It's obvious that US administration started fighting on all fronts with everything that has any connection with fiat and crypto, that includes banks with their cards, all p2p platforms (several shut down recently), and centralized exchanges are under pressure for some time.
To me it's clear why they are doing this, they are working hard to remove cash from all countries (it already started in Nigeria), and introduce their shitty CBDC projects as poor replacement everywhere.
They can't do that fully until they control Bitcoin to fiat money flow as much as they can, but they also tried banning torrents for years and look at their poor results with that example.

If they won't unbank Coinbase and Binance, Bitcoin will be fine. If they do, the price will instantly plummet, adoption will either slow down significantly or turn negative. But it seems like the chance of them doing the latter are very low, since this is a very unofficial rumored crackdown on smaller businesses rather than a total ban on crypto.

@pawel7777. This is certainly what everyone in the cryptospace should be expecting. They do not want the cryptospace to compete with the moneylaundering operations of their backers from the banking sector hehehe.

I would begin to be more skeptical if the Biden administration began a more supportive attitude on bitcoin and the cryptospace.

Also, more stricter legislations should also be expected under Biden. I speculate that everything will be banned in time and with only a few whitelisted projects and services allowed to continue.



Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she plans to reintroduce legislation with Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., that would extend anti-money laundering laws to a broad array of the cryptocurrency ecosystem. That would include digital asset wallet providers, miners, validators and other blockchain network participants.

The original version of the bill she and Marshall introduced last December also would have prohibited banks and other financial institutions from transactions with digital asset mixers, which are meant to mask transactions made on public blockchains.

If introduced in the same form as last December, the bill would also extend anti-money laundering reporting requirements to include U.S. persons who transact in $10,000 or more in digital assets using an offshore account and require the Treasury Department to do anti-money laundering compliance examinations for money service businesses, the registration that large U.S. crypto companies fall under.

Source https://www.theblock.co/post/211783/warren-pledges-to-reintroduce-crypto-anti-money-laundering-bill

if you are running a service of swapping "currency"  for a fee, requiring using your bank account for wire transfers as part of that swap.. you are a money service business MSB/payment facilitator. requiring a licence and a business bank account

being a MSB/PF is not a acceptable term of use in your personal bank account terms of service agreement

local bitcoin users that done regular p2p swaps for fiat .. got hit the most by their banks flagging the unusual frequency of wire transfers..
this has been ongoing for years (2014+) world wide. when countries legitimised crypto as currency "money" (instead of private property(pre 2014)

but thats the downside of when bitcoin became a "legitimised currency" in law, which meant those doing money service businesses need to then become licenced businesses if they do more then whats deemed "personal use"

you can be a MSB but not from a personal account without a MSB licence
yes needing to get a licence which means KYC customers and such.

the amateur users stupidly thought the solution was to open new bank accounts and then use de-fi, thinking the fault lays in links to using 'localbitcoins' as the cause..
but localbitcoins only fault was advertising amareurs, which meant amateurs got too popular. doing too many wire transfers thus hitting the thresholds of flags of non personal use  in their personal accounts

but again the de-fi users if they get too popular by having too frequent random transfers to strangers for amounts outside of whats deemed personal use. will get caught running a MSB

hint hint. dont get too popular de-fi guys if you are still using a personal bank account to do your swaps

No surprises there! Same has been done in my country as well.  This is a well thought-out move by the world leaders. Every government understands that crypto market has not yet reached to an extent where they can survive on its own. A seamless integration is needed with fiat for the crypto market to survive and grow. So the governments are cutting the access to banking services for the crypto related businesses.

In my country, the government did the same to a company called Zebpay. Now they have moved to Singapore and operate in 30 countries except my country. Options will be there but now the crypto businesses will have to go through a lot of regulatory hassles.

i as a brit can say this without bias...

i read the OP's content as if he is a republican/trump supporter being anti democratic party

however the actual events are not banning all accounts
its banning accounts of bank account owners that are doing business but not being licenced, when said businesses are operating as a money business
its also businesses that operate certain flaggable offenses such as laundering russian riches or gambling services in a no-gambling region or other politically prohibited stuff

yes those businesses might be operating ethically for their customers. but they still need to operate legally

the fault here lays in where bitcoin stopped being treated as a tradable private property and instead traded as a currency which allowed regulators to get their fingers in and grab power over crypto businesses

its the downside of "going mainstream recognition as a currency circa 2013 and being more enforced since

yep daveF said it better

but still worth adding in. that the real cause of the requirement of licencing for the big players above X threshold.. was defining bitcoin as a currency rather than its original 2009-2014 category, which was private property

becasue its the "defined as currency" part that allowed the regulators to step in..
..
pre 2014 people could trade as much as they liked without regulation/licencing because bitcoin was treated the same as trading pokemon cards and artwork back then

someones been on the weed and has the tin foil at on

by being a currency. you join the competition of the banks.
bitcoin could have continued as-is, being defined as private property and not need compliance of businesses to be the same as banks compliance

we could have developed our own security/insurance things to keep businesses honourable.. but instead we just got too happy that governments wanted to step in
and "legitimise bitcoin" (endorse) without thinking of the negatives of such act

to me regulations should not be about delegating money service businesses to police the customers. regulations should be regulators auditing the businesses and taking businesses to court quickly when they screw customers over

..
yes i dislike the hypocrisy of "licencing"
where by there are MORAL businesses not screwing over customers who are not "legit" because they didnt "just register" now being easily slammed by their banks
and how those that do register get a free pass on certain immoral acts and given weak penalties for doing so simply because they did "just register"

private property (as bitcoin was pre 2014) had human rights to privacy by default
(property law)

by being currency(2013+) its now part of "bank secrecy act" rules which is different to human rights. where financial data is not treated the same as private property

yep i said it you have no rights to privacy when using currency
and thats been the law since way before the most people were born(1970)

so its not a new thing that was invented by obama after bitcoin was invented and used to fight bitcoin. its something thats always been in play for 50 years. which bitcoiners think they are not part of because they still think its still the ethos of bitcoin 2009-2013.. even though they accept the "mainstream free publicity" benefits of bitcoin categorisation 2013+. they just didnt read the downside of accepting the categorisation of bitcoin 2013+

oh by the way..
china that banned treating bitcoin as currency. this stops regulated businesses from exchanging bitcoin. (and if a business is offering exchanges it should be regulated)

but bitcoin is actually protected in china as private property.. allowing people to privately trade and own it(p2p). and they cant do anything about it
yep a chinese person can still own bitcoin and privately trade it p2p. they just cant find a regulated centralised exchange in china to exchange it