American banks require permission from the SEC to store cryptocurrency

[zasad@]

https://www.aba.com/-/media/documents/letters-to-congress-and-regulators/jointclsec20240214.pdf


___
American banks also want to make money from this. And now Coinbase holds a huge portion of the cryptocurrencies for the spot Bitcoin ETF.

I don’t know whether American banks can act as a custodian for Bitcoin or what licenses are needed to do so, but an increase in custodial custodians will increase the security of storing cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin ETF is not the last cryptocurrency ETF in the US.

[1714247302]

1714247302

[dansus021]

If Coinbase holds majority of ETF and bank bitcoin do you think this gonna be to centralized? To be honest I like when bitcoin Etf got approved but when all just use coinbase it will be too centralized in my opinion and when something bad happen the domino effect would likely to happen.

and of course everyone want the slice of bitcoin pie hahaha

[yhiaali3]

I don’t know whether American banks can act as a custodian for Bitcoin or what licenses are needed to do so, but an increase in custodial custodians will increase the security of storing cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin ETF is not the last cryptocurrency ETF in the US.

This is the strangest thing I've ever heard!!! How will US banks be able to act as custodians of Bitcoin? There is a complete contradiction between the concept of Bitcoin and the concept of banks from the peak of decentralization to the peak of centralization!!! But this is always the case in Uncle Sam's country .

In any case, it may be true that increasing the number of custodians would increase the security of storing cryptocurrencies, but it would expose the entire concept of decentralization and privacy to danger.

I expect that this is the most dangerous thing that ETF has brought to us, the transfer of Bitcoin to centralization. Instead of investors keeping their Bitcoin in their wallets, these central companies and banks will keep it and give them worthless shares.

[zasad@]

I don’t know whether American banks can act as a custodian for Bitcoin or what licenses are needed to do so, but an increase in custodial custodians will increase the security of storing cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin ETF is not the last cryptocurrency ETF in the US.

This is the strangest thing I've ever heard!!! How will US banks be able to act as custodians of Bitcoin? There is a complete contradiction between the concept of Bitcoin and the concept of banks from the peak of decentralization to the peak of centralization!!! But this is always the case in Uncle Sam's country .

In any case, it may be true that increasing the number of custodians would increase the security of storing cryptocurrencies, but it would expose the entire concept of decentralization and privacy to danger.

I expect that this is the most dangerous thing that ETF has brought to us, the transfer of Bitcoin to centralization. Instead of investors keeping their Bitcoin in their wallets, these central companies and banks will keep it and give them worthless shares.

Banks in the US have been obstructing the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem in the US for many years, but after the adoption of the Spot Bitcoin ETF, there is no point in this confrontation. If banks used the services of organizations to lobby their interests to become custodial holders of Bitcoin, then according to US law this is possible.

[yhiaali3]

Banks in the US have been obstructing the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem in the US for many years, but after the adoption of the Spot Bitcoin ETF, there is no point in this confrontation. If banks used the services of organizations to lobby their interests to become custodial holders of Bitcoin, then according to US law this is possible.

Although it seems contradictory, I expect the banks to obtain approval easily, because this step will be welcomed by the US government, and the banks will obtain the necessary licenses and legal amendments with great ease.

It would be very appropriate for the US government to centralize Bitcoin through ETF companies and central banks instead of trying to ban it. Containment rather than confrontation is the easiest and best solution.

I do not know what the impact of such a move on Bitcoin in the long term will be, positive or negative?

[pakhitheboss]

I don’t know whether American banks can act as a custodian for Bitcoin or what licenses are needed to do so, but an increase in custodial custodians will increase the security of storing cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin ETF is not the last cryptocurrency ETF in the US.

This is the strangest thing I've ever heard!!! How will US banks be able to act as custodians of Bitcoin? There is a complete contradiction between the concept of Bitcoin and the concept of banks from the peak of decentralization to the peak of centralization!!! But this is always the case in Uncle Sam's country .

In any case, it may be true that increasing the number of custodians would increase the security of storing cryptocurrencies, but it would expose the entire concept of decentralization and privacy to danger.

