Closure of Signature Bank Is Attack on Crypto: Barney Frank
Speaking on CNBC on Monday, former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, said the shutdown of New York's Signature Bank (SB) by government regulators is a planned attack by government officials on the U.S. cryptocurrency industry. The bank was closed by New York state officials on Sunday. According to officials, the SB's closure was to “protect depositors.” This is the third cryptocurrency-friendly bank in the US to go bust in the last week. Prior to this, Silvergate Bank underwent “voluntary bankruptcy,”after which representatives of Silicon Valley Bank announced the termination of operations. Regulators still have not provided any explanation for what is happening. “I think part of what happened was that regulators wanted to send a very strong anti-crypto message.” — said SB board member Barney Frank. He also suggested that the bank was the “poster boy” for the digital asset industry, as it was not fundamentally insolvent and therefore not even on the verge of bankruptcy. Simply put, regulators shut down Signature Bank simply to show that banking institutions should have nothing to do with cryptocurrencies.
Ripple Trial Heads to Supreme Court: John Deaton
CryptoLaw lawyer and founder John E. Deaton said that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) case against Ripple could go to the US Supreme Court before Congress creates a regulatory framework to regulate the crypto industry. The “Crypto Advocate” described his speculation in a tweet in response to very clear indications that the SEC has no plans to slow down its crackdown on digital asset industry actors. Information about this, in particular, appears in an excerpt from the latest SEC budget proposal, shared by FOX Business journalist Eleanor Terrett. In the published text, the representatives of the Commission emphasize that they will not hesitate to investigate and initiate enforcement actions against crypto companies that they consider to be non-compliant. According to Terrett, this indicates that the regulator will expand its crypto regulatory enforcement division, which has already doubled in size over the past year. Referring to Terrett's findings, Deaton suggests that the only clarity that crypto companies will be able to get in the next couple of years will come solely from the courts: “Hell, the Ripple case could be heard by the Supreme Court before Congress acts. We must fight in the Courts.” Although the lawyer is well aware that what is happening is very far from perfect, there is no alternative for such a reality in the near future.
Jim Cramer Not Enthusiastic About BTC Rally
On a recent episode of his show, CNBC Mad Money host Jim Cramer was skeptical about yesterday's Bitcoin rally, and when asked if he thinks the rally is a positive change for the biggest cryptocurrency, he replied, “No.” Kramer also once again explained the reasons for his bearish stance towards the crypto flagship by saying that it cannot be stored in banks, and that the decentralized nature of digital money makes it much more difficult to regulate and control it. He also called Bitcoin a “strange animal” and stated that he believes it is being manipulated by Cindy Bank, citing the popular belief that large institutions and wealthy investors can manipulate the cryptocurrency market. “Please don't assume therefore that it is still not being manipulated.” — Kramer warned his audience. Finally, the TV presenter and investor gave his advice to anyone who wants to invest in Bitcoin during this rally and said that if he were in their place, he would sell all his crypto holdings during this surge: “Believe me, I had not been a believer one time in Bitcoin, not here, not now.” Meanwhile, the price of BTC jumped from $21,400 to almost $25,000 yesterday, up 20% from Friday's lows. Analysts attribute this sudden rise to assurances from US authorities that deposits at bankrupt Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank would be protected. Although Joe Biden said yesterday that their investors were taking a conscious risk in deciding not to insure their assets.