Uncategorized
De-banking Deserves Urgent Attention

Until last week, the issue of de-banking remained largely an open secret, something known primarily to insiders like myself. As I work to protect people and entities affected by de-banking both in the U.S. and globally, I have witnessed firsthand the devastating economic and social impact this has had on businesspeople, nonprofit organizations and “politically exposed persons.”
This situation changed as millions of people became familiar with the concept of de-banking after venture capitalist Marc Andreessen <a href=»https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRj9pIITwEU» target=»_blank»>appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast</a>. Andreessen discussed the exclusion of politically disfavored individuals and entities from the financial system, focusing specifically on the crypto-assets industry.
His remarks triggered a wave of responses, drawing attention to the broader issue of de-banking in the tech and cryptocurrency sectors. Prominent figures like the <a href=»https://x.com/tyler/status/1862860178577563944″ target=»_blank»>Winklevoss brothers</a>, known for their contributions to cryptocurrency exchange development, voiced their frustrations. <a href=»https://x.com/davidmarcus/status/1862654506774810641″ target=»_blank»>David Marcus</a>, former leader of Facebook’s Libra/Diem project, commented on how the U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen allegedly pressured Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to dissuade banks from supporting the project (which was started by Facebook). Similarly, <a href=»https://x.com/Nneuman/status/1862899117019566262″ target=»_blank»>Nick Neuman</a>, CEO of Casa, recounted his experience of being de-banked by Silicon Valley Bank. His company, which offers self-custodial services, faced rejection from nearly 50 banks before finally securing a partnership with one institution.
In her recently published memoir, former First Lady Melania Trump revealed that a bank abruptly terminated her long-standing financial relationship, and her son Barron was blocked from opening a new account at the same institution. While the bank’s name remains undisclosed, the incident highlights the arbitrary and opaque nature of such decisions.
People and entities are being “de-banked” at an alarming rate, meaning their access to financial services is being terminated either by direct political pressures, the weaponization of regulations, or simply as an unintended consequence of other regulations.
De-banking is economically isolating not only entrepreneurs in the crypto-assets sector but also a wide range of communities, including international businesses, humanitarian organizations, public individuals, human rights activists, businesses deemed as unethical, and legal immigrants.
I began working on this policy issue in the spring of 2023. While researching sanctions policy, I discovered that malicious political actors around the world were exploiting the financial system to repress their opponents, both domestically and globally. In Nicaragua, for example, activists like <a href=»https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/online-exclusive/how-dictators-use-financial-repression-against-their-opponents/» target=»_blank»>Felix Maradiaga</a> have argued that the government has abused the financial system to terminate bank accounts and strip the assets of activists, non-profit organizations, and even the Church.
This understudies policy issue sparked my interest, prompting me to delve deeper into this completely understudied policy issue. I spoke with numerous dissidents in exile, human rights defenders, and businesspeople who had been targeted in this manner. They shared how their bank accounts were arbitrarily closed, assets frozen, and private financial information weaponized against them.
Malicious political and business actors de-bank people and entities by abusing Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CFT) regulations. For instance, they orchestrate targeted disinformation campaigns to falsely accuse individuals or organizations of money laundering or financing terrorism. Amplified through state-controlled media, these accusations feed into automated compliance systems used by financial institutions. Once flagged, the targeted accounts are often closed or denied access to services to avoid regulatory penalties — irrespective of the credibility of the claims. This has been the case of activists like <a href=»https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RniCVb99mM8″ target=»_blank»>Lyudmyla Kozlovska</a>, President of the Open Dialogue Foundation.
Moreover, malicious political actors exploit the global trust placed in Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), which serve as clearinghouses for financial data under AML/CFT frameworks. AML/CFT regulations require FIUs to exchange sensitive financial data with international counterparts to combat crime. However, in authoritarian regimes, FIUs often operate as tools of state repression, granting governments access to dissidents’ financial records, transaction histories, and personal details. This sensitive information is weaponized to intimidate, harass, and undermine critics both domestically and abroad.
De-banking and vulnerable groups
Beyond their deliberate weaponization, the misuse of AML/CFT laws frequently yields unintended consequences that disproportionately impact vulnerable groups, such as immigrants. Financial institutions in the U.S. often classify individuals from certain regions as “high risk,” as their countries of origin are labeled as “high-risk jurisdictions” by financial institutions. This classification triggers enhanced compliance measures, requiring additional documentation, background checks, and ongoing monitoring for these individuals to access financial services.
For immigrants, this creates barriers to entry into the financial system. Many face exorbitant costs and excessive scrutiny, discouraging financial institutions from onboarding them as clients. This “de-risking” practice, where banks terminate or deny services to perceived high-risk clients to minimize compliance burdens, often leaves immigrants without access to even basic banking services such as savings accounts or payment systems. Without these services, immigrants struggle to integrate into their host countries’ economies, send remittances to their families, or establish credit histories, perpetuating cycles of financial and social exclusion.
