Is Operation Chokepoint 3.0 here? Here’s everything you need to know…

ambcryptoPublicado em 2025-08-03Última atualização em 2025-08-04

Key Takeaways

Major banks like JPMorgan have been accused of trying to choke crypto innovation by charging exorbitant data and transfer fees. However, thanks to the SEC’s support and global growth, platforms like Coinbase remain undeterred.


In a recent development that could intensify the already-strained relationship between traditional finance and the crypto industry, concerns have emerged over U.S banks allegedly working behind the scenes to undermine major crypto platforms like Coinbase and Robinhood.

Are big banks curbing crypto?

On 31 July, Alex Rampell, General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz, brought some concerns into the spotlight through a sharply worded newsletter. He raised questions about whether incumbent financial institutions are using unfair tactics to slow down crypto adoption.

He said, 

“Banks are aiming to implement their own Chokepoint 3.0 — charging insanely high fees to access data or move money to crypto and fintech apps — and, more concerningly, blocking crypto and fintech apps they don’t like.”

Following the Biden-era crackdown on crypto, which was often dubbed Operation Chokepoint 2.0, a new wave of financial pressure seems to be emerging from within the banking sector itself.

Operation Chokepoint 3.0

According to Rampell, U.S banks are quietly rolling out “Chokepoint 3.0.” He argued that banks like JPMorgan are now using high fees and restricted access to stifle fintech and crypto rivals.

As evidence of this alleged under-the-wraps operation, he pointed to JPMorgan now charging fintech apps for accessing customer data.

He warned that moves like these could cost platforms that utilize this data to provide services to their customers, many of which are new-age crypto companies, hundreds of millions of dollars.

“This isn’t about revenue—it’s about killing competition.”

He added, 

“If it suddenly costs $10 to move $100 into a Coinbase or Robinhood account, maybe fewer people will do it. Or if it costs $10 to get a cheaper loan from a fintech, maybe you’ll be forced to take a crappier one from JPM.”

Rampell further warned that banks could soon take more aggressive steps, such as blocking users from linking their accounts to crypto or fintech platforms altogether. Steps like these could effectively force consumers to stick with traditional financial services.

Drawing parallels to the Biden-era Operation Chokepoint, which sought to limit banking access for crypto firms, Rampell claimed that this new wave of obstruction isn’t coming from regulators, but from the banks themselves.

“JPMorganChase is an $800 billion company. Make no mistake: this isn’t about a new revenue stream. It’s about strangling competition. And if they get away with this, every bank will follow.”

Crypto exchanges stand strong

Despite mounting resistance from traditional banking giants, the crypto industry continues to push forward, with platforms like Coinbase and Robinhood expanding aggressively.

In fact, Coinbase is reportedly considering the launch of tokenized stocks and derivatives in the U.S. All while Robinhood is rolling out over 200 tokenized stocks and ETFs across 31 European countries.

Simultaneously, regulatory tailwinds under the new, relatively more crypto-friendly administration are helping reshape the landscape.

In fact, despite Rampell’s concerns over JPMorgan stifling the crypto sector, the bank’s 30 July announcement of a direct bank-to-wallet link with Coinbase signals a notable shift.

So, while banks may attempt to slow down crypto’s momentum, the industry’s evolution seems far from over. 

Share

Leituras Relacionadas

BIS Report Compliance Observations: The True Risks of Stablecoins Go Beyond 'De-pegging'

The BIS report, "Anchoring trust in money: innovation beyond stablecoins," highlights that the primary risks of stablecoins extend beyond potential de-pegging. It argues that the core challenge is whether stablecoins can be integrated into a financial system that is identifiable, monitorable, accountable, and regulatable. While acknowledging efficiency gains like faster payments and programmability, BIS emphasizes that money requires an institutional framework—including legal certainty, liquidity support, and financial integrity controls—which many stablecoins currently lack. The report details compliance risks, noting that while blockchain transactions are transparent, address visibility does not equate to identity or purpose clarity. This creates a systemic risk as pseudonymity, non-custodial wallets, and cross-chain bridges can undermine AML/CFT controls. Furthermore, these risks can spill over into the traditional financial system through on- and off-ramps. The future direction, per BIS, is not to prohibit innovation but to embed regulatory rules—such as identity verification and transaction screening—directly into the technological infrastructure of tokenized finance. The key takeaway for compliance is that any new financial instrument must clearly address questions of customer identification, transaction monitoring, accountability, and cross-border rule consistency to be viable as a mainstream payment tool.

