A very long, but also very good article I always remember when I hear "debanking": "Debanking (and Debunking?)" by Patrick McKenzie (patio11) [0]
> Perhaps a founder might ask a friend: “I run a legitimate business which happens to be in crypto and suddenly found my personal accounts closed. Why did this happen? I did nothing wrong.”
> Playing the odds? The bank thinks there is an unacceptable risk that you will use your personal accounts to launder money on behalf of the business (and/or its customers, etc). The bank has insufficient controls to give them an appropriate level of certainty as to whether you’re doing this or not. They are disinclined to find out the hard way, so they invite you to find another bank.
> Why do they think you might launder on behalf of the business? In part because of the extensive history of crypto companies laundering funds through the accounts of their founders and employees, specifically, and the banking industry’s highly-evidenced belief that businesses and their owners routinely commingle funds, generally.
Seems like a good idea. I do wonder whether or how this will impact credit card companies who refuse to do business with certain categories of businesses who they consider too unsavory such as described in this recent story: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/29/mastercard-vis...
This probably won't move the needle on that. Mastercard and Visa's assessments were risk-based and entirely apolitical, even if widely disagreeable (and imo against constitutional rights). Their fight will be settled separately, and I'm not holding out much hope for the right-wing willpower to defend incest video games. It wouldn't surprise me if the suggested remediation from this admin was to use crypto instead.
A very long, but also very good article I always remember when I hear "debanking": "Debanking (and Debunking?)" by Patrick McKenzie (patio11) [0]
> Perhaps a founder might ask a friend: “I run a legitimate business which happens to be in crypto and suddenly found my personal accounts closed. Why did this happen? I did nothing wrong.”
> Playing the odds? The bank thinks there is an unacceptable risk that you will use your personal accounts to launder money on behalf of the business (and/or its customers, etc). The bank has insufficient controls to give them an appropriate level of certainty as to whether you’re doing this or not. They are disinclined to find out the hard way, so they invite you to find another bank.
> Why do they think you might launder on behalf of the business? In part because of the extensive history of crypto companies laundering funds through the accounts of their founders and employees, specifically, and the banking industry’s highly-evidenced belief that businesses and their owners routinely commingle funds, generally.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371476
Announcement: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/guar...
Seems like a good idea. I do wonder whether or how this will impact credit card companies who refuse to do business with certain categories of businesses who they consider too unsavory such as described in this recent story: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/29/mastercard-vis...
This probably won't move the needle on that. Mastercard and Visa's assessments were risk-based and entirely apolitical, even if widely disagreeable (and imo against constitutional rights). Their fight will be settled separately, and I'm not holding out much hope for the right-wing willpower to defend incest video games. It wouldn't surprise me if the suggested remediation from this admin was to use crypto instead.
> Mastercard and Visa's assessments were risk-based and entirely apolitical
Any support for this assertion?