loading

190164 author: classwario@mastodon.social 25 Feb 20:35
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/sen-grassley-launches-inquiry-into-unitedhealth-groups-medicare-billing-2025-02-25/
tags: #healthcare #unitedhealthcare #uspol #uspolitics

Activism works.

#uspol #USPolitics #healthcare #unitedhealthcare

187143 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 21 Feb 14:43
tags: #coinbase #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

(Don’t forget that $50 million of those contributions appeared to be blatantly illegal, although Trump is already hard at work making the Federal Elections Commission even less effective than it previously was.)

https://www.citationneeded.news/coinbase-campaign-finance-violation/

187142 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 21 Feb 14:43
tags: #coinbase #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Coinbase says that the SEC has agreed to drop the enforcement case against the company. It only cost them $75 million in political contributions.

180830 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 15:09
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Sadly, the Congressional majority appears far more eager to spend its political capital making bold statements about debanking only when it applies to crypto billionaires, while dismantling the very agencies best positioned to help debanking victims.

This disconnect between rhetoric and reality matters because it threatens to derail meaningful progress on debanking. Real victims of discriminatory banking practices — racial and religious minorities, low-income individuals, legal but controversial businesses — need systemic solutions and stronger consumer protections. Glimmers of bipartisan agreement emerged during the hearings — with various Congresspeople and witnesses describing potential changes to improve transparency or appeals processes when banks deny services to prospective customers. However, in the end, the Congressional majority appears far more eager to spend its political capital making bold statements about debanking only when it applies to crypto billionaires, while dismantling the very agencies best positioned to help debanking victims.

The path forward requires separating legitimate concerns about discriminatory debanking from the crypto industry's self-serving narrative. It requires acknowledging that proper oversight of high-risk industries isn't the same as improper targeting of vulnerable groups. Most importantly, it requires maintaining and strengthening — not dismantling — the regulatory frameworks that protect consumers from both discriminatory banking practices and predatory financial schemes.

180829 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 15:08
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Meanwhile, the agency most involved in handling debanking is being dismantled, to cheers from the crypto industry. “Debanking” is a crypto rallying cry only so far as it supports their deregulatory agenda, dropped the second it might result in actual consumer protections.

Meanwhile, the one agency most involved in handling debanking complaints has been forced to pause work and is currently being dismantled.22 At the most recent Senate hearing, Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren came prepared with analysis of thousands of complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by customers who had lost access to their bank accounts without any explanation or opportunity for appeal.23 Several other Democratic Congresspeople raised the alarm during these hearings about the shutdown of the CFPB and its impact on people who are being shafted by banks, financial services companies, and fintechs, to be met with silence from Republicans on the other side who apparently are not concerned with that kind of debanking — or at least not concerned enough about it to stick their neck out against shadow President Elon Musk — and are only concerned about the alleged debanking of their crypto benefactors.

The crypto industry’s co-opting of legitimate debanking concerns represents a particularly cynical form of regulatory theater. Companies like Coinbase claim to be champions fighting discriminatory banking practices while simultaneously celebrating the shutdown of the CFPB — the very agency most equipped to tackle systemic debanking. When Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong took to Twitter to celebrate Musk’s attempt to shutdown the CFPB as “100% the right call”, describing the Bureau as “unconstitutional” (it isn’t24) and “an activist organization that has done enormous harm to this country”, he revealed the industry’s true priorities.25 Debanking is suddenly less of concern when the same group that is most equipped to tackle it has proposed consumer protections for crypto customers [I73] that could cause Coinbase to have to reimburse some of the $300 million or so stolen from its customers over the past year alone [I74]. “Debanking” is a crypto rallying cry only to the extent that it supports their deregulatory agenda, to be dropped the second that addressing debanking might result in consumer protection requirements forcing companies like his to treat customers properly.

180828 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 15:06
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Broadly: despite bipartisan agreement that discriminatory debanking happens to some groups and individuals, there is no agreement about who those people are, or what to do about it.

The good news in all of these hearings and conversations is there seems to be widespread bipartisan acknowledgment that debanking happens, and that it’s a problem. The bad news is that there’s very little agreement around who is suffering as a result of debanking, or what to do about it.