I expect that this is the most dangerous thing that ETF has brought to us, the transfer of Bitcoin to centralization. Instead of investors keeping their Bitcoin in their wallets, these central companies and banks will keep it and give them worthless shares.

Banks in the US have been obstructing the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem in the US for many years, but after the adoption of the Spot Bitcoin ETF, there is no point in this confrontation. If banks used the services of organizations to lobby their interests to become custodial holders of Bitcoin, then according to US law this is possible.

I think that was the plan from the beginning with banks going out of business in the US such tactics might help them. With spot ETF getting approved they found as in the banks an opportunity to cash the trend and I won't be surprised if the SEC agrees to their request. Without the banks, there wouldn't be any requirement to have the SEC as a governing body.

It would be very appropriate for the US government to centralize Bitcoin through ETF companies and central banks instead of trying to ban it. Containment rather than confrontation is the easiest and best solution.

I do not know what the impact of such a move on Bitcoin in the long term will be, positive or negative?

I do not think the impact would be negative but the US and its financial institution have tried their level best to control Bitcoin from the beginning. Through the spot ETF they might be able to control it for their financial purpose within the US.

[yhiaali3]

I do not think the impact would be negative but the US and its financial institution have tried their level best to control Bitcoin from the beginning. Through the spot ETF they might be able to control it for their financial purpose within the US.

Banks are much more dangerous than ETFs because they are completely controlled by the government and through them they can monitor and control everything.

In addition, banks have huge capital, and if they accumulate huge amounts of Bitcoin through direct purchases or deposits made by investors, all these quantities will accumulate in the banks, and through them they can control Bitcoin and influence the market.

[bbc.reporter]

If Coinbase holds majority of ETF and bank bitcoin do you think this gonna be to centralized? To be honest I like when bitcoin Etf got approved but when all just use coinbase it will be too centralized in my opinion and when something bad happen the domino effect would likely to happen.

and of course everyone want the slice of bitcoin pie hahaha

It will certainly be centralized and this is the risk of a cryptocoin with limited supply. There is also the risk of Coinbase being hacked.

It presently appears that more people in the community are beginning to have questions and also are being skeptical on bitcoin's monetary policy hehehe. The developers of Grin wrote an argument against bitcoin's monetary policy. Everyone should read this.

https://docs.grin.mw/wiki/extra-documents/monetary-policy/

[avikz]

Everyone wants a share in the pie. Why the regulatory agencies and enforcement agencies in US is bringing in so many rules to make it very complex for the common people?? They want to make it more centralised and they want banks to control the cryptocurrency. Custodian service is nothing bad if someone is holding a huge amount of Bitcoins. People may want security in their holding to protect it from the thieves. But when banks want to become a custodian or do business using Bitcoin, that clearly shows the potential of this crypto market. But unfortunately the regulators want to destroy the decentralized nature of Bitcoin. Let's see how it pans out.

[Fiatless]

Banks in the US have been obstructing the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem in the US for many years, but after the adoption of the Spot Bitcoin ETF, there is no point in this confrontation. If banks used the services of organizations to lobby their interests to become custodial holders of Bitcoin, then according to US law this is possible.

The approval of Bitcoin ETF has changed the tide in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Many of these anti-Bitcoin forces have no other option but to look for avenues to make money from the sectors since they couldn't stop its institutionalization in the US financial sector.

The US banking sector is even coming late into the crypto custody services business because some top banks in Europe have already offered custodian services to customers. Banks like Deutsche Bank and Credit Agricole's CACEIS are already major crypto custodians in Europe.

The SEC might approve this application but it will come with strict regulations. They will have access to the personal details of depositors and they might also restrict the amount or worth of cryptocurrencies these banks could keep.

[hugeblack]

As long as there are steps taken towards centralization, the banks will inevitably try to bite off a part of this cake, and we will see that they may try to keep and even invest in Bitcoin, but the question remains whether this will be with bank money or currency money, since in the ETF, the money is customer money and is kept at coinbase and guaranteed it will not be hacked or lost.

[zasad@]

Banks in the US have been obstructing the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem in the US for many years, but after the adoption of the Spot Bitcoin ETF, there is no point in this confrontation. If banks used the services of organizations to lobby their interests to become custodial holders of Bitcoin, then according to US law this is possible.

Although it seems contradictory, I expect the banks to obtain approval easily, because this step will be welcomed by the US government, and the banks will obtain the necessary licenses and legal amendments with great ease.

It would be very appropriate for the US government to centralize Bitcoin through ETF companies and central banks instead of trying to ban it. Containment rather than confrontation is the easiest and best solution.

I do not know what the impact of such a move on Bitcoin in the long term will be, positive or negative?

Any lever can be used for negative purposes, but the government always uses levers to strengthen its position and control over citizens.
I don't believe in Bitcoin as a coin that will live for many years to come.
There could be different scenarios when the price falls, investors suffer huge losses and Bitcoin is banned.

[yhiaali3]

I don't believe in Bitcoin as a coin that will live for many years to come.
There could be different scenarios when the price falls, investors suffer huge losses and Bitcoin is banned.

I believe in Bitcoin as a currency but like you I don't believe it will last long. Not because of the low price or anything like that, but because of governments, especially the United States government, which will try in every way not to let Bitcoin live for long because it prevents the control it exercises over countries and individuals through the dollar.

The United States cannot bear to see some countries on which it imposes economic sanctions, such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, escaping the sanctions through Bitcoin, or even organizations it considers terrorist, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and others.
It also wants to impose strict control on all financial transactions of influential individuals, whether inside the United States or even outside it.

[zasad@]

I don't believe in Bitcoin as a coin that will live for many years to come.
There could be different scenarios when the price falls, investors suffer huge losses and Bitcoin is banned.

I believe in Bitcoin as a currency but like you I don't believe it will last long. Not because of the low price or anything like that, but because of governments, especially the United States government, which will try in every way not to let Bitcoin live for long because it prevents the control it exercises over countries and individuals through the dollar.

The United States cannot bear to see some countries on which it imposes economic sanctions, such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, escaping the sanctions through Bitcoin, or even organizations it considers terrorist, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and others.
It also wants to impose strict control on all financial transactions of influential individuals, whether inside the United States or even outside it.

The fact that countries avoid sanctions with the help of cryptocurrencies is very unreliable information. Of course, there is such a method, but it takes up a very small volume of the total volume of settlements between counterparties.
Many settlements have already begun to take place in national currencies and the dollar is used less.

You all talk about sanctions, but sanctions sometimes look so funny that it becomes sad.

Gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine on February 22 amounted to 42.4 million cubic meters. m.

If you don't believe Russian sources, then look at non-Russian sources
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-gas-europe-via-ukraine-transit-rises-2023-02-01/

Despite all the sanctions and the situation between Russia and Ukraine, Russia supplies gas to Europe through Ukraine and pays Ukraine money for pumping gas. And Russia receives money from European countries for gas.

[pakhitheboss]

I do not think the impact would be negative but the US and its financial institution have tried their level best to control Bitcoin from the beginning. Through the spot ETF they might be able to control it for their financial purpose within the US.

Banks are much more dangerous than ETFs because they are completely controlled by the government and through them they can monitor and control everything.

In addition, banks have huge capital, and if they accumulate huge amounts of Bitcoin through direct purchases or deposits made by investors, all these quantities will accumulate in the banks, and through them they can control Bitcoin and influence the market.

I understand your opinion but I have a different aspect to all of this and that is regardless of Banks or any other Financial institution anything that governs them (for example SEC) are danger to decentralization. If you are aware then Blackrock itself is a big threat to decentralization, they have control over everything happening in the US and the countries they are operating directly or indirectly.

The SEC would give the banks the right to become custodians as they did for the wall street. We can only speculate about it here and do nothing as we are not part of the American deep state. Everything happens when the deep state approves that is why we see suddenly after 11 years the SEC approved all Bitcoin ETFs, which they denied one day prior through their X.com handle and said that it got hacked.

Can you trust a commission that advocates safety first and does not have 2FA for its social media handle? It is all lies and lies that I think is being promoted & what we are seeing now is a drama being orchestrated.

[yhiaali3]

If you don't believe Russian sources, then look at non-Russian sources
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-gas-europe-via-ukraine-transit-rises-2023-02-01/

Despite all the sanctions and the situation between Russia and Ukraine, Russia supplies gas to Europe through Ukraine and pays Ukraine money for pumping gas. And Russia receives money from European countries for gas.

Yes, I heard such news from other sources. This is a confirmed fact. The same applies to Iran and Venezuela as well. Despite all the sanctions, the United States and Europe pay money to obtain oil.

If I understand you correctly, you want to say that all these sanctions are a joke because the United States and Europe want to obtain oil and gas at any price because they cannot continue without them, and in return they forget the sanctions.

This also means that there is essentially no need to use cryptocurrencies to avoid sanctions that are essentially just a dead letter.

[pinggoki]

I don’t know whether American banks can act as a custodian for Bitcoin or what licenses are needed to do so, but an increase in custodial custodians will increase the security of storing cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin ETF is not the last cryptocurrency ETF in the US.

Can't argue with that logic that it's going to be much safer that banks are holding the cryptocurrencies but think about this, wouldn't this be a blasphemy already in what bitcoin's trying to advocate for? Having another custodian for your bitcoin is already a bad thing for many individual investors but now there's a custodian for the custodians? Don't that seem to tick off the red flags for some of you because that's just crazy to me. I guess if it's ETF, their investors might still have some sort of fight in case one of the custodians run away with the bitcoin.

[zasad@]

I don’t know whether American banks can act as a custodian for Bitcoin or what licenses are needed to do so, but an increase in custodial custodians will increase the security of storing cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin ETF is not the last cryptocurrency ETF in the US.

Can't argue with that logic that it's going to be much safer that banks are holding the cryptocurrencies but think about this, wouldn't this be a blasphemy already in what bitcoin's trying to advocate for? Having another custodian for your bitcoin is already a bad thing for many individual investors but now there's a custodian for the custodians? Don't that seem to tick off the red flags for some of you because that's just crazy to me. I guess if it's ETF, their investors might still have some sort of fight in case one of the custodians run away with the bitcoin.

A large American bank is not a new cryptocurrency startup, so the bank cannot run away with its clients' bitcoins. I have questions about what will happen in that situation if the bank goes bankrupt. Many large banks have long had illiquid assets on their balance sheets, and if there are problems in the banking sector, the US government will not be able to support all banks.

[pinggoki]

~

A large American bank is not a new cryptocurrency startup, so the bank cannot run away with its clients' bitcoins. I have questions about what will happen in that situation if the bank goes bankrupt. Many large banks have long had illiquid assets on their balance sheets, and if there are problems in the banking sector, the US government will not be able to support all banks.

That's not the point that I'm trying to say here, sure there's the assurance that they won't run away but you're giving up privacy by subscribing to this thing right? That's what I see in this thing that they're doing and that it's a bad thing for what the principle of bitcoin stands for which is to move away from banks but now we're buddy buddy with them although with extra steps.

[zasad@]

~

A large American bank is not a new cryptocurrency startup, so the bank cannot run away with its clients' bitcoins. I have questions about what will happen in that situation if the bank goes bankrupt. Many large banks have long had illiquid assets on their balance sheets, and if there are problems in the banking sector, the US government will not be able to support all banks.

That's not the point that I'm trying to say here, sure there's the assurance that they won't run away but you're giving up privacy by subscribing to this thing right? That's what I see in this thing that they're doing and that it's a bad thing for what the principle of bitcoin stands for which is to move away from banks but now we're buddy buddy with them although with extra steps.

This is a custodial service, which means that privacy standards here will be regulated by American law and any American bank will comply with the same standards as the Coinbase exchange. And all data will be sent to tax authorities and other organizations. But if I understand correctly, this is a service for organizations.