I think it's becoming increasingly clear what happened. As whitepoplar noted here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18691477 https://news.ycombinator.com/i

I think it's becoming increasingly clear what happened. As whitepoplar noted here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18691477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18691477) other similar services are FDIC insured because the funds are swept into FDIC bank accounts behind the scenes. But FDIC insured bank accounts pay very, very little interest, and Robinhood wanted to offer a high interest rate. Their innovation was, instead of sweeping the funds into FDIC bank accounts, to sweep the funds into treasuries, which pay more. And as a bonus, bonds held on your behalf by a brokerage are insured via SIPC, which is a little bit like having your funds be insured by FDIC, which makes for good marketing. The problem here is: 1) SIPC insurance makes sure you get your bonds back if a brokerage goes under. It doesn't make sure that they're worth what you were promised, just that if the broker goes under, whatever they were holding on your behalf gets returned to you. That's valuable, but it does mean there's no guarantee that you'll get all your money back. Money market funds are covered by SIPC insurance, and that didn't stop investors from losing money during the crisis when some funds "broke the buck" and became less worth than what investors had paid. 2) It's not actually clear that SIPC insurance actually covers this sort of thing. If I buy $5k of treasuries with a broker, it clearly would. If I deposit $5k cash with my broker (not for use in buying securities, but just to hold onto for me so I can pay my rent, as you would with a bank account), it clearly does not. If I deposit $5k cash and my broker uses it to buy $5k of treasuries then...I dunno, maybe? It does cover money market funds, and money market funds are a lot like what Robinhood was planning, but there are some obvious differences. In short, Robinhood has done two things: They have marketed a vaguely money market like product as a bank account, but elided the difference in protection a money market and a bank account enjoys (very naughty). And they seem to have possibly contemplated launching a money market like product without getting the SIPC to sign off on it being covered, although it's very possible that the SIPC is reacting to the confusion caused by Robinhood's marketing. (Eg, the SIPC may have confirmed with Robinhood that a money market like product would be covered, but had no idea that this bank account product Robinhood was marketing was the same underlying product.) In any case: In the US, bank accounts are covered by FDIC, Robinhood marketed this as a bank account, it isn't covered by FDIC, and even if Robinhood is right and the SIPC is wrong and it is covered by SIPC, that type of coverage is fundamentally different (and weaker) than FDIC coverage, making Robinhood's marketing fundamentally misleading. The core issue here isn't the dispute with the SIPC, it's that this was never going to work how Robinhood implied it was.