When Democrats like Representative Tlaib and Senator Warren raise concerns about racial or religious minorities being disproportionately denied access to banking services, Republicans remain deafeningly quiet about racial discrimination in access to banking (with the exception of Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-NC), who likened the crypto industry’s supposed debanking to the redlining against his Black grandfather and mother, but who otherwise seemed to treat such issues as a thing of the past).

When some raise concerns about denial of banking services to firearms dealers, others respond that banks should be allowed to individually decide to do or not to do business with whomever they like, and that they should be permitted to protect their banks’ reputations by not serving groups their customer base may disfavor.18a

When people argue that low-income individuals need to be provided banking services, others suggest that no one should force banks to take on the risk of a client who may be more likely to bounce checks or improperly manage their finances.19b

And some even seem to disagree with themselves, taking inconsistent stances based on the victim of the debanking. For example, in September 2023, Senator Ricketts (R-NE) led opposition to the SAFER Banking Act, highlighting money laundering risk and suggesting that limiting banking access to marijuana businesses would help him further his opposition to the marijuana industry (he alleged marijuana causes “significant mental health damage to youth” and “is associated with psychosis, motor vehicle accidents, respiratory problems, and low birth weight”).20 Now, however, he brushes aside money laundering concerns when crypto is involved, and argues that “It undermines the rule of law in our country if regulators start pushing an agenda of what they want to see, what kind of businesses you do business with versus what you’re allowed to do. ... A legal business should not lose access to the banking system just because they deal in firearms or crypto or something like that because a regulator doesn’t like that. That’s just simply wrong. But that’s what we’ve seen of course out of the last two administrations: it was mentioned earlier about Operation Choke Point 1.0 under the Obama administration and firearms dealers for example that were disfavored, were prejudiced against and [regulators] tried to force out of the financial system.”21

As for what to do with it, the leaders of this crusade against supposed crypto debanking can’t even seem to agree among themselves. Some of the Republicans say it’s an issue with the regulators, others say it’s an issue with the bankers. Some want to see sweeping changes at the regulatory level, while others — including the crypto industry’s top-funded Congressperson this cycle, Bernie Moreno (R-OH) — want to just let the free market sort it out, saying “it’s competition that ultimately makes this go away” and “we need more competition in banking, that will fix us.”

180827 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 15:04
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

But the industry’s bold claims that “Operation Choke Point 2.0 is real” are hyperbole intended to mislead. Perhaps they need more time to acquire the proof they claim exists. Perhaps they will just continue to claim it exists, and hope no one notices they haven’t produced it.

However, the crypto industry’s suggestions that these FDIC document releases contain incontrovertible, smoking-gun proof of some Biden administration or regulator directive are hyperbole aimed at misleading those who don’t have the time or interest to read several hundreds of pages of documents (our Congresspeople among them, I suspect). The same types of attempts to mislead are also evident in their treatment of recent comments by FDIC Acting Chair Travis Hill, who had previously served as Vice Chairman of the FDIC since January 2023 and has worked at the agency since 2018. When Hill acknowledged shortly after being installed as Acting Chair that “Over the past few years, there have been various accounts of individuals and businesses associated with the crypto industry losing access to bank accounts without explanation” — a simple statement of fact about complaints that have been made — the industry treated it as confirmation that improper debanking occurred. If they truly believed Hill was confirming improper debanking pressure was being applied by the FDIC, their calls for his resignation should be deafening — after all, he would have held a powerful role in overseeing the very activities he condemns, and he himself stated later in that speech “there is no place at the FDIC for anyone who has pushed — explicitly or implicitly — banks to stop serving law-abiding customers”.

This pattern of selective interpretation and opportunistic outrage is not limited to their treatment of Hill's comments, however. Their attacks on those who have not claimed that crypto companies have been denied bank accounts, and who have not claimed that it’s impossible that there was government pressure to debank crypto companies, but who have simply pointed out that the supposedly firm evidence of a governmental anti-crypto debanking campaign is anything but, demonstrate that their goal is not to uncover the truth about debanking, but to advance their dubious narratives in service of their policy agendas [I74].

