Operation Chokepoint 2.0: The Federal Assault on Crypto Innovation

Briefing Notes

My 'briefing notes' summarize the content of podcast episodes; they do not reflect my own views. If you have comments about this briefing note, please leave a comment below (requires signing up for a free blog subscription). Note that some of the podcast episodes I summarize may be sponsored: don't trust, verify, if the information you are looking for is to be used for decision-making.

Summary

The October 3, 2024 episode of The Bitcoin Layer, Caitlin Long, founder of Custodia Bank, exposes the U.S. government's concerted effort to dismantle crypto-friendly banks through Operation Chokepoint 2.0. Key figures in the Biden administration, including Elizabeth Warren and Michael Barr at the Federal Reserve, are driving these actions, which have led to the collapse of smaller financial institutions while favoring larger ones. This poses both immediate threats to Bitcoin innovation and long-term risks to the decentralization that underpins Bitcoin's core philosophy.

Take-Home Messages

1. Regulatory Targeting: U.S. regulators are deliberately targeting crypto-focused banks like Custodia, attempting to curtail their operations through arbitrary and destructive policies.
2. Regulatory Bias: Large banks such as Bank of New York Mellon are given regulatory exceptions for crypto services, creating an uneven playing field that suppresses smaller competitors.
3. Fragility in the Financial System: The collapse of crypto-friendly banks, triggered by Federal Reserve actions, reveals systemic vulnerabilities in the U.S. banking system, which could cause wider financial instability.
4. Risks of Bitcoin ETFs: While Bitcoin ETFs offer potential for mainstream adoption, their rise centralizes control over Bitcoin markets, threatening the decentralization central to Bitcoin’s philosophy.
5. Legal Precedents: Custodia Bank’s lawsuit could set a critical precedent for how Bitcoin businesses are regulated, potentially limiting future government overreach.

Overview

In the October 3, 2024 episode of The Bitcoin Layer, Caitlin Long speaks with host Nik Bhatia about Operation Chokepoint 2.0, a covert U.S. government effort designed to target and dismantle crypto-focused banks. This crackdown, orchestrated by key figures within the Biden administration, was initiated following the collapse of FTX. Michael Barr at the Federal Reserve spearheaded this effort, imposing severe regulations on banks like Custodia and Silvergate, forcing their closure. Long reveals that the government’s actions go far beyond regulatory oversight and amount to a strategic assault on the Bitcoin and crypto industry.

Regulatory favoritism is at the heart of this issue. While large institutions like Bank of New York Mellon receive special permissions to offer Bitcoin custody services, smaller financial institutions are burdened with impossible regulatory demands, driving them out of the market. This has created a monopolistic environment where large institutions dominate Bitcoin-related financial services, stifling innovation and suppressing competition.

Long also warns about the broader implications of Wall Street’s growing involvement in Bitcoin markets through financial products like ETFs. While some see ETFs as a positive step toward adoption, Long argues that this shift compromises Bitcoin’s core philosophy of decentralization. By concentrating Bitcoin-related financial products within large institutions, Bitcoin risks becoming another tool of centralized finance, undermining its original purpose as “freedom money.”

The conversation also touches on the 2023 banking crisis, revealing how regulatory actions against crypto banks contributed to broader financial instability. Long emphasizes that targeting smaller institutions creates fragility within the financial system, as these collapses have ripple effects throughout the economy.

Stakeholder Perspectives

• Crypto Banks: Small financial institutions involved in the Bitcoin ecosystem are facing existential threats due to arbitrary regulatory measures that target them, stifling their ability to innovate and compete.
• Regulators: Federal agencies, heavily influenced by political figures like Elizabeth Warren, view strict regulation of crypto banking as necessary for consumer protection and systemic stability, but their actions favor large institutions.
• Institutional Banks: Large financial institutions like Bank of New York Mellon benefit from regulatory exceptions, allowing them to expand into Bitcoin markets while eliminating smaller competitors.
• Bitcoin Advocates: Proponents of Bitcoin’s decentralization are concerned that Wall Street’s growing control over Bitcoin financial products undermines its decentralized nature and its potential as a tool for financial freedom.

