[2018-02-02] Report: Bank of America, JP Morgan Ban Credit Crypto Purchases

[signalbitbot]

Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase will reportedly no longer enable customers to purchase bitcoin with credit cards starting in February, reports say.

Revealed today in a Bloomberg report, JPMorgan is expected to start its ban on Feb. 3 due to concerns about the credit risk of those who make purchases through their cards. Bank of America is said to be launching its ban on Feb. 2, when transactions with known cryptocurrency exchanges will begin to be declined.

The Bank of America ban is limited to credit cards, and will not impact customers who wish to purchase cryptocurrencies using debit or ATM cards, according to the news source.

Bloomberg further reported that the Bank of America cited anti-money laundering regulations for the move, as well as the potential for thieves to convert stolen credit cards into cryptocurrency stashes.

Like JPMorgan, Bank of America is also concerned with the idea customers can purchase more cryptocurrency than they can afford. Other banks have purportedly moved to increase charges for crypto transactions in recent weeks.

Stepping back, move coincides with a broader discussion among financial firms about how their businesses are being impacted by the cryptocurrency economy, which after growing by leaps and bounds in 2017, has seen a sizable market drawdown so far this year.

link: https://www.coindesk.com/report-bank-america-jp-morgan-ban-credit-crypto-purchases/

[BitHodler]

I'm a bit mixed on this matter. It's yet again an example of how these institutions decide for you what you can do and what not, but on the other hand it will somewhat prevent mentally challenged people from harming themselves.

It's a given rule (at least for me) that you shouldn't spend money that you don't have. Putting yourself into debt just to buy yourself some Bitcoins or whatever or coins or assets is just retarded.

People however will have their ways to avoid this measure and still be able to invest with money that they don't have. It may require them to take an extra step, but they will successfully achieve their goal anyway.

[Betwrong]

I'm a bit mixed on this matter. It's yet again an example of how these institutions decide for you what you can do and what not, but on the other hand it will somewhat prevent mentally challenged people from harming themselves.

It's a given rule (at least for me) that you shouldn't spend money that you don't have. Putting yourself into debt just to buy yourself some Bitcoins or whatever or coins or assets is just retarded.

People however will have their ways to avoid this measure and still be able to invest with money that they don't have. It may require them to take an extra step, but they will successfully achieve their goal anyway.

Exactly. You can't ban anything completely in the free world, there always will be opportunities to do it one way or another. in fact they are not even trying to ban it completely:

The Bank of America ban is limited to credit cards, and will not impact customers who wish to purchase cryptocurrencies using debit or ATM cards

It's like with the online gambling ban which can be easily evaded. I don't think it's always a good thing though, because I agree with you that no way people should go in debt to buy crypto currencies. But it's impossible to protect them from doing so with whatever ban implemented.

[signalbitbot]

I think a person should decide how to manage money.

[1Referee]

Bloomberg further reported that the Bank of America cited anti-money laundering regulations for the move, as well as the potential for thieves to convert stolen credit cards into cryptocurrency stashes.

It's just them looking to halt crypto growth. AML and all other things being mentioned are just smoke screens to hide their actual intentions. It's their full right to do so. If it was concerning bank accounts where people would be prohibited from spending their money as they wish, it would be different. In this case it's the money of the banks concerning this article, and that's why I don't really see it as something negative. It starts to be a problem when you can't decide where you want to spend your own hard earned money on. Don't play around with borrowed money peeps, because the interest rates charged could be up to 25% in some cases. It's probably cheaper to borrow money from underground figures.

[darkangel11]

I'm a bit mixed on this matter. It's yet again an example of how these institutions decide for you what you can do and what not, but on the other hand it will somewhat prevent mentally challenged people from harming themselves.

Prevent from harming? What are you talking about? Would you like someone to follow you in every step, telling you what you are supposed to do and stopping you from doing dangerous things? Don't drive fast! Don't do extreme sports! Don't buy cryptocurrency! At some point it's fair to ask if we're adults or not? Being of age used to mean that you're able to decide for yourself and don't need mommy and daddy anymore.

