OCC Highlights Major Concerns Over Crypto Debanking Practices Among Major Banks

bitcoinistPubblicato 2025-12-11Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-12-11

Introduzione

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has raised concerns over "harmful debanking policies" among nine major US banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. A review found that between 2020 and 2023, these institutions restricted services or imposed heightened scrutiny on customers in legal industries—including crypto, oil and gas, firearms, and adult entertainment—based on the banks' own values rather than legality. OCC Comptroller Jonathan V. Gould criticized the use of "government-granted charter and market power" for such practices. The agency is evaluating thousands of debanking complaints and recently allowed national banks to facilitate crypto transactions, aiming to provide a more regulated environment than external exchanges.

On Wednesday, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) released findings that have raised alarm bells regarding crypto debanking, reigniting fears of what some are dubbing “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” within the financial sector.

This supervisory review focused on nine of the largest national banks under OCC supervision, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, US Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank, and BMO Bank.

‘Harmful Debanking Policies’

The preliminary findings from the OCC reveal troubling trends: between 2020 and 2023, these banks appeared to make unwarranted distinctions among customers based on their legal business activities.

Specifically, many of these institutions maintained policies that either restricted access to financial services or required heightened scrutiny and approvals for certain clients.

The OCC identified examples where at least one bank imposed limitations on various sectors, including crypto, due to their engagement in activities considered “contrary to [the bank’s] values,” even though those activities were not illegal.

Sectors affected by these policies included oil and gas exploration, coal mining, firearms, private prisons, tobacco and e-cigarettes, adult entertainment, and notably, digital assets.

The findings indicated that many banks placed strict limitations on crypto-related activities as well, which often stemmed from concerns about financial crime.

These practices, the OCC confirmed, were prevalent at each of the banks examined in the review. Comptroller Jonathan V. Gould expressed frustration regarding the situation, stating:

It is unfortunate that the nation’s largest banks thought these harmful debanking policies were an appropriate use of their government-granted charter and market power.

Gould noted that while many of these policies were publicly announced, some banks have maintained that they did not participate in debanking.

In his comments, Comptroller Gould emphasized the OCC’s commitment to eliminating practices that would “weaponize finance,” whether instigated by regulators or the banks themselves.

National Banks To Facilitate Crypto Transactions

The agency disclosed that it is still evaluating “thousands of complaints” related to allegations of political and religious debanking, with plans to report on these findings “in due course.” The OCC aims to hold banks accountable for these actions and ensure that unlawful debanking practices do not persist.

This follows Tuesday’s letter from the banking regulator that allows national banks to participate in “riskless principal transactions” involving cryptocurrencies. This permits national banks to buy and sell cryptocurrencies for their customers’ accounts.

This new structure allows users to transact in crypto-assets through established national banks, resulting in a more regulated environment than exchanges that operate outside of strict oversight regulation.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap valuation at $3.16 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from DALL-E, chart from TradingView.com

Letture associate

Interpreting Investment Opportunities in the Age of Great Navigation, Invesco Great Wall Fund Releases '2026 Report on Chinese Enterprises Going Global'

Invesco Great Wall Fund has released its "2026 China Corporate Globalization Report," titled "The 'Great Navigation Era' of Chinese Enterprises." The report analyzes the new trends and investment opportunities as Chinese companies expand globally, moving from simple product exports to comprehensive overseas operations involving services, branding, and local production. Driven by factors like trade friction, the pursuit of higher profit margins abroad, and policy support, globalization is becoming essential for Chinese companies. The report outlines an evolution: from early product export ("Globalization 1.0") to the current "Globalization 2.0," characterized by overseas capacity, capital goods investment, consumer brand expansion, and service exports. Chinese firms' competitive advantages are highlighted, including a vast engineer talent pool, low-cost and robust infrastructure, and complete industrial clusters. Specific sectors with significant出海 potential are identified: * **Capital Goods** (e.g., engineering machinery, power equipment): Benefiting from global demand, especially in Belt & Road markets and the AI-driven power grid upgrade cycle. * **Consumer Brands**: Transitioning from cost to brand advantage, leveraging供应链 efficiency. * **Technology & Innovation**: Including AI applications, optical modules within global tech supply chains, and new energy vehicles focusing on local production. * **Pharmaceuticals**: Chinese biotech firms are becoming preferred partners for global pharma, with potential for breakthrough drugs in areas like oncology and weight loss. The report concludes that corporate globalization represents a sustained, core theme for China's capital markets, though companies must navigate challenges like geopolitics and localization.

marsbit7 min fa

Interpreting Investment Opportunities in the Age of Great Navigation, Invesco Great Wall Fund Releases '2026 Report on Chinese Enterprises Going Global'

marsbit7 min fa

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

On the night of February 9th, GitHub suffered a major outage caused by a simple configuration change—reducing a cache refresh interval from 12 to 2 hours—that triggered a cascade of failures. This was not an isolated event, but part of a broader pattern. In early 2026, GitHub experienced at least 8 major incidents, failing to meet its promised 99.9% availability. These outages stemmed from structural issues: explosive growth in load, tight service coupling, and insufficient protection against abnormal traffic. This unprecedented load is driven by AI Agents. In 2025, GitHub handled ~1 billion commits. By 2026, weekly commits reached 275 million, projecting to ~14 billion for the year—a 14x increase. AI tools like Claude Code now contribute 4.5% of all public repository commits, with weekly submissions surging 25x in just three months. AI-generated pull requests jumped from 4 million to 17 million per month in half a year. Unlike human developers, AI Agents work continuously, generating commits at a scale that overwhelms infrastructure designed for human rhythms. The surge also shattered GitHub's business model. Copilot's flat-rate pricing, based on assisting human developers, became unsustainable as Agentic AI sessions consumed resources worth hundreds of dollars for a few dollars in fees. In response, GitHub imposed usage limits and, by June 1st, shifted to a pay-per-use "AI Credits" system. Facing this new reality, GitHub realized a 10x scaling plan was insufficient. It announced a need to *redesign* its architecture for 30x current scale—decoupling services, adding fault isolation, and improving change management to prevent cascading failures. Other platforms like Stripe and AWS are facing similar challenges with AI Agents. Fundamentally, GitHub is transitioning from a human collaboration platform to an "exhaust pipe" for automated AI workflows. Its detailed post-mortem reports aim to maintain trust during this turbulent rebuild. The February outage was not just a technical glitch, but a signal of the software industry's entry into a new, AI-driven era.

marsbit47 min fa

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

marsbit47 min fa

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit54 min fa

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit54 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片