so many of you will remember my reporting around "operation choke point 2.0" from the spring of 2023; TLDR, Biden's financial regulators, namely the Fed, FDIC, and OCC launched a crackdown on banks covering the crypto space...
the first casualty was Silvergate bank, which _voluntarily liquidated_. the common reporting around Silvergate was that they lent to crypto depositors, those depositors were flighty, when rates rose they suffered m2m losses on bond portfolios, and ended up insolvent
except... that's not true. silvergate weathered the storm, even though short sellers (cohodes) and members of congress like warren encouraged a bank run, based on rumors that silvergate had criminal exposure to FTX (they have since been totally cleared of those allegations)
they suffered huge redemptions after FTX but were still solvent and able to do business. only there was 1 problem: the Fed told them that they had to reduce their crypto exposure to only a nominal ("ancillary") part of their business...
this is like telling a dunkin that they cant sell donuts or coffee. silvergate was a boutique crypto bank that served the crypto industry. so after the Fed came out with this new informal guidance, their business ceased to exist, and they voluntarily liquidated
the bank's assets were also toxic as it became clear with SVB and Silvergate that any crypto related lines of business would NOT be eligible to be sold according to the OCC. this included SEN and Signet as well as crypto deposits at those banks
I broke the story in two pieces in @PirateWires in 2023 and since then "operation choke point 2.0" has become normalized in the discourse
one point i've endeavored to make is that Silvergate died by murder, not suicide. the critical point is that the Fed told them after the drawdown that they had to cut their crypto deposits to 15% of their book, dooming them. (this is obviously unconstitutional, by the way)
in my original reporting I thought this was the FDIC, but it was actually the SF Fed that was passing down this guidance. but it had the same effect - killing pro-crypto banks, and making crypto firms unable to get banking
ANYWAY, and the reason I'm writing this thread –
until now, we haven't had any actual evidence of the scandal at Silvergate, beyond statements made by bank executives on background to journalists.
most of my reporting on OCP 2.0 has been corroborated hundreds of times over by folks affected, but the Silvergate stuff has remained a mystery since they have been in wind-down mode and have been settling with the SEC and so on (there's another story here about the settlements, but that's for another day)
so what's new now is, Elaine Hetric, former chief administrative officer of Silvergate, filed a declaration as part of Silvergate's Chapter 11 filings... for the first time, it completely and totally corroborates what I wrote in my reporting. and it's all totally on the record
we have NEVER had a Silvergate executive able to go on the record and tell the real story of what happened. With Signature, at least Barney Frank was willing to talk. But because of the litigation and bankruptcy proceedings, Silvergate execs couldnt talk
Hetric's affidavit is fascinating. She first talks about the infamous Fed/FDIC/OCC "joint statement" in jan 2023 that was a first sign something was wrong
Hetric points out that Silvergate was able to weather the drawdown associated with rate rises and crypto industry balance sheet contraction - they were still solvent when the dust had cleared
This is the smoking gun: Silverage was solvent and able to operate, but the Fed had informed them they had to curtail their crypto business. Without a crypto business, they would have had to reshape the entire firm. It was _this_ that caused them to liquidate.
She also discusses the Signature receivership and points out further evidence of Choke Point (as I wrote at the time) coming from the fact that crypto-related bank lines of business were NOT included in the acquisitions
Hetric is very stark, writing: "This public signaling and sudden regulatory shift made clear that, at least as of the first quarter of 2023, the Federal Bank Regulatory Agencies would not tolerate banks with significant concentrations of digital asset customers, ultimately preventing Silvergate Bank from continuing its digital asset focused business model."
so the Biden bank regulators made it impossible for banks servicing a particular legal industry to operate. and in doing so, they actively caused the collapse of certain banks, namely Silvergate and Signature. these banks did not die by suicide but by murder. this remains a gigantic scandal and no one has ever faced any responsibility for it – not does the press or the public really know the truth. and the Biden admin keeps denying its role in OCP2.0 even though the evidence is abundantly clear.
Hetric's testimony is so important because it's direct, on the record, under penalty of perjury, evidence of what we have known all along, but no one has been willing to admit: the Biden admin directly forced Silvergate out of business, they did NOT die on their own due to mismanagement or bad trades. they were killed because the Fed said they weren't allowed to service crypto clients, as a bank. and when they liquidated, the crypto lines of business like SEN were tossed in the garbage, rather than being allowed to continue to exist.
and by the way, what the Biden admin is doing is blatantly illegal. Cooper and Kirk, the law firm that sued over OCP 1.0 under Obama, has pointed out that OCP 2.0 violates the fifth amendment
i'm still so fired up about this over a year later, because the popular narrative around silvergate and signature is "oh they just made stupid balance sheet mistakes" when the truth is they were taken out back and shot by their own regulators. the fragility of the crypto banks was worsened by folks like Sen Warren publicly calling for a bank run and making false allegations that these banks had criminal exposure to FTX. which proved to be a HUGE LIE. the fact that a sitting senator encouraged a bank run is completely insane, by the way!
