Not really Biden's concoction, as he's just rubber-stamping the things.

It's more on people like Elizabeth Warren, Janet Yellen, Jerome Powell who through various agencies they influence applied pressure on various fintechs and crypto-friendly institutions.

There is a thread making the rounds on X/Twitter where Marc Anderssen tells Joe Rohan how 30 tech founders were debarked (including his business partner Horowitz's father).

I didn't believe him at first because he didn't name most of them. But now it's making more sense to me, as they really did not want the crypto industry to boom during that time period of 2021-2023.

They thought that they could go create a national stablecoin, but it turns out that most people do not want such a thing.

There were many casualties along the way, not just banks. But those banks that didn't comply with the Federal Reserve chairpeople's veiled threats, were deplatformed as you saw.

Most of these banks used to offer a start-up friendly environment, with low fees and some other perks.
This is, in my opinion, the main reason behind their shutdowns. They were involved too much into projects that didn't survive.
Were some of these projects crypto related? Probably, but certainly not all of them.

Or more basically:

Poorly run businesses fail. Wow, what a concept.

Everyone knew that in 2020 when the Trump had the government give money away so that poorly run businesses that did not have enough cash to ride out a couple of really bad months that in 2021-22-23 there would be massive inflation to cover the costs.

Most well run banks businesses [and people with a clue] saw that coming and made appropriate plans. Other are just running around crying that the market changed and they are too stupid to know how to change with the times.

Kind of like the people saying "millennials killed this business or that business" because it's easier to blame someone else then saying. "Customers consumers changed and those businesses were run by people too stupid to change with them"

But making it all a conspiracy theory works so much better for people. This way it's never their fault or the fault of people they think are correct.


They were not debanked in the way that you or I would be. They were taking big risks as tech founders do, it's their job nothing wrong with that. BUT banks are timid on a lot of things. They would rather deal with businesses that are known and stable and can be quantified. So the banks did not want to do business with them. It makes a good story, but the truth was they didn't want their business accounts, had no issues with their personal accounts so long as a large portion of the funds did not come from the businesses they did not want to deal with.

Real life:
Back in 1970 - 1972 here in the US people who wanted to setup car dealerships selling Honda's had the same issue. Want to sell Ford, no problem, GM fine, Dodge just sign this paperwork. Honda scooters motorcycles no problem. Honda cars? Nope, no business checking, no loans, no nothing, go to the bank down the street they might want that kind of business...we don't....and take your personal account with you when you leave we can't trust your money. The banks that did take the business made a ton of money in the end but it was a risk.

How I know:
Back in the mid 1980s I was friends with someone who's parents went though that. They had 3 successful AMC dealers back in the 60s - 70s. 15 years after the fact his dad was STILL pissed about what happened in the paragraph above. He wanted to sell Honda back in 1970 and went though hell to do it. By 1989 with Chrysler taking over AMC the only dealership he had left was the Honda one. So, no it's not just a story a lot of people lived though things like that. But, Mr. Kelly [funny I'm in my 50s he is in his 80s and he is still Mr. Kelly not Bob or Robert just Mr. Kelly some teenage habits die hard] still complains about the way some banks treated him back them.

-Dave