It’s also worth noting that the crypto industry's claims of a government-led debanking campaign are essentially unfalsifiable, given the lack of public access to private government documents and correspondence. Yet, despite now having a Republican-controlled House, Senate, and Presidency, with pro-crypto appointees installed throughout regulatory agencies and Elon Musk and his team of interns rooting around in every government database they can get their hands on, and a new FDIC chair apparently willing to order the release of considerably more documents than his predecessor, the industry has still failed to produce any strong evidence to support its claims. This lack of proof, even with the deck stacked in their favor, is telling. Perhaps they will say they just need more time, but if the evidence of a coordinated debanking campaign were as clear-cut as the

180826 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 15:03
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

We are in a situation where reasonable people can look at the same set of documents and some will conclude that the regulators are simply doing their jobs, while others conclude that regulators are improperly pressuring banks to not provide services to those customers at all.

I also think that we are in a world where banking and other financial regulators have been burned by the past collapses of the cryptocurrency industry, which has very much proven itself to be a high-risk industry, and have determined that they need to apply additional scrutiny. Where Representative Green did have a reasonable point was when he stated, “I wouldn't want to be a regulator. It's a tough job because if a bank fails then you didn't do enough and then if it somehow doesn't give you the kind of regulation that you want it's too much.” (Indeed, Representative Hill (R-AR) demonstrated this dichotomy as applied to crypto companies when he opened the hearing by blasting the SEC, stating “one of our witnesses today, Coinbase, an American company registered as a public company with the SEC, was treated poorly and FTX, a criminal organization, wasn't even investigated.”)

Simultaneously, we are in a world where the cryptocurrency industry has proven itself to be violently allergic to any and all regulation — including legitimate regulatory enforcement — and has spent years portraying that regulation as not only unwanted but as improper and even illegal. We are in a world where Congresspeople have campaigned on this very subject. And we’re in a world where crypto companies are hell-bent on establishing that they were victimized by regulators so as to obtain ammunition for their attacks against those regulators, as well as attacks against laws that would limit them from doing

And so in this world, it is not surprising that we are in a situation where different people can look at the same set of documents and some will conclude that the regulators are simply doing their jobs by ensuring banks are doing adequate risk management with high-risk customers, while others conclude that regulators are improperly pressuring banks to not provide services to those customers at all. This is particularly the case because the documents are partially redacted, leaving some sentences and even entire communications open to very different interpretations depending on how the reader’s brain tries to fill in the blanks.

180825 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 15:01
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

So: is this regulatory oversight, or overreach?

Oversight or overreach?
The crypto industry has argued that there does not need to be a plain-text directive from a regulator that “you may not provide banking services to crypto industry customers” to establish that the FDIC was pressuring banks not to serve customers from that industry. I firmly agree. And I found Representative Green’s question about whether anyone has “read some document from the Biden Administration or some regulator indicating that there is an Operation Choke Point 2.0? That said ‘2.0’?” — as though they would have to brand it that themselves in writing in order for such a pressure campaign to exist — to be ridiculous.

Indeed, some evidence presented at the hearings did raise legitimate concerns about regulatory overreach, even if it didn't specifically support claims of an anti-crypto agenda. For instance, Senator Lummis (R-WY) presented a troubling screenshot from a Federal Reserve manual instructing staff to “consider the conduct of the institution and its leadership and whether association with the institution poses undue reputational risk to the Reserve Bank” and asking whether “the institution's leadership associated with controversial commentary or activities?” Such guidance could certainly enable discriminatory treatment based on subjective judgments about what constitutes “controversial” activity, even if it wasn't specifically targeted at cryptocurrency companies, and I was just as delighted as some of those with very different political beliefs to mine when Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell promised during his regular Congressional report to ensure it was removed.17

180824 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 15:00
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

There were some conversations with banks about offering depository accounts to crypto companies, which I focused on in particular as this is the root of the industry’s claims.

There are some portions of the FDIC documents that discuss banks merely providing depository banking services to customers in the cryptocurrency industry or associated with crypto, and that was what I was most interested in, as directives from the FDIC to deny these types of services to those customers wholesale would be something much more reasonably described as a Choke Point-style debanking campaign.

