Forced closure of the Signature Bank: the “anti-crypto” act of war becomes clearer

A dirty low blow against Bitcoin? – As we explained earlier, the official and preventive closure crypto-friendly Signature Bank seems suspicious to say the least. Regulators accuse him ofa “precrime” that the bank had therefore not yet committed: risking Most often is “possibly” to become insolvent. And new elements come to corroborate the thesis of an act “anti crypto”.


Will any buyer of Signature Bank have to “give up” cryptocurrencies?

The first indication pointing in the direction of a sanction of the Signature Bank For “sympathy towards cryptos” comes to us from a dispatch from Reuters published on March 16, 2023. According to two sources familiar with the matter (but unfortunately anonymous), the regulators of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) have asked banks interested in acquisition Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank to submit their offers by this Friday, March 17.

The FDIC, after seizing and nationalized systematically these two banks (which have therefore become public in this interval), is now seeking to bring them back into the private sector. But big issueregulators would impose a good curious conditionbelow :

“(…) any buyer of Signature Bank must agree to renounce all activities related to the bank’s cryptocurrencies. »

The FDIC does not want a resurrected Signature Bank to keep its activities around Bitcoin & Co.
The Signature Bank can be taken over, but without its crypto activities! – Twitter account @0xfoobar

>> To diversify your savings, get exposure to cryptos on PrimeXBT (commercial link) <<

No reconciliation between banks and Bitcoin, hood ?

A spokesperson of the FDIC, however, reportedly told Reuters that its agency “would not require” (in any case officially) that a buyer of the Signature Bank renounces all activities relating to crypto-assets. Afterwards, unofficially, between the pressures and the choice by the FDIC of who will be the buyer…

Because another element Worryingly adds to the hypothesis of an anti-Bitcoin act. In a interview with New York Magazine, Barney Franka member of the board of directors of Signature Bank, completed his previous statement. This former member of the American Congress confirms both his total surprise in the decision to seize his bank by the FDIC, and renews his suspicions of a direct attack on the cryptosphere.

“If the FDIC and the Fed (US Federal Reserve) had done on Friday what they did on Sunday, we would not have had any problems (…) If they had allowed us to open on Monday [13 mars], we would have been in a good position: we would have been operational. (…) Apparently the New York Department of Financial Services, which shut us down, didn’t say we were insolvent! (…) Why did they react so harshly? (…) I think it was probably to send the message that – even if we were doing [activités liées aux] responsibly – they just don’t want the banks to do [des affaires dans les] cryptocurrencies. They denied it in their statement, but I don’t believe it (…). »

The Signature Bank: closed “for the example” and send an anti-crypto message?
Excerpt from Barney Frank’s statement to New York Magazine. – Source: Twitter account @nic__carter

Barney Frank is clear in his impressions: regulators have “killed a man to encourage others”. THE ” encourage to what? AT don’t make friends with Bitcoin and crypto-assets. The message “stay away from cryptos” is obvious to the former congressman. Not sure, however, that the many banks wishing to get closer to the cryptosphere obey this violent threat.

Are you looking for a more classic exchange? Join PrimeXBT Today the platform for trading cryptos, but also commodities and currencies (commercial link).

Last Verdict

To get more updates about the insurance you can follow our website or can bookmark it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *