Coinbase Escalates Fight With Australian Banks Over Crypto Bans

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-02-05Last updated on 2026-02-05

Abstract

Coinbase has formally complained to Australia's parliament, accusing the country's four major banks—Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, ANZ, and National Australia Bank—of blocking or shutting down services for legitimate crypto firms without warning. The exchange argues these actions create significant barriers for crypto businesses that depend on banking services. It calls for mandatory rules requiring banks to provide explanations, advance notice, dispute channels, and transparent compliance checks. Banks defend their actions by citing anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing risks, stating that some crypto activities are difficult to monitor. The issue particularly affects smaller crypto firms, forcing some to consider moving operations overseas. Parliamentary hearings are expected to address the conflict between financial safety and business access, potentially leading to clearer regulations or stronger oversight.

Coinbase has taken a louder stand against Australia’s biggest banks, saying those banks are shutting down or blocking services for legitimate crypto firms.

The exchange lodged a formal complaint with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics and argues that the problem goes beyond occasional account closures — it has become a common barrier for companies that rely on bank accounts and payment rails to do business.

Coinbase Raises Formal Complaint

Based on reports, Coinbase asks for clearer rules and more fairness. It wants banks to explain why they close accounts, give at least 30 days’ notice before cutting services, set up dispute channels, and publish compliance checks.

Coinbase submitted a report to the House’s SCE, naming Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, ANZ, and National Australia Bank. It alleges the banks are closing accounts without warning and blocking crypto-related transactions.

Reports say the company also calls on lawmakers to make those rules mandatory so firms can’t be cut off without cause.

One study cited in coverage found as much as 60% of some fintechs were denied banking in recent years, and Coinbase uses figures like that to show the problem is widespread.

Banks Cite Risk And Compliance Concerns

Banks respond that they act to meet anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing rules. They argue that some crypto activity is hard to monitor and that cutting ties can be a compliance step when risk can’t be clearly managed.

Bank customers and regulators want safe payment systems, and banks say they must weigh that against new business lines.

Total crypto market cap currently at $2.53 trillion. Chart: TradingView

At times, actions by lenders are reactive; at other times they follow formal internal policies. That difference matters because it affects how easy it is for a firm to appeal a decision.

Who Gets Hurt When Banking Is Closed

Small exchanges, payment processors, and other crypto services feel the squeeze. When a bank ends a relationship, transactions slow, wages need alternative accounts, and trust gets strained.

Reports say some startups consider moving operations overseas where banking is more welcoming. That risk has policy implications: if local fintechs leave, jobs go with them and the country may miss out on new services. The result is a tug-of-war between financial safety and business access.

What Comes Next For Regulators

Parliamentary hearings are now a likely next step, and those sessions could press banks for more detail and push regulators to set clearer rules.

Australia’s financial watchdogs have discussed the issue before but stopped short of forcing banks to change. The committee will hear evidence, and it can recommend legal changes or stronger guidance to make sure account closures are tracked and justified.

Featured image by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images, chart from TradingView

Related Questions

QWhat formal action has Coinbase taken against Australian banks regarding crypto service restrictions?

ACoinbase has lodged a formal complaint with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, accusing major Australian banks of blocking or shutting down services for legitimate crypto firms.

QWhich specific Australian banks did Coinbase name in its complaint?

ACoinbase named Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, ANZ, and National Australia Bank in its formal complaint.

QWhat reasons do banks give for restricting services to crypto-related firms?

ABanks cite anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing compliance concerns, stating that some crypto activities are difficult to monitor and pose risks that are hard to manage.

QWhat percentage of fintechs were reportedly denied banking services according to the study mentioned?

AThe study cited in the coverage found that as much as 60% of some fintechs were denied banking services in recent years.

QWhat potential consequence does the article mention if Australian crypto startups move operations overseas?

AIf local crypto startups move operations overseas due to banking restrictions, jobs may be lost and Australia could miss out on new financial services and innovations.

Related Reads

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit20m ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit20m ago

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

For years, the semiconductor equipment industry followed an unwritten "iron rule": suppliers offered steep discounts for new tool introductions (Design-in) and faced consistent price pressure during repeat orders, especially during market downturns. This long-standing buyer's market dynamic is now being upended. Recently, SK Hynix's primary equipment suppliers have reportedly requested a 3-4% price *increase*, a nearly unprecedented move. This shift is driven by a severe supply-demand imbalance fueled by the AI compute boom. Securing equipment has become an urgent arms race as chipmakers' expansion speed dictates their ability to fulfill massive AI chip orders. Key areas feeling the strain include: **TCB (Thermal Compression Bonding) Equipment:** Demand is exploding, driven by the simultaneous needs of HBM4 memory stacking, AI chip Chip-on-Substrate (C2S), and logic Chiplet Chip-on-Wafer (C2W) packaging. Players like Hanmi Semiconductor, Hanwha Semitech, and ASMPT are receiving major orders. While hybrid bonding is seen as the future, TCB remains the pragmatic choice for HBM4 mass production, with its lifecycle extended by relaxed specifications and ongoing technological upgrades. **Test Equipment Bottlenecks:** Ironically, AI-driven shortages are now crippling test equipment manufacturing. Critical components like FPGAs, Driver ICs, and CPUs face severe shortages and extended lead times (up to 52 weeks for FPGAs), as AI data center and server vendors prioritize supply. This creates a paradoxical cycle: AI chip shortages drive fab expansion, which requires more test equipment, whose production is delayed because its key parts are diverted to make AI chips. The industry is entering a broad, AI-powered upcycle. SEMI forecasts global semiconductor equipment sales to hit a record $156 billion by 2027, fueled by investment in advanced logic/foundry, HBM-driven DRAM, and advanced packaging (like CoWoS). Major players like TSMC, SK Hynix, and Micron are aggressively ramping capital expenditure. In conclusion, leading equipment vendors are no longer just selling tools; they are selling the critical capability to deliver AI-era capacity. Pricing power is shifting decisively to those with indispensable technology in key process nodes like advanced logic, HBM, and advanced packaging, rewriting the industry's traditional power structure.

marsbit33m ago

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

marsbit33m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片