In the FDIC’s most recent document release, there were a handful of types of communications that fell into this category. Some were inquiries by banks to the FDIC as to whether the FIL directive to report “activities involving or related to crypto assets” included when they merely offered depository banking services to crypto-related companies. This definitely seems like something the FIL should have been clearer about, as in one case even the FDIC employee who responded wasn’t sure of the answer and had to ask another office (although they instructed the customer to proceed under the assumption that this was not covered by the FIL).8 However, in several other letters, the FDIC clarified that no, merely offering fiat banking services (including loans) to crypto companies did not fall within the scope of the FIL — something it seems they would be unlikely to say if they were indeed trying to systematically prevent banks from serving crypto companies.910 In one case, there was some question about whether a relationship with a bank fell within scope, and the FDIC seemed to dete

Some other documents contained discussions between banks and the FDIC about banks’ crypto-related depository customers, but seemed fairly run-of-the-mill. In one FDIC memo, representatives from the bank and the regulator discussed crypto customers with high cash activity, and the need to apply more diligence to understand those cash transactions since they were high risk. The FDIC representative in that case was explicit that “we are not asking the bank to exit these relationships”, and a bank representative expressed that they believed “most of the recommendations [pertaining to digital asset customers] were really good”.12 A very similar conversation occurred between the FDIC and a bank that was providing banking services to a Bitcoin ATM operator, where a bank representative expressed concern that the FDIC “has made a determination that banking these [redacted] customers is not ok”, and an FDIC representative “reiterated that we are not requiring the bank to exit the business, but to conduct more due diligence, look at the potential red flags, and provide the bank’s board with the results. The decision whether or not to continue to bank these customers should be a business decision made by the board after review of the additional information.”13 In a few cases there were broad questions from the FDIC to banks they already knew had crypto-related depository and loan customers, for example a few days after the FTX collapse, when an FDIC case manager asked about “any trends

There were also conversations about banking relationships with cryptocurrency companies that involved not only depository accounts but “for benefit of” (FBO) accounts: where a company holds customer funds in an account with the bank for the benefit of their customers. In these cases, the FDIC asked a number of fairly standard questions pertaining to account structure, size, capital requirements, and so on.15

In several cases, banks described closing accounts belonging to crypto customers, but these seemed to me to be of the banks’ own volition and as a result of their internal risk management decisions.1016

180822 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 14:58
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

However, there is no shortage of extremely concerning replies from banks to these questions about the banks’ own planned crypto offerings and partnerships with crypto companies, suggesting the FDIC was more than justified in making these inquiries. Just a few highlights:

The narrative indicates that the Bank will only do business with stablecoins that meet the Bank's internal standards; however, no standards have been developed. (pg 44)

The form's responses to principal ownership, length of time in business, and regulatory oversight of the company do not accurately reflect the entity that the bank is contracting with, the entity's organizational structure, or affiliate services. [begin highlight] The form states that [redacted] has been operating since [redacted]; however, [redacted], the entity that the bank contracts with did not exist in [redacted]. [end highlight] The form also states that the regulators

these customer expectations were generated from [redacted] and included little to no support. [begin highlight] Furthermore, those projections were likely generated when bitcoin prices were rapidly appreciating in comparison to the US Dollar and did not consider any type of range or pullback in the market. [end highlight] Management should revisit the report and consider a range of results that incorporate different levels of adoption and transaction volume.

The risk assessment is not commensurate with the potential risk exposure posed. Management approved a Bitcoin Program risk assessment prepared by [redacted] with minimal edits, which lacked independence, lacked a discussion of controls in key areas, or outlined controls/mitigants that did not exist or were inaccurate.

180815 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 14:56
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Some witnesses, including Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal, have slammed the FDIC for asking questions of banks and crypto companies pertaining to their crypto activities.

Most of the communications between the FDIC and banks looking to offer crypto products consisted of questions about the specifics of their offerings, and then ongoing discussions about their replies. Coinbase’s Grewal was among the witnesses for the House hearing, and he suggested that the FDIC asking questions was itself improper: “Over and over again the FDIC bludgeoned the banks with an onslaught of examinations and questions until the banks relented under the pressure.” Grewal’s fellow witness Austin Campbell, the CEO of the WSPN stablecoin company, made similar claims, stating that the FDIC documents “indicate” that “they will just ask you questions endlessly and tell you that you need to get permission from the regulator to engage in these activities and helpfully they’ll never stop asking questions. Right? This could be two years straight of questions with no end point, no finish line, no clear articulation as to what they’re trying to learn and at some point it just becomes a repetitive cycle and it’s clear the answer is no.”