The Need for Awareness and Action
The rise of de-banking as a political weapon is a wake-up call for all of us to act. Silence only perpetuates these injustices. If we do not act now, the financial system risks becoming a privilege reserved for the few — a battleground for partisan agendas — rather than a neutral platform designed to empower individuals, safeguard their savings, and facilitate economic activity.
We need to continue raising awareness about this crisis and fight for a “Right to Banking.” This right must transcend nationality, political beliefs, or economic status, ensuring that no one is arbitrarily excluded from participating in the global economy. Guaranteeing this access is not only an economic necessity but a moral imperative, foundational to modern citizenship and human dignity. We also ought to protect new financial solutions in the crypto-assets space, as they are key to advancing financial inclusion globally — thanks to their permissionless nature and decentralized structure.
To achieve this, we must demand structural reforms that address the flaws in AML/CFT regulations. These laws must include safeguards to prevent their misuse as tools for political repression or financial exclusion, as well as clear remedies for victims of debanking. Structural reforms are essential to ensure that neither autocratic politicians nor malicious private sector actors can weaponize the financial system.
Let’s work together, policymakers, industry leaders, and civil society, to build momentum for reforms that preserve the financial system’s integrity, including the protection of the crypto-assets sector. Together, we must ensure that the financial system (traditional and modern financial instruments) remains an inclusive and well-functioning pillar of our market economy.
Uncategorized
5 Ways the SEC Can Embrace Innovation

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has long been the world’s most influential financial regulator, helping to ensure our capital markets are the deepest, fairest, and most accessible in the world. But its continued relevance will depend on whether it can do more than merely respond to innovation — it must proactively foster it.
For nearly a century, the SEC has adapted to evolving markets, new technologies and greater retail participation. In its best moments, the agency has embraced innovation in service of transparency, investor protection, and capital formation. But in recent years, it has strayed from that legacy — nowhere more visibly than in its approach to crypto and blockchain.
The good news is, with a change in leadership and a more open posture emerging, the SEC has a chance to course-correct. But the bigger question is: how do we make that change permanent? How do we build innovation into the SEC’s DNA so that the next promising financial technology isn’t strangled in its crib?
I spent nearly six years at the SEC, first as a Senior Counsel in the Division of Enforcement and then as Chief Counsel in the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs. I’ve since held senior legal and policy roles in crypto firms across the ecosystem. From both perspectives, one thing is clear: the SEC can fulfill its mission more effectively — and maintain its global leadership — only if it becomes a proactive partner in financial innovation.
The SEC at Its Best
The SEC has a proud history of embracing change to the benefit of investors and markets alike. In the 1990s, it digitized corporate filings through EDGAR, replacing paper documents with searchable databases. It later approved Regulation ATS, enabling the rise of alternative trading systems that increased competition and liquidity. ETFs, which were once novel, are now mainstream products that offer low-cost, diversified exposure to a wide range of assets. More recently, fractional-share trading has empowered millions of retail investors to own a slice of companies they once could only admire from afar.
One especially relevant example as the SEC thinks about how to regulate crypto is the agency’s treatment of asset-backed securities. In the 1980s and 1990s, the SEC recognized that these complex financial products didn’t fit neatly into existing disclosure regimes. After years of study and no-action letters, it developed a tailored disclosure framework in 2004 — refined further in 2014 — that balanced innovation with investor protection. And it didn’t need to bring hundreds of enforcement actions to do it.
When the SEC Fell Behind
There are also times the SEC failed to adapt, to the detriment of both investors and markets. It was slow to respond to the rise of high-frequency trading, contributing to the 2010 Flash Crash. It took years to implement the crowdfunding rules authorized by the JOBS Act. It lagged on digital reporting standards, delaying broader access to market data.
And, for much of the last few years, its stance on crypto veered from caution to outright hostility. Instead of issuing clear rules for digital assets, the agency pursued a scattershot enforcement campaign — often against firms that were seeking to comply in good faith. Many of these actions didn’t even involve fraud or investor loss. Meanwhile, American crypto companies fled overseas, and a global industry flourished without us.
Even the SEC’s grudging approval of spot bitcoin ETFs in 2024 came only after it was forced by a federal court. And while the agency at one point talked about creating a crypto disclosure framework akin to what it did for ABS, it never followed through.
Innovation Isn’t the Enemy
Crypto may be new, but the SEC has faced this challenge before. It knows how to modernize its rules to meet new realities. What’s different now is the opportunity to leverage innovation — not just regulate it.
Take blockchain technology. It could enable near-instant trade settlement, reducing risk and freeing up capital. It could improve market transparency through immutable records and real-time transaction data. It could lower operational costs by reducing intermediaries. And tokenization could expand access to private markets and hard-to-reach asset classes, benefiting both issuers and investors.
Ironically, the SEC hasn’t seriously explored how blockchain could improve its own market oversight. That’s a missed opportunity. But it’s not too late.