I think a person should decide how to manage money.

And you are right to think that. Personal property used to be sacred and protected by the law.

[BitHodler]

Prevent from harming? What are you talking about? Would you like someone to follow you in every step, telling you what you are supposed to do and stopping you from doing dangerous things? Don't drive fast! Don't do extreme sports! Don't buy cryptocurrency! At some point it's fair to ask if we're adults or not? Being of age used to mean that you're able to decide for yourself and don't need mommy and daddy anymore.

If you gamble with money you don't have, you are mentally challenged, and for that reason it's better to have banks cut people off, than no one doing anything to prevent these people from harming themselves.

I don't need anyone to tell me anything because I'm not making stupid mistakes like that. You have to accept that it's not your money that you are gambling with, but the money these banks are willing to loan you.

Being of age doesn't mean anything when you as person can't think and act like anyone of age.

[darkangel11]

Prevent from harming? What are you talking about? Would you like someone to follow you in every step, telling you what you are supposed to do and stopping you from doing dangerous things? Don't drive fast! Don't do extreme sports! Don't buy cryptocurrency! At some point it's fair to ask if we're adults or not? Being of age used to mean that you're able to decide for yourself and don't need mommy and daddy anymore.

If you gamble with money you don't have, you are mentally challenged, and for that reason it's better to have banks cut people off, than no one doing anything to prevent these people from harming themselves.

I don't need anyone to tell me anything because I'm not making stupid mistakes like that. You have to accept that it's not your money that you are gambling with, but the money these banks are willing to loan you.

Being of age doesn't mean anything when you as person can't think and act like anyone of age.

If you are mentally challenged then maybe you shouldn't be given a CC in the first place? If we aren't segregating people and dividing them into groups with certain money handling abilities based on their IQ, we shouldn't be deciding for them.
They are innocent until proven otherwise, right? So they are also capable of making financial decisions until proven otherwise. They were allowed to have a bank account and wire money in there, right? Nobody cared to check if they are smart enough, but when it comes to withdrawing it's suddenly a big deal, because they might do this or that. I can't believe you're in favor of this.

The banks won't loan you any money if you don't have a steady income. Without it the only CC you will be allowed to have is a prepaid one. If they have income they must be mentally capable of handling some degree of responsibility, would you agree?

[Technicrate]

I think a person should decide how to manage money.

If the person buys the coins with borrowed money, he would lose a lot in the recent situations.

[BitHodler]

If you are mentally challenged then maybe you shouldn't be given a CC in the first place? If we aren't segregating people and dividing them into groups with certain money handling abilities based on their IQ, we shouldn't be deciding for them.
They are innocent until proven otherwise, right? So they are also capable of making financial decisions until proven otherwise. They were allowed to have a bank account and wire money in there, right? Nobody cared to check if they are smart enough, but when it comes to withdrawing it's suddenly a big deal, because they might do this or that. I can't believe you're in favor of this.

The banks won't loan you any money if you don't have a steady income. Without it the only CC you will be allowed to have is a prepaid one. If they have income they must be mentally capable of handling some degree of responsibility, would you agree?

I think there is some misunderstanding here.

My main point is that people shouldn't blindly invest into whatever asset with money they don't have. In this case I don't see it as a problem that banks are preventing this from happening, because it's their money.

If people, mentally challenged or not, decide to blindly invest into whatever asset with their own money, not a single bank should come in between that. It's people's their own choice and responsibility to burn their money.

Negative aspect with CCs is that people can sign up for one even with state welfare. From the moment they are accepted, which can be done directly via the internet, where depending on the bank, they get instant access to €5000.

In this process, you won't be facing any person asking whether or not it's better for you to not take one because of your low income or mental state. It's a bad way of conducting business from the side of the bank.

If I look at my own bank account, I can increase my credit limit (obviously won't do) to a level where it's 10 times higher than my monthly income, and that with just a few clicks and a digital signature from my banking calculator.

