Crypto Clients getting turned down by United Kingdom Banks | PM on other quest

[posi]

This is an example of fiat fighting back, maybe they've realized the dominance of the cryptocurrencies and are jealous of how they are missing businesses because of it.

This action comes from some banks, and not all, so it is impossible to say fiat against crypto. Fiat is still controlled by the government, and the bank is just an agent that helps the government distribute fiat, so it doesn't need to be against cryptocurrencies. If the government finds out that cryptocurrencies are harmful to fiat, we will be in more trouble than fiat. So don't expect their fight to happen, we won't get any benefit from it.

[EarnOnVictor]

This is an example of fiat fighting back, maybe they've realized the dominance of the cryptocurrencies and are jealous of how they are missing businesses because of it.

This action comes from some banks, and not all, so it is impossible to say fiat against crypto. Fiat is still controlled by the government, and the bank is just an agent that helps the government distribute fiat, so it doesn't need to be against cryptocurrencies. If the government finds out that cryptocurrencies are harmful to fiat, we will be in more trouble than fiat. So don't expect their fight to happen, we won't get any benefit from it.

Your response still baffles me, they are not just needed as you contradict yourself and explained what an elementary student also knows, so I don't see a reason for it.

I will just ask you a question, perhaps, I will conclude that the acts of those banks are not anti-crypto as they turn down crypto-related companies, which was not their initial mode of operation...

...And the question is, what is their reason (as you seem to know it)?

[WillyAp]

In short, they do not want anyone to operate crypto-related accounts.

Well they can use https://bankera.com/
Why not?

[harapan]

Any politician who claims to be friendly to cryptocurrency is often using it as a self marketing tool, to appeal to a certain crowd, but few seem to stick by it in the long run.

This is very possible. Maybe he just wanted to appear as "that guy" to the crypto crowd and get elected. I can't put anything past politicians these days. Maybe he doesn't give a shit about the industry at all.
Or maybe he is actually crypto friendly and there is nothing he can do about these strict banking regulations on crypto companies. We know the relationship politicians and banks have, so they will always make policies that favor the banks.

As an economist, let me tell you, I don't trust the government's ability to balance regulations and innovation. Past has shown us that too much regulations can strangle innovation and stunt industry growth.

What's more, the government's idea for a "white list" of registered firms seems like a quick fix to a more serious issue. Why are banks constraining or prohibiting transactions with crypto firms in the first place? Are they genuinely concerned about financial crimes or just intimidated by the industry?

At this point I don't believe they're making regulation but instead trying to drive crypto out of existence with every tool they've got. or at least make crypto so irrelevant so it don't mess up their already messed up structure.
They just use the financial crimes as an excuse, same way they use other vices to spread propaganda about crypto.
We should brace up for more news like this though because I don't believe they'll stop now.

[rokok lokal]

With the recent news, UK banks are not accepting any Crypto-associated users and companies to open their bank accounts with them, banks are also freezing the accounts of current users/companies, and those who have accounts already approved, are asking for more and more documentation.

People often forget, or don't read, the terms of service when they deposit their funds into banks. Banks are within the law in most jurisdictions to completely freeze your entire balance and require you to produce all sorts of documents in order to access your funds. They reserve the right to deny the documents and keep you in an cumbersome loop in order access your funds, if not entirely forfeiting your balance for violating of terms of service.

When you trust someone else with your funds, consider yourself to not be the "true" owner of the funds.

Indeed, it's accurate, and it's important to mention that this doesn't imply that individuals should refrain from storing their funds in banks completely. Instead, it underscores the importance of individuals exercising caution and conducting their research when selecting a financial institution and carefully reviewing the terms of service before consenting to prevent potential issues in the future.

[posi]

This is an example of fiat fighting back, maybe they've realized the dominance of the cryptocurrencies and are jealous of how they are missing businesses because of it.

This action comes from some banks, and not all, so it is impossible to say fiat against crypto. Fiat is still controlled by the government, and the bank is just an agent that helps the government distribute fiat, so it doesn't need to be against cryptocurrencies. If the government finds out that cryptocurrencies are harmful to fiat, we will be in more trouble than fiat. So don't expect their fight to happen, we won't get any benefit from it.