Implications

The regulatory assault on crypto-friendly banks poses severe risks for innovation in the Bitcoin ecosystem. If this trend continues, smaller institutions will be driven out of the market, leaving a few large banks in control of Bitcoin-related financial services. This monopolistic shift could stifle competition and innovation, undermining Bitcoin’s role as a decentralized currency.

For policymakers, the broader implications include potential backlash from the crypto community and ongoing legal battles, such as Custodia Bank’s lawsuit. These legal challenges could establish new precedents that limit regulatory overreach, creating opportunities for smaller institutions to fight back. However, without significant changes to the regulatory landscape, the U.S. risks losing its edge in financial innovation as Bitcoin-focused companies move offshore.

The rise of Bitcoin ETFs also creates both opportunities and threats. While ETFs may drive mainstream adoption, they also centralize control within a few large financial institutions. This shift could weaken Bitcoin’s decentralized foundation, as institutional investors focus on speculative gains rather than Bitcoin’s broader potential as a decentralized monetary system.

Future Outlook

The upcoming U.S. elections could represent a turning point for Bitcoin businesses and the crypto sector. Should a new administration come into power, crypto-friendly policies may be introduced, offering new opportunities for growth and innovation in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Conversely, if the current regulatory trend continues, more Bitcoin-focused companies will move offshore, weakening the U.S.’s position in global financial innovation.

Bitcoin ETFs are likely to play an increasingly important role in Bitcoin’s financial landscape over the next few years. While they may provide short-term growth in adoption, their long-term impact on Bitcoin’s decentralization remains uncertain.

Information Gaps

• What are the specific mechanisms through which Operation Chokepoint 2.0 is being implemented against crypto-focused banks? Understanding these mechanisms is essential for determining how future Bitcoin businesses can navigate regulatory hurdles.
• How will increasing Wall Street involvement in Bitcoin markets through ETFs impact the decentralization philosophy that underpins Bitcoin? Answering this question is critical for assessing the future trajectory of Bitcoin as either a decentralized currency or a financialized asset.
• How might Custodia Bank’s lawsuit against the Federal Reserve influence future legal actions by other crypto companies? Custodia’s legal battle could set a precedent for how regulators interact with Bitcoin-related businesses, potentially curbing regulatory overreach.
• Could a regime change in the U.S. result in a reversal of crypto-hostile policies, and how would that affect Bitcoin businesses? This question has high policy relevance as it may shape strategic decisions for Bitcoin companies anticipating future political shifts.
• What risks could arise from concentrating crypto-related services within a few large banks, and how might this affect competition? The concentration of Bitcoin services in a few institutions poses a significant threat to competition and innovation in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Broader Implications

Financial Centralization vs. Decentralization

As Bitcoin integrates into traditional financial systems through products like ETFs, its decentralized ethos may be compromised. Large financial institutions could centralize control over Bitcoin markets, diminishing its value as a tool for financial sovereignty. Over time, Bitcoin may become more of a speculative asset managed by institutions rather than a decentralized hedge against centralized monetary systems.

Global Regulatory Divergence

While the U.S. enforces strict regulations on Bitcoin and crypto businesses, regions like Asia and Europe may foster innovation by offering more favorable conditions. Hong Kong’s offshore U.S. dollar clearing bypassing the Federal Reserve illustrates how other financial hubs may capture market share. This regulatory divergence could lead to global shifts in where Bitcoin innovation thrives.

Technological Innovation in Decentralized Finance

As Bitcoin businesses are forced to leave the U.S., technological innovation in decentralized finance (DeFi) may accelerate in regions with more favorable policies. Entrepreneurs and developers may focus on enhancing Bitcoin’s decentralized capabilities, pushing its role in peer-to-peer financial services. This shift could lead to new breakthroughs in decentralized applications globally.

Legal Precedents and Corporate Accountability

Custodia Bank’s legal battle against the Federal Reserve could establish key precedents for corporate accountability and regulatory transparency. A favorable ruling may curb arbitrary regulatory actions, benefiting not only Bitcoin businesses but other industries targeted by similar government practices. This shift would promote more equitable and transparent processes for emerging sectors.