Is the US Government hostile to cryptocurrencies? Mati Greenspan thinks so.

According to reports, Mati Greenspan, founder of Quantum Economics, believes that US regulators have been unfriendly to cryptocurrencies “from the beginning.”. Recently, the collapse of cryptocurrency and startup friendly banks, including Silvergate Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, and Signature Bank, was seen by some as part of a regulatory plan known as “Operation Choke Point 2.0.”.

Founder of Quantum Economics: US crackdown on cryptocurrencies may have a negative impact on the US dollar

Cryptocurrencies have been on a roller coaster ride over the past few years. Their meteoric rise in value in 2017 was followed by a sharp fall in 2018, followed by some recovery in 2019 and 2020. However, concerns over regulations and the tough stance taken by governments around the world have dogged the industry.
Recently, Mati Greenspan, founder of Quantum Economics, has claimed that US regulators have been unfriendly to cryptocurrencies “from the beginning.” In this article, we will look at the reasons behind this assertion and discuss whether there is any truth to it.

The rise of cryptocurrencies and US regulations

Cryptocurrencies first emerged in 2009 with the launch of Bitcoin. Since then, many