5 ms·

He has certain incentives but he's still one of the most qualified people in the world to be making claims like these. So I cannot see how it can be considered

• JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > he's still one of the most qualified people in the world to be making claims like these He’s been out of lawmaking for a decade and never worked for the New York DFS, the regulator that actually shut down Signature. When asked why he was on Signature’s board, he said it’s because he needs “to make money” [1]. His comments are well placed to receive sympathy from banking-naive crypto enthusiasts (I presume this describes most of them). Because, again, he needs to make money. > regulators are now making it a requirement that "Any buyer of Signature must agree to give up all the crypto business at the bank" The proximate reason Signature went down was because it was affiliated with crypto. Silvergate got tanked by crypto. Signature’s stock started falling simultaneously despite their crypto exposure being much smaller. Crypto is a threat to banks that bank it. Our banking system should slough off that business, or at least charge a rate aligned with its risk. (For example, negative interest and no loans.) That doesn’t mean that’s why Signature was shut down. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/090e081f-35b3-484b-8095-c42a3c5e4259 https://www.ft.com/content/090e081f-35b3-484b-8095-c42a3c5e4...