marsbitHá 1h

BIS Report Compliance Observations: The True Risks of Stablecoins Go Beyond 'De-pegging'

marsbitHá 1h

When US Giants Collectively "Defect" to Chinese AI Models

When Silicon Valley Giants Turn to Chinese AI Models to Cut Costs A surprising trend is emerging: major U.S. tech companies are significantly reducing AI costs by switching to Chinese models. Coinbase, the largest U.S. cryptocurrency exchange, reportedly halved its AI spending after migrating to China's GLM-5.2 and Kimi 2.7 models, despite increasing usage. They achieved this through a sophisticated three-part strategy: implementing an automatic routing system to select the most cost-effective model per task, boosting cache hit rates from 5% to 60% to reuse computations, and employing "context engineering" to provide AI with more precise, less cluttered information. They are not alone. AI startup Lindy switched from Claude to DeepSeek, saving millions, while Snowflake's tests found GLM-5.2 solved 66% of coding tasks compared to Claude Opus's 67%—but at a fraction of the cost (output pricing is 5-7 times lower). While the top Western models may offer slightly better stability, the massive price differential is leading many businesses to reconsider their value proposition. This shift signals a deeper change in the AI industry, moving beyond pure performance benchmarks to a fierce cost competition. As pressure mounts, even OpenAI and Anthropic have begun slashing prices. For users, this means more choices, lower costs, and a crucial lesson: using multiple models based on task complexity, optimizing with caching, and keeping contexts lean are now key to leveraging AI efficiently and affordably.

marsbitHá 1h

When US Giants Collectively "Defect" to Chinese AI Models

marsbitHá 1h

BIS Report Compliance Watch: The Real Risks of Stablecoins Are Not Just 'De-pegging'

BIS Report Compliance Observations: The real risks of stablecoins go beyond "depegging" The BIS report "Anchoring trust in money: innovation beyond stablecoins" argues that while stablecoins and tokenization offer efficiency gains, their primary risk lies in fitting into an identifiable, monitorable, accountable, and regulatable financial system. Money's trust stems not just from technology but from institutional arrangements: a common unit of account, guaranteed redemption at par, liquidity support, regulatory frameworks, and financial integrity requirements. Stablecoins, operating on permissionless blockchains with pseudo-anonymity and non-custodial wallets, create systemic compliance gaps: unclear customer identity, incomplete fund origins, unexplained transaction purposes, fragmented cross-chain paths, and ambiguous liability. On-chain transparency does not equal compliance transparency. Public addresses don't reveal identity or intent. While blockchain analytics aid law enforcement, they cannot replace routine, large-scale AML/CFT controls. Effective compliance requires a closed-loop process encompassing customer onboarding, transaction monitoring, investigation, reporting, and audit. Stablecoin risks are not confined to the blockchain; they re-enter the traditional financial system via on/off-ramps, exchanges, and payment institutions. This forces banks to monitor client accounts for activity linked to virtual assets. The future direction is not to prohibit innovation but to embed rules into the technology. Tokenized finance should integrate with the existing two-tier monetary system, embedding compliance—like customer identification, pre-transaction screening, and auditable data trails—directly into the transaction flow. For compliance professionals, the key takeaway is that any new financial instrument must answer core questions: Who identifies the customer? Who monitors transactions? Who handles exceptions? Who is liable? Compliance is not the antithesis of innovation but the essential infrastructure for its sustainable growth.

链捕手Há 1h

BIS Report Compliance Watch: The Real Risks of Stablecoins Are Not Just 'De-pegging'

链捕手Há 1h

Trading

Spot
活动图片