The FDIC documents don’t support the witnesses’ characterizations. While there are long lists of detailed questions directed towards banks considering launching crypto products of their own, the inquiries seemed to me to be fairly reasonable, as do follow-up questions about banks’ replies. None of the back-and-forth conversations published in the FDIC’s latest release reflect the agonizing, years-long interrogations that either executive describ

180814 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 14:55
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

They have been making similar claims about a new, nearly 800-page dump of FDIC communications with banks, which I analyze in detail.

Once again, the industry conflates supposed crypto debanking with regulators scrutinizing banks planning to themselves offer crypto products.

Once again, the crypto industry is claiming that this lengthy trove of documents contains a smoking gun proving that the FDIC was forcing banks not to serve the crypto industry. Once again, the reality of the documents does not support such a claim.

As with the last release, many of these documents are communications between the FDIC and banks that were not to do with banks denying depository accounts to clients in or associated with the crypto industry (which could be categorized as debanking), but rather with banks trying to offer crypto services themselves, including by adding bitcoin purchases to their mobile banking apps or installing bitcoin ATM kiosks in their lobbies. Questions around these activities seem well within banking regulators’ remit, and it seems deeply misleading to me for crypto companies complaining that their industry is being debanked to, when asked for supporting evidence, point to documents describing banks being questioned about or asked to pause programs to sell customers bitcoin in their online banking portals. It’s also entirely understandable to me that the FDIC seems particularly concerned in multiple communications about various banks potentially implying that their crypto offerings are subject to FDIC insurance, given that victims of several companies that collapsed in 2022 had been under this false impression [I1, 41, several W3IGG entries].

180813 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 14:53
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

The crypto industry has in the past claimed to have obtained firm proof of “OCP 2.0” via FOIA-ed FDIC documents, but as I wrote then, those documents did not support their bold claims.

https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff/113806105979628917

Having failed to obtain proof of "Operation Chokepoint 2.0" with their FOIA requests, Coinbase is going with the second best option: loudly proclaiming that they have such proof, and hoping no one will bother to dig through the rather dry emails between banks and banking regulators. Fortunately, I have several years of practice in digging through dry documents crypto industry figures hope no one will actually read.

#crypto #cryptocurrency

180812 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 14:52
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Even Republicans and their invited witnesses — to Senator Kennedy’s apparent surprise — disagree as to whether denial of banking services is some sort of nefarious government campaign or just banks making their own decisions.

180811 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 14:45
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

When it comes to claims of “Operation Choke Point 2.0”, a supposed government campaign to improperly pressure banks to not provide services to the cryptocurrency industry wholesale, little has emerged in the way of proof of such a campaign (despite the industry’s claims).

Representative Al Green (D-TX) was blunt in his opening statement, describing “Operation Choke Point 2.0” as “a fake program never initiated by the Biden Administration” and arguing that regulators asking banks to “exercise caution” and “consider the risk associated with the cryptocurrency industry does not amount to debanking”.

Representative Tlaib (D-MI) also echoed this point: “I’d like to discuss facts motivating today’s hearing and Coinbase’s and its consultants’ complaint against the FDIC. The claim that ‘starting’ — you’re probably familiar with this — ‘starting in 2022, federal financial regulators have taken concerted steps designed to debank the digital asset industry.’ But what’s interesting about this timeline, and maybe Ranking Member you’d find this interesting, what actually happened around 2022? Folks are forgetting. I mean they were going to play dumb but we’re not — we know what happened. Investors lost $2 trillion during what we call ‘crypto winter’, and a whole host of crypto and digital asset companies went belly up including FTX and Celsius. And in early 2023 we saw Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and Silvergate fail, with crypto playing a huge role in it.”

