizabeth Warren Just Did

--snip--

Honestly... I'm confused ... 

I would guess she did it to claim that she's not anti crypto, even though law she suggest reduce freedom offered by cryptocurrency in general.

[Peter90]

While i doubt authenticate of such news, i don't expect such operation have major impact when smaller bank would continue to accept cryptocurrency activity or business for more profit and customer.

Well that's the point ABC, smaller banks in the USA don't accept crypto activity or business.
These are only some instances from last year:


"On Dec. 7, Signature (among the most active banks serving crypto clients) announces its intent to halve deposits ascribed to crypto clients — in other words, they’ll give customers their money back, then shut down their accounts — drawing its crypto deposits down from $23b at peak to $10b, and to exit its stablecoin business

On Jan. 3, the Fed, the FDIC, and the OCC release a joint statement on the risks to banks engaging with crypto, not explicitly banning banks’ ability to hold crypto or deal with crypto clients, but strongly discouraging them from doing so on a “safety and soundness” basis

On Jan. 9, Metropolitan Commercial Bank (one of the few banks that serve crypto clients) announces a total shutdown of its cryptoasset-related vertical

On Jan. 27, the Fed also issues a policy statement which discourages banks from holding cryptoassets or issuing stablecoins

On Jan. 27,the National Economic Council releases a policy statement not explicitly banning banks from serving crypto clients, but strongly discouraging banks from transacting with cryptoassets directly or maintaining exposure to crypto depositors


In sum, banks taking deposits from crypto clients, issuing stablecoins, engaging in crypto custody, or seeking to hold crypto as principal have faced nothing short of an onslaught from regulators in recent weeks.

Time and again, using the expression “safety and soundness,” they’ve made it clear that for a bank, touching public blockchains in any way is considered unacceptably risky."

piratewires.com


Please note that things have not changed since then: none of these measures or statements were taken back.
If you are a crypto business in the USA you can't open an bank account for your company, because US banks are afraid of the regulators, they are aware that regulators are against crypto business.

[Peter90]

While i doubt authenticate of such news

It looks like you are smarter than me 
It was a prank!

"CoinDesk’s Sam Kessler reported on how the prank was pulled off: “anyone can, for a fee, fill out a form on the Senator's website to have a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol.”
And apparently someone did.

While there doesn’t appear to be a record online of the flag being flown (or any documented evidence, for that matter), the anonymous prankster did send the certificates Sen. Warren’s office signed to PubKey, a waterhole for Bitcoiners in downtown New York City.

Last night, comedian T.J. Miller revealed the documents at the establishment, PubKey’s head of marketing Daniel Modell said in an interview with CoinDesk.
“I mean, if they're not reading simple things like a certificate, how deeply do they read legislation?” Modell said

It’s likely the prank will rank among other legendary moments of lighthearted sabotage, like Bitcoin Sign Guy broadcasting to the world to buy bitcoin as now Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was delivering a talk, or the still unknown Apple employee who put a version of the Bitcoin white paper on MacOS."

coindesk.com

[Geey]

If I'm not mistaken, I've heard articles like this. If this is true, this will happen to the development of crypto, why is crypto still developing even further than before, even many companies and countries are using it, although not all countries, but I am sure that crypto will continue to live in the future because crypto brings new technology, even every bank in the country there are those who are collaborating with crypto.. even though crypto in my country is not yet fully permitted, the government has started to see the sophistication of crypto technology and they have started to be interested in crypto, I hope the government in my country uses crypto technology too.