Your response still baffles me, they are not just needed as you contradict yourself and explained what an elementary student also knows, so I don't see a reason for it.

I will just ask you a question, perhaps, I will conclude that the acts of those banks are not anti-crypto as they turn down crypto-related companies, which was not their initial mode of operation...

...And the question is, what is their reason (as you seem to know it)?

You said that fiat is going against crypto. And what I'm saying is that those banks are against crypto, not fiat against crypto. I'm not them, so I don't have that answer for you, and I wanted to ask you one question in return. Besides those banks that reject crypto, there are also quite a few other banks that accept crypto, is that considered fiat against crypto?
Recently, a large Swiss bank offered bitcoin and ETH to their customers. And what do you think about this?
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/04/05/swiss-government-owned-bank-postfinance-to-offer-customers-crypto/

[Finestream]

This was expected to happen. Even in my country, crypto companies faced the same issue. It went to such a level where some companies decided to close down their operations and one of them moved out to Singapore from where they are providing services to 30+ countries.

You need to understand that banks are the biggest financer of any country. So they have a very strong lobby and high level connections within the government. So such attacks will continue to happen, worldwide. UK is just leading the way.

This is true. Until cryptocurrencies are considered a threat to fiat, the government will never allow its adoption and will continue to command banks to set restrictions for crypto clients. This is already happening in our country, though it’s not obvious but as much as possible, if they knew that you are into crypto, they will eventually prohibit you from depositing such huge amount, otherwise your account will be automatically closed.

[WillyAp]

Until cryptocurrencies are considered a threat to fiat,

They never will be a threat to FIAT, without FIAT no Crypto no Bitcoin. Bitcoin was meant for the function of passing value from one Wallet to another. Over borders for little money.  

Most Cryptos are created to make their creators rich.

I really wonder why Crypto is so limited to national borders? I understand the need for credits, the Crypto Scene has Credit Institutions. You need to go thru the motions and drive your projekt, you need to have a business, a marketing plan and get financing. 

[justdimin]

This was expected to happen. Even in my country, crypto companies faced the same issue. It went to such a level where some companies decided to close down their operations and one of them moved out to Singapore from where they are providing services to 30+ countries.

You need to understand that banks are the biggest financer of any country. So they have a very strong lobby and high level connections within the government. So such attacks will continue to happen, worldwide. UK is just leading the way.

This is true. Until cryptocurrencies are considered a threat to fiat, the government will never allow its adoption and will continue to command banks to set restrictions for crypto clients. This is already happening in our country, though it’s not obvious but as much as possible, if they knew that you are into crypto, they will eventually prohibit you from depositing such huge amount, otherwise your account will be automatically closed.

I think governments do not really care about the potential "threat" about it as much as we believe. Most of the nations in the world let the crypto world be the crypto world and only thing they care about is the fact that they can control who uses it.

So, as long as they can have an exchange that gives the data of who bought how much and sold how much and when, that is more than enough information they need and you can continue to use crypto anyway you want. That's how they approach it, and this is probably how dozens of nations are doing it right now, when there is a common approach like this by so many big nations and hundreds of billions of dollars are involved, I highly doubt that would change anytime soon.

[South Park]

I think governments do not really care about the potential "threat" about it as much as we believe. Most of the nations in the world let the crypto world be the crypto world and only thing they care about is the fact that they can control who uses it.

So, as long as they can have an exchange that gives the data of who bought how much and sold how much and when, that is more than enough information they need and you can continue to use crypto anyway you want. That's how they approach it, and this is probably how dozens of nations are doing it right now, when there is a common approach like this by so many big nations and hundreds of billions of dollars are involved, I highly doubt that would change anytime soon.

It is true this is the approach they are taking now, but this does not mean this is the approach they will always take, governments make the laws and as such they can change the rules of the game at any moment, if suddenly the economy begins to go through a very turbulent period all over the world then it would not take long for those same countries which currently are taking a laid-back approach to change their stance and be way more strict when it comes to the regulations concerning this market.