180810 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 14:44
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

On the face of it, there seemed to be bipartisan agreement that debanking is a real issue that needs to be addressed. But scratch the surface, and the two sides were discussing radically different issues.

Last week, Congress held two hearings about Americans losing access to banking services. In theory, everyone agreed this was a serious problem requiring urgent attention. In practice, they weren't even discussing the same issue. Democrats described Muslim Americans broadly reporting denial of banking services, immigrants locked out of the banking system for wiring money overseas or participating in traditional community lending practices, and low-income individuals being forced to pay high fees simply because they didn’t carry a balance in their bank accounts. Republicans and their crypto-friendly Democratic allies were instead laser-focused on a different claimed victim: the cryptocurrency industry, which alleged it was being systematically cut off from banking services through a shadowy government pressure campaign dubbed “Operation Choke Point 2.0”.

180809 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 14:43
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

$130 million in Congressional spending by the crypto industry helped put their claims of systemic debanking by the Biden administration and financial regulators at the top of the to-do lists for both the House and the Senate, who held hearings last week on the topic.

As I’ve discussed before [I71, 73, 74, 76], powerful figures in and outside of the crypto industry have been broadly claiming that the FDIC and other financial regulators have been engaged in a nefarious pressure campaign to force banks not to offer services to crypto companies or people associated with crypto. Aided by over $130 million in crypto industry spending on Congressional races this cycle, these claims have made their way to the top of some Congresspeople’s lists of concerns. The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on February 5 titled “Investigating the Real Impacts of Debanking in America”, and the House Financial Services Committee held one the following day, rather more pointedly dubbed “Operation Choke Point 2.0: The Biden Administration’s Efforts to Put Crypto in the Crosshairs”. On the morning of the Senate hearing, the FDIC also released a nearly 800-page document containing 175 records of correspondence between the FDIC and banks and other financial institutions pertaining to crypto.

180808 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 14 Feb 14:42
tags: #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Newsletter: Dubbing it “Operation Choke Point 2.0”, cryptocurrency companies have co-opted legitimate concerns about banking discrimination to fight regulation — and Congress is buying it.

https://www.citationneeded.news/crypto-industrys-debanking-smokescreen/

177936 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 11 Feb 14:50
tags: #binance #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Complaint against Binance: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67474542/1/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-binance-holdings-limited/
Motion to stay: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67474542/296/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-binance-holdings-limited/
Early reporting about freezing non-fraud enforcement: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-new-sec-leadership-poised-kick-start-crypto-overhaul-sources-say-2025-01-15/

177935 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 11 Feb 14:49
tags: #binance #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

It’s likely that they will soon request to pause ongoing enforcement cases against companies including Coinbase, a company which has alone spent more than $100 million on political lobbying over the past two years.

177934 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 11 Feb 14:49
tags: #binance #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

The original complaint alleges that not only did Binance lie about trying to prevent fraudulent behavior on Binance.US, one of the primary companies involved in illegal wash trading on the exchange was controlled and operated by Binance’s founder and Binance employees.

Despite claims from the SEC’s new leadership that they intend to provide “sensible, clear rules” without providing a “haven for fraudsters”, this action definitely seems to reveal their true marching orders.

268. In fact, wash trading on the Binance.US Platform did occur and went undetected. Much of this wash trading occurred through numerous accounts affiliated with Sigma Chain, an entity owned and controlled by Zhao and operated by Binance employees at Zhao’s direction. 269. At Zhao’s insistence, Sigma Chain became a market maker on the Binance.US Platform from the time of its launch. Sigma Chain held dozens of user accounts through which it conducted wash trading that fraudulently inflated trading volumes on the Binance.US Platform. 270. Both BAM Trading and BAM Management were aware that Sigma Chain had dozens of accounts and was an active trader on the Binance.US Platform. On June 23, 2020, for example, in discussing a drop in trading volume from market makers on the Binance.US Platform, BAM CEO A asked the BAM Trading’s Sales Director to “pull [Sigma Chain’s] data to hold them accountable too . . . they should be consistent too – we can ask for more volume but they’ve been up to 50% for us before.” On January 6, 2021, the Sales Director messaged BAM

CEO A and other BAM Trading employees “fyi these are ALL sigma chain,” and then listed 20 account numbers. Another BAM Trading employee responded, “whoa.” 271. Wash trading between Sigma Chain’s accounts occurred from the launch of the Binance.US Platform in 2019 through at least June 23, 2022. This wash trading activity corrupted the Binance.US Platform’s reported trading volume in a strategic pattern that coincided with at least three critical periods for crypto asset investors and the Equity Investors: (1) the Binance.US Platform’s launch in September 2019; (2) BAM Trading’s making available certain new crypto asset securities for trading on the Binance.US Platform; and (3) the months leading up to BAM Trading’s seed funding round starting in September 2021. 272. For example, on September 25, 2019, the day after the Binance.US Platform opened for trading, wash trading between Sigma Chain accounts and other accounts owned by Zhao and/or associated with Binance senior employees, constituted more than 99 percent of the initial hour of trading volume in at least one crypto asset. By the end of the day, wash trading by these accounts amounted to nearly 70 percent of that same crypto asset’s total volume. 273. Sigma Chain also engaged in wash trading on or around the time when BAM Trading made at least 65 new crypto assets, including crypto asset securities, available for trading

177933 author: molly0xfff@hachyderm.io 11 Feb 14:49
tags: #binance #crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Although early reporting suggested the SEC would likely look to “potentially freeze some litigation that does not involve allegations of fraud”, the first case the SEC has proposed freezing is SEC v. Binance: a case alleging serious fraud and knowing violation of US securities laws.

JOINT MOTION TO STAY Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and Defendants Binance Holdings Limited, BAM Trading Service Inc., BAM Management US Holdings Inc., and Changpeng Zhao (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly move to stay this case for a period of 60 days. A district court has “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). A district court considers three factors when deciding whether to stay a case: “(1) harm to the nonmoving party if a stay does issue; (2) the moving party’s need for a stay—that is, the harm to the moving party if a stay does not issue; and (3) whether a stay would promote efficient use of the court’s resources.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Ross, 419 F. Supp. 3d 16, 20 (D.D.C. 2019). Here, the Parties believe a brief stay is warranted. On January 21, 2025, new SEC Acting Chairman Mark T. Uyeda launched a crypto task force dedicated to helping the SEC develop a

regulatory framework for crypto assets.1 The work of this task force may impact and facilitate the potential resolution of this case. Accordingly, the SEC proposed a brief stay to Defendants, and the Defendants agreed that a stay is appropriate and in the interest of judicial economy. As this is a joint motion, there is no prejudice to any party here, and a stay could save the Parties resources because, if an early resolution could be reached, it would obviate the need to continue merits discovery. Further, this brief stay will promote the efficient use of the Court’s resources, as a resolution would obviate the need for the Court to resolve Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 285, 287. Finally, the proposed stay is limited in duration and interferes with no current Court-issued deadlines. See Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize, 668 F.3d 724, 731-32 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (noting that stays of “indefinite duration” are disfavored). At the end of the 60-day stay period, the Parties propose that they will submit a joint status report, including whether a continuation of the stay is warranted. Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that this Court grant this Joint Motion to Stay.

111. As Binance’s CCO bluntly admitted to another Binance compliance officer in December 2018, “we are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro.” (Emphasis added.)

174830 author: cryptadamist@universeodon.com 07 Feb 17:04
tags: #colekillian #crypto #cryptocurrency #defi #doge #donaldtrump #elonmusk #jumpcrypto #jumptrading #trump #usaid #uspol #uspolitics

Ω🪬Ω
#TheCryptocalypseChronicles: The Crypto Grifters of DOGE

Cole Killian is a member of Elon's DOGE. He's also a crypto bro with a long history of proximity to and/or involvement in dodgy crypto ventures.

Retoots appreciated.

https://cryptadamus.substack.com/p/the-crypto-grifters-of-doge

171274 author: cryptadamist@universeodon.com 03 Feb 2025 18:59
tags: #darrenbeattie #dei #maga #magats #racism #trump #uspol #uspolitics

actual tweet from the #Trump administration's latest #DEI hire (he's joining the State Department)

Tweet by @DarrenJBeattie: Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men. 12:23 PM - Oct 4, 2024 - 563.7K Views