[aso118]

My main point is that people shouldn't blindly invest into whatever asset with money they don't have. In this case I don't see it as a problem that banks are preventing this from happening, because it's their money.

A credit card can be used to get into an adult entertainment show, but they cannot be used to buy bitcoins? I find it strange that banks are okay to fund expenses, but are not okay to fund risky expenses.
The due diligence on the customer should have been done before the credit card was issued. They really shouldn't be trying to micromanage what the customer does  with his sanctioned limit.

[Betwrong]

My main point is that people shouldn't blindly invest into whatever asset with money they don't have. In this case I don't see it as a problem that banks are preventing this from happening, because it's their money.

A credit card can be used to get into an adult entertainment show, but they cannot be used to buy bitcoins? I find it strange that banks are okay to fund expenses, but are not okay to fund risky expenses.
The due diligence on the customer should have been done before the credit card was issued. They really shouldn't be trying to micromanage what the customer does  with his sanctioned limit.

How much can you spend on an adult entertainment show? From what I know the prices range from $40 to $300 on average, and max you can spend if you want a VIP suite access is around $1,000. These amounts are much less than what people are willing to spend on purchasing Bitcoins or other crypto currencies when they "know for sure" that they are making a profitable investment. It's a known fact that the more you invest in case of a profitable investment the bigger profit you will have and thus it is very likely that people will ask for the max credit they can get. ... I have to say that I agree with the banks policy in that regard.

[richardsNY]

A credit card can be used to get into an adult entertainment show, but they cannot be used to buy bitcoins? I find it strange that banks are okay to fund expenses, but are not okay to fund risky expenses.

Adult entertainment isn't a potential threat to the entire banking system, where Bitcoin is exactly that. These pussy banks hide themselves behind all their nonsense reasons and arguments to not openly admit that they just want to slow down Bitcoin's growth. No one can stop people from buying Bitcoin, even not with these measures in full working state. People can cash out money at any ATM with their credit cards, and have that money deposited on their bank account to wire that money to whatever exchange, or use that money to find local sellers, and believe me, there are many of them fairly nearby. Bitcoin is unstoppable, and it's time for financial institutions to accept that and deal with it.

[bbc.reporter]

I'm a bit mixed on this matter. It's yet again an example of how these institutions decide for you what you can do and what not, but on the other hand it will somewhat prevent mentally challenged people from harming themselves.

It's a given rule (at least for me) that you shouldn't spend money that you don't have. Putting yourself into debt just to buy yourself some Bitcoins or whatever or coins or assets is just retarded.

People however will have their ways to avoid this measure and still be able to invest with money that they don't have. It may require them to take an extra step, but they will successfully achieve their goal anyway.

I am on the side of the banks in this matter. Stupid people should not be allowed to gamble in scam cryptocoins and ICOs on credit. What would happen if they lose their investment and cannot pay for their credit card bills or their rent or their school tuition fees because they are in debt?

[entrepmind23]

It may be cliche but "Invest what you can afford to lose" should always be applied when putting your money into something. Cryptocurrency investment or trading is risky and you should not use money you don't have. Obviously when you use credit card to purchase crypto then you cannot afford to lose it so the banks are just protecting their businesses because of the increasing percentage of people who are using it to buy crypto and there is a possibility that the borrowers would not be able to pay it if they lose the coins whatever the cause may be. This is also a protection for the people to not be swimming in debts when the trade doesn't go their way.

[Theb]

I think one of the reasons why they did this move is the chance of their customers not paying back as a result of trading. Well of course buying cryptocurrencies at a Credit is really a bad move as they are loaning out their money just for you to trade which is really a risk on a business as even though you have a good credit rating with one wrong trade you will lose all your money you invested in trading. It is really a good move on their part as they are still allowing their customers to buy cryptocurrencies with their own money. 

[coin_lover]

This is exactly why we need cryptos , bank should not have the power to decide for us