[concept2]

Prime minister Sunak led the country to the UK, and his dream to make the UK a Crypto Hub is breaking apart considering the main system is ignoring the whole concept of what the PM stated in the first place.

With the recent news, UK banks are not accepting any Crypto-associated users and companies to open their bank accounts with them, banks are also freezing the accounts of current users/companies, and those who have accounts already approved, are asking for more and more documentation.

In short, they do not want anyone to operate crypto-related accounts.

On the other hand, Gordon Duff said that European Union is also trying to make efforts which are in turn making various banks "receptive" to the technology but the UK is doing exactly the opposite to that.

...

PM Sunak wanted to make the UK a crypto paradise, but banks refused. Old-school banks can't keep up with disruptive tech, you know? UK banks are much more closed-minded than EU banks, which are striving to handle digital assets. The UK has hardly little crypto VC investment. Cryptocurrency enthusiasts are using payment processors to survive. This can't last forever, guy. The government must intervene against banks that limit or ban crypto transactions. Change is hard, but we must move forward, right?

[DrBeer]

I do not know anything about Sunak's economic policies or what he is trying to offer to the British economy, especially in the field of cryptocurrencies, but all that is happening now is an attempt to break the link between cryptocurrencies and banking, and thus avoid any financial crisis that could occur if cryptocurrency platforms go bankrupt.

Not accepting Bitcoin on these platforms dries up the liquidity in its hand, and therefore it will be easier to place regulations on it because it will not be able to withstand much.

What I am trying to say is that what is happening is an attempt to limit the growth of the market, close small platforms, and weaken large platforms. The continuation of this policy for several years will make the legislative regulation of digital currencies possible.
Or at least this is my analysis of what is happening.

The capitalization of the entire crypto market, today it is only 1.2 trillion dollars. For the global economy, this is NOTHING. But for speculators from the crypto world, where they earn money very freely, and where the regulators are not so strong, they will suffer VERY STRONGLY. There is a saying - look for someone who benefits, there is an answer. In a word, both for the state and for the world economy, the collapse of the crypto world is an inconspicuous event that will not create noticeable problems.

[Wong Gendheng]

As a Crypto user, of course this is normal, rejection to banned Crypto has ever and often happens, even China has been banned bitcoin mining, but the community of crypto users is big and continues to grow so that it does not really consider things like this as fear.

[xSkylarx]

Reading this, I just remembered that banks ban and freeze accounts if they know that it involves crypto, like trading or investing. That is why, when my friends apply for a bank, they wouldn't say that it involves crypto, but they can still check it. If the coming money is huge, that is the time they will ask for proof of income, at which point they will freeze your account.

[South Park]

Reading this, I just remembered that banks ban and freeze accounts if they know that it involves crypto, like trading or investing. That is why, when my friends apply for a bank, they wouldn't say that it involves crypto, but they can still check it. If the coming money is huge, that is the time they will ask for proof of income, at which point they will freeze your account.

Banks can freeze your account for no reason at all and it could take you months or even years to reverse their decision even if they are on the wrong, so what to do? Probably the only choice for those that live in a country in which those policies are in place is to buy their bitcoin with a P2P transaction and then trade the markets at an exchange which does not ask for KYC, now this is not for everyone, but if your friends want to keep being part of this market this could be their only option left.

[Viscore]

Reading this, I just remembered that banks ban and freeze accounts if they know that it involves crypto, like trading or investing. That is why, when my friends apply for a bank, they wouldn't say that it involves crypto, but they can still check it. If the coming money is huge, that is the time they will ask for proof of income, at which point they will freeze your account.

I guess that is not only happening in UK but certainly in all countries that are not crypto friendly. So when you admit that you are involved in crypto and that huge funds are entering your account, your account will be automatically freeze or closed. That’s why some crypto investors prefer to be anonymous, and just hide the source of their funds so that the banks will no longer question and suspect them. And much better if you separate your funds, and deposit into different banks.