JPMorgan Accused of Covert De-Banking Tactics to Silence Crypto Advocates

Generated by AI AgentCoin World
Friday, Jul 25, 2025 10:44 pm ET2min read
Aime RobotAime Summary

- JPMorgan Chase faces accusations of covert de-banking tactics to suppress crypto advocates, including halting Gemini’s re-onboarding after public criticism.

- Critics allege traditional banks, including JPMorgan, are stifling DeFi innovation through anti-competitive fees and Operation Chokepoint 2.0 pressures.

- JPMorgan, while emphasizing compliance, has seen $60B in crypto inflows, highlighting tensions between its crypto interests and exclusionary tactics.

- Deutsche Bank and others face similar scrutiny, raising concerns about gatekeeper control and the need for regulatory clarity to prevent systemic exclusion.

JPMorgan Chase has drawn accusations of employing covert de-banking strategies to suppress cryptocurrency advocates, with critics alleging the bank is leveraging indirect tactics to restrict access to financial services for crypto entities and their supporters. The controversy centers on a July 25 statement by Tyler Winklevoss, co-founder of crypto exchange Gemini, who revealed that

paused its re-onboarding process for Gemini following his public criticisms of the bank. Winklevoss attributed the decision to JPMorgan’s alleged desire to “silence” opponents while advancing a broader agenda to limit consumer access to free banking data through third-party fintech platforms [1]. He framed the move as part of a coordinated effort by traditional banks to stifle innovation in the crypto and fintech sectors, calling out what he described as anti-competitive and “rent-seeking” behavior [1].

The allegations highlight a deepening conflict between legacy financial institutions and the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem. Winklevoss accused JPMorgan and other banks of attempting to impose “exorbitant fees” on fintech platforms that enable users to link bank accounts to crypto exchanges—a critical step for purchasing digital assets like

. Such fees, he warned, could cripple fintechs that facilitate these connections, ultimately harming consumer access to crypto services [1]. The tactics reportedly involve pressuring third-party vendors, payment processors, and banks to sever ties with crypto-related entities, often without public acknowledgment [1].

The dispute ties into broader regulatory and industry tensions, particularly around Operation Chokepoint 2.0, an informal initiative to de-bank industries deemed “disfavored” by traditional banking circles. While some officials have suggested the initiative is defunct, critics argue it persists through subtle regulatory and institutional pressures. Winklevoss and other advocates are pushing for congressional oversight, proposed legislation to ensure fair banking access, and greater transparency from regulators [1].

JPMorgan has not directly addressed the specific claims but has previously emphasized the need for robust compliance frameworks to combat risks such as money laundering. The bank has also seen a surge in institutional interest in digital assets, with a reported $60 billion in net capital inflows into the sector year-to-date [3]. However, its alleged de-banking efforts underscore a paradox: while the bank benefits from growing crypto adoption, it simultaneously faces accusations of using exclusionary tactics to protect its dominance in traditional finance.

The controversy mirrors similar scrutiny faced by other banks, including

, which has been accused of pressuring partners to disengage from crypto ventures [2]. These practices raise questions about the role of gatekeepers in shaping the financial landscape and whether open markets can coexist with centralized control mechanisms. For crypto advocates, the implications are profound. De-banking tactics not only limit access to essential financial infrastructure but also challenge the decentralized principles underpinning blockchain technology. Analysts stress the need for clearer regulatory boundaries to prevent systemic exclusion of smaller players [1].

As the debate intensifies, the outcome could influence global regulatory approaches to de-banking and the integration of digital assets into traditional financial systems. A shift toward stricter oversight might create a more level playing field for crypto projects, while inaction could reinforce the dominance of legacy institutions. For now, JPMorgan’s actions remain a focal point in the ongoing clash between established banking norms and the disruptive potential of crypto innovation.

Sources:

[1] [JPMorgan Accused of Silencing Crypto Advocates With Hidden De-Banking Tactics] [https://news.bitcoin.com/jpmorgan-accused-of-silencing-crypto-advocates-with-hidden-de-banking-tactics/]

[2] [Alternet Exclusives - Alternet.org] [https://www.alternet.org/alternet-exclusives/]

[3] [Why Meme-Stock Mania Keeps Happening] [https://johnlothiannews.com/why-meme-stock-mania-keeps-happening/]

Comments



Add a public comment...
No comments

No comments yet