3 ms·

The revelation that FDIC (allegedly) forced Signature's acquirer to divest of cash holdings from crypto companies is another bit of evidence that anti-crypto re

by cal5k 4y ago

The revelation that FDIC (allegedly) forced Signature's acquirer to divest of cash holdings from crypto companies is another bit of evidence that anti-crypto regulatory activism is a very real thing. Which is quite silly because crypto is still small peanuts compared to the bank failures that happened recently.

ForHackernews 4y ago
You mean the bank failures where good regulations and government intervention mean that depositors aren't out a cent? _Those_ bank failures? I'm not sure this is quite the example you think it is...
paxys 4y ago
I don't see the "anti-crypto regulatory activism" you are calling out. If FDIC is bailing out a bank and its depositors, that too well beyond its insurance limit, it absolutely has to ensure that the bank is not going to continue to gamble with customer funds. Heck "no customer deposits going into crypto" should be a hard requirement to be eligible for FDIC insurance.
- ursuscamp 4y ago
  Is the FDIC going to tell Silicon Valley bank to stop taking deposits from tech companies, or make them stop purchasing long-term treasuries? My guess is no…
  - astrange 4y ago
    FDIC shot Silicon Valley Bank in the head and fired all the executives. It literally does not exist anymore.
    - ursuscamp 4y ago
      Same with Signature. Both banks are being sold off. I was shorthand referring to whoever bought them.
vkou 4y ago
Being a crypto-focused bank carries most of the same risks as being a startup-focused bank (But worse), and in case anyone missed the news the other week, one of those just exploded with what could have been a much bigger hole on its balance sheet had the FDIC waited.
- sgammon 4y ago
  that explosion had very little to do with being exposed to the risk of startups
  - vkou 4y ago
    It had everything to do with it. If SVB diversified its depositor base, it wouldn't have gone bankrupt.
    - sgammon 4y ago
      their depositor base could have been anything, it was their purchase of 10yr bonds at large volumes which caused them to collapse, i thought?

by cal5k 4y ago

ForHackernews 4y ago

You mean the bank failures where good regulations and government intervention mean that depositors aren't out a cent? _Those_ bank failures? I'm not sure this is quite the example you think it is...

paxys 4y ago

I don't see the "anti-crypto regulatory activism" you are calling out. If FDIC is bailing out a bank and its depositors, that too well beyond its insurance limit, it absolutely has to ensure that the bank is not going to continue to gamble with customer funds. Heck "no customer deposits going into crypto" should be a hard requirement to be eligible for FDIC insurance.

ursuscamp 4y ago
Is the FDIC going to tell Silicon Valley bank to stop taking deposits from tech companies, or make them stop purchasing long-term treasuries? My guess is no…
- astrange 4y ago
  FDIC shot Silicon Valley Bank in the head and fired all the executives. It literally does not exist anymore.
  - ursuscamp 4y ago
    Same with Signature. Both banks are being sold off. I was shorthand referring to whoever bought them.

vkou 4y ago

Being a crypto-focused bank carries most of the same risks as being a startup-focused bank (But worse), and in case anyone missed the news the other week, one of those just exploded with what could have been a much bigger hole on its balance sheet had the FDIC waited.

sgammon 4y ago
that explosion had very little to do with being exposed to the risk of startups
- vkou 4y ago
  It had everything to do with it. If SVB diversified its depositor base, it wouldn't have gone bankrupt.
  - sgammon 4y ago
    their depositor base could have been anything, it was their purchase of 10yr bonds at large volumes which caused them to collapse, i thought?