US Fed Moves to End ‘Reputation Risk’ Rule Amid Crypto Debanking Concerns

TheNewsCryptoPublicado a 2026-02-24Actualizado a 2026-02-24

Resumen

The US Federal Reserve is moving to codify a rule that would eliminate "reputation risk" as a factor in banking supervision, a practice blamed for widespread crypto debanking. Announced on February 23, the proposal seeks public feedback for two months. Fed Vice Chair Michelle Bowman stated that supervisors have been improperly pressuring banks to close accounts based on customers' political views, religious beliefs, or involvement in lawful but disfavored businesses like crypto, calling such discrimination unlawful. Senator Lummis and industry figures praised the move, viewing it as ending "Operation Chokepoint 2.0," a term describing alleged government efforts to cut off crypto firms from banking services.

The US Federal Reserve is looking for codifying a rule eliminating “reputation risk” from banking supervision, which some have condemned for a wave of crypto debanking in the past few years.

In the beginning, the Fed started making changes in June 2025 and publicised that it had directed its supervisors to stop pressuring banks to close client accounts over reputation risk, stating banks can only make decisions on clients based on financial risk management.

On February 23, the Fed announced through a press release that it is asking for feedback on a proposal to turn this into law. The Fed has given a two-month deadline for submitting comments.

Michelle Bowman, the vice chair for supervision, mentioned that we have heard troubling cases of debanking, where supervisors use concerns regarding reputation risk to pressure financial institutions to debank customers due to their political views, religious beliefs, or participation in disfavoured but lawful businesses.

She further went on, adding that discrimination via financial institutions on these bases is unlawful and doesn’t have a role in the Federal Reserve’s supervisory substructure. The same day, Lummis posted on X praising the move and added that it is not the Fed’s role to play both judge and jury for banking digital asset firms.

She wrote, “Happy to see this significant step to permanently eliminate ‘reputation risk’ from Fed policy and put Operation Chokepoint 2.0 to rest so America can be the digital asset capital of the world.”

Alex Thorn, the head of firmwide research of Galaxy Digital, also applauded the move, mentioning via X on Feb 23 that “chokepoint 2.0 rollback carries on.”

The term ‘Operation Chokepoint 2.0’ is used by a lot of members from the crypto industry to describe what they felt was a coordinated effort by the Joe Biden-guided US government and banking sector to prevent crypto companies from leveraging traditional banking services.

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

Crypto.com Secures Conditional OCC Approval to Launch National Trust Bank

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the US Federal Reserve proposing to eliminate from banking supervision?

AThe US Federal Reserve is proposing to eliminate 'reputation risk' from banking supervision.

QWhy has the 'reputation risk' rule been criticized in recent years?

AIt has been criticized for causing a wave of crypto debanking, where banks close accounts based on perceived reputation risk rather than financial risk.

QWhat did Vice Chair Michelle Bowman say about debanking practices?

AShe stated that supervisors have pressured financial institutions to debank customers due to political views, religious beliefs, or participation in disfavored but lawful businesses, calling such discrimination unlawful.

QWhat is 'Operation Chokepoint 2.0' as referred to by the crypto industry?

AIt is a term used by the crypto industry to describe a perceived coordinated effort by the US government and banking sector to prevent crypto companies from accessing traditional banking services.

QHow did Senator Lummis and Galaxy Digital's Alex Thorn react to the Fed's proposal?

ABoth praised the move, with Lummis calling it a step to make America the digital asset capital of the world, and Thorn noting the 'chokepoint 2.0 rollback' continues.

Lecturas Relacionadas

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that the core limitation of blockchain technology is not the scalability trilemma, but its fundamental lack of privacy, which acts as a barrier to institutional capital. It defines blockchain as a slow, expensive, shared computer whose primary value is "permissionlessness" (no administrator) and verifiable trust. While this is ideal for native financial assets like stable币, which now process trillions, two critical flaws remain for mainstream adoption: regulatory legitimacy and a default transparency that leaks all financial activity. The author contends that transparency is not a feature but a tax, quantified through MEV extraction, making the public ledger unusable for serious institutions. However, modern cryptography, specifically zero-knowledge proofs, now offers a solution: "provable privacy." This allows users to prove compliance (e.g., solvency, KYC) without revealing underlying data. This fusion of privacy and auditability resolves the transparency-compliant privacy-compliance dichotomy, enabling a purely upgraded system where transactions are verified but not broadcasted. Closing these flaws is presented as the essential bridge to onboard the next wave of trillions in capital.

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手Hace 3 hora(s)

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手Hace 3 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbitHace 5 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbitHace 5 hora(s)

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手Hace 6 hora(s)

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手Hace 6 hora(s)

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbitHace 7 hora(s)

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbitHace 7 hora(s)

Trading

Spot

Futuros