A Blueprint for the Future
So what would it look like to build innovation into the SEC’s core mission?
- Revise the SEC’s Mandate: Congress should amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to explicitly include the promotion of innovation and modernization, alongside investor protection, market integrity, and capital formation.
- Rethink Metrics of Success: The SEC shouldn’t measure success solely by the number of enforcement actions or penalties collected. It should also look to capital formation, investor confidence, and the safe adoption of new technologies.
- Create an Innovation Office: A dedicated, empowered team should engage with entrepreneurs, technologists, and academics to guide responsible innovation — just as similar offices in the U.K. and Singapore have done.
- Adopt Risk-Based Regulation: Not every new product or platform needs full regulatory treatment on day one. Pilot programs, safe harbors, and regulatory sandboxes can help innovators test ideas while maintaining appropriate guardrails.
- Invest in Education and Training: SEC staff need better fluency in emerging technologies. Cross-disciplinary expertise should be rewarded and cultivated.
These are not radical ideas — they are proven tools drawn from the SEC’s own playbook.
In a global race to define the future of finance, the SEC has a choice: lead or fall behind. Its greatest strength has always been its credibility and ability to adapt.
The next generation of investors and entrepreneurs won’t wait around for 20th-century rules to catch up to 21st-century innovation. Nor should they have to. If the SEC wants to remain the gold standard, it must adapt once again — not just to the present, but to what comes next.
Uncategorized
Is ETH Still Special?

We are never shy about holding ETH to account as crypto’s second largest asset and the DeFi intuition gateway for traditional investors. But mainstream adoption requires a growth story, and so far this year ETH is (put kindly) failing to lead.
ETH sits in 16th place in the CoinDesk 20 YTD performance leaderboard, down 53%. Going back a year, the numbers look similar: 15th place and down 50%. Its market cap has dwindled so much relative to XRP that both are expected to be capped in the upcoming CoinDesk 20 reconstitution, a first.
ETH’s woes are news to few in the industry, but for us as index and product builders for «5%-ers,» it begs the question: is ETH still special? A distinguished provenance can only take you so far. ETH continues to dominate its on-chain categories (even before adding in L2s) and is arguably the second best brand name in crypto. There are even thoughtful ideas about ETH’s end-state as an essential supporting component of our blockchain future; we hear expressions like, «Ethereum will be the clearinghouse of DeFi.»
But mainstream adoption requires a growth story.
We have observed over the last few weeks that bitcoin has shown impressive resilience to fragile global markets. This past week was no exception, and as we pointed out last week, expectations for higher inflation – now echoed by Fed Chair Powell – could help support movement into bitcoin.
But the crypto market’s dependency on bitcoin to lead prices higher is one we hope the digital asset class outgrows. ETH can reassert a leadership position, as it briefly did in the weeks following the U.S. election. If not, CoinDesk 20 investors have exposure to much of ETH’s competition.
Uncategorized
GSR Anchors $100M Investment in Upexi to Purchase SOL, Stock Rockets 700%

Crypto trading firm GSR led a $100 million private placement into Upexi (UPXI), a consumer-goods company pivoting to a digital asset-based treasury strategy.
The company, whose products include medicinal mushroom gummies and pet-grooming tools, said it will use the capital to accumulate and stake solana (SOL) tokens. The Tampa, Florida-based company had a market cap of $3 million on Friday.
The investment, structured as a private investment in public equity (PIPE), comes as Upexi shifts from physical product manufacturing to managing part of its balance sheet using Solana, a high-speed blockchain known for low fees and fast settlement, according to a press release.
The investment announcement sent Upexi’s stock soaring more than 700%, from around $2.30 to $19 at the time of writing.
GSR’s involvement points to a growing overlap between public markets and blockchain finance.
“This investment highlights the growing demand for efficient, secure access to high-quality crypto assets in public markets” Brian Rudick, GSR’s head of research, said in a statement.
Solana Foundation president Lily Liu said the deal marked another step in connecting traditional financial firms with decentralized infrastructure.
The move “underscores GSR’s confidence in Solana as a leading high-performance blockchain,” the finance company said in a release.
-
Fashion6 месяцев ago
These \’90s fashion trends are making a comeback in 2017
-
Entertainment6 месяцев ago
The final 6 \’Game of Thrones\’ episodes might feel like a full season
-
Fashion6 месяцев ago
According to Dior Couture, this taboo fashion accessory is back
-
Entertainment6 месяцев ago
The old and New Edition cast comes together to perform
-
Sports6 месяцев ago
Phillies\’ Aaron Altherr makes mind-boggling barehanded play
-
Business6 месяцев ago
Uber and Lyft are finally available in all of New York State
-
Entertainment6 месяцев ago
Disney\’s live-action Aladdin finally finds its stars
-
Sports6 месяцев ago
Steph Curry finally got the contract he deserves from the Warriors