and then the regulators took the outflows from these banks as evidence that crypto was indeed too risky for banks to deal with, and used that as an excuse to clamp down and install new rules making it impossible to be a crypto bank – dunkin banned from selling donuts.
the whole thing is such a maddening scandal, it makes my blood boil, which is why it's so important we get to the truth, and testimony like Elaine's is so important
if we let the Biden admin pretend they did nothing wrong and these banks just happened to die on their own, they will do it again. as I write, they are still actively engaging in the suppression of the crypto industry via the deprivation of banking. if you are an entrepreneur of have any exposure to crypto, you should be upset about this too. they are targeting your livelihood and making it impossible for you to operate normally, by making banking inaccessible/expensive.
i feel extremely vindicated - my original reporting has been 100% proven correct since it was published in 2023 (with small details wrong, like the Fed, not the FDIC imposing the 15% cap)
but i'm not happy, i'm upset because even though people talk about OCP2.0, no one really understands how bad of a scandal it was. the government destroyed several banks because they didn't like that they served a total legal industry, that's the plain truth of it. it's 10x worse than people think.
Longer thread on the FDIC’s 2022-23 “pause letters” to banks regarding crypto-asset activities in 2022 and 2023. Strap in
So we all know that banks have been stymied from doing crypto stuff for years: regulators installed 15% deposit caps on fiat deposits from crypto firms, cutting off bank access for the whole industry; the SEC used SAB121 to stop banks custodying crypto; and the Fed effectively prohibited banks from doing stablecoin stuff. But maybe the worst and most brazen was the FDIC unilaterally barring banks from doing any crypto stuff at all…
So recently, Coinbase made FOIA requests to the FDIC regarding their guidance to banks on crypto matters. Last month, the FDIC published summaries of these letters, without saying what they said exactly, or which banks they were addressed to. assets.ctfassets.net/c5bd0wqjc7v0/7…
@pmarca Pmarca claims debanking is targeting crypto founders, fintech founders, and conservatives. He says the CFPI and other financial regulators are responsible. Lee Fang and others say the CFPI is anti-debanking. Who is right?
So the whole tech world is learning about OCP2.0 today via pmarca on Rogan. What happened exactly? For those curious, let's dig into OCP as it pertained to crypto. Quick thread
In 2023, I noticed post FTX crypto firms were getting debanked - just like a16z, many of our portcos. I wrote this piece in Piratewires, coining OCP2.0 and summarizing what I was seeing
Six weeks later, crypto banks Silvergate and Signature had collapsed under mysterious circumstances. Many saw this as just desserts for banks serving crypto. I felt differently, that they were "suicided" as part of OCP2.0
India and Nigeria occupy the top two spots this year for a second consecutive year. Indonesia has surged into third place. The US is unchanged at fouth. Top 10 has largely solidified.
There's remarkable geographic dispersion in the list. All regions are consistently represented.
South East Asia has the most appearances in the last five years, followed by Europe, South America, and Africa.
Pop in a zyn, grab a cold brew, and let's dig in. First: why did we do this? Well, everyone knows stablecoins are the killer app of crypto. The numbers tell a compelling story:
- Supply is >$170b
- >20m addresses onchain use a stablecoin every month
- >120 addresses hold a nonzero balance
- Stablecoin settlement volume annualizes at >$5 trillion in 2024
But critics still often maintain that stables are used only as collateral for traders, or a settlement medium between traders and exchanges. We know anecdotally that stables are crossing the chasm to mass adoption – but could we prove it?
molly seems to have pivoted smoothly from web3isgoinggreat (a sarcastic blog dedicated to showing how broken crypto is) to being very worried about Crypto Dark Money influencing politics. maybe web3 is going a little greater than you thought? maybe take a beat to introspect?
so the core critique seems to be that crypto donations are "disproportionate" given the size of the industry. of course, this is an insane claim.
crypto is pound for pound the most politically harassed industry in the US. chokepoint 2.0 targeted crypto, no one else. the SEC has primarily been going after crypto. the FDIC, DoJ, OCC, the Fed, NYAG, CFTC – the list goes on – have all been weaponized against the crypto space. the Biden admin has even tried to quash bitcoin miners because they were using power in a way that they politically disagreed with. its not remotely arguable that crypto gets far more political attention than any industry, especially when considering its (relatively small) size.
as a crypto founder, you risk getting thrown in jail for building privacy tools, attacked by the SEC (even if they tend to slink away after a few years), you will have an extremely hard time getting banking, you are automatically banned from using a bunch of B2B tools, and so on.
crypto finally getting its act together and pulling together donations to stick up for its interests in washington is entirely reasonable given how much harassment we've faced in DC over the last few years. and as a new industry, we don't have the embedded political networks in Washington that others do, so we have to work harder to get off the blocks. our relatively higher level of output is totally fair given this.