US lawmaker accuses FDIC of using banking instability to attack crypto

Rep. Tom Emmer of the United States House of Representatives reiterated his concerns that the federal government is “weaponizing” concerns over the banking industry to pursue cryptocurrencies.

In a letter of March 15, Emmer called Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Martin Gruenberg has questioned whether the agency has specifically instructed banks not to serve cryptocurrency firms or that doing so would be a “tedious” task. Responded to a question about whether he suggested that there was a possibility that The Minnesota congressman cites Signature Bank board member and former U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, who argued that his FDIC’s move against Signature was not based on concerns about the banks’ solvency. It was reportedly described as a “strong anti-cryptographic message.”

“These actions, which weaponize recent instability in the banking sector caused by devastating government spending and unprecedented interest rate hikes, are highly inappropriate and could lead to wider financial instability.” said Emmer.

Emer also targeted the Biden administration, accusing policymakers of trying to “cut off digital assets” from the U.S. financial system. Minnesota representatives made similar allegations before the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, and also said the U.S. government could “easily weaponize” the central bank’s digital currency as a surveillance tool. I’m guessing.

Related: Signature Bank and Former Executives Sued by Shareholders Alleged Fraud

For many in the space, the recent banking crisis began with Silvergate’s parent company announcing on March 8 that it would “scale back” its crypto banking. Silicon Valley Bank collapsed after his March 10 bank run. Circle, the issuer of USD Coin (USDC), reported to banks that he had $3.3 billion in reserves, so the stablecoin was temporarily detached from the dollar.

As Bernie Frank reported at the time that “there were no bankruptcies based on fundamentals,” some lawmakers and industry insiders believe the closing of the undersigned banks was a targeted move by government officials against cryptocurrencies. suggests that it is possible. The Financial Services Authority reportedly said on March 14 that the bank closure had “nothing to do with cryptocurrencies,” citing the company’s failure to provide regulators with “reliable and consistent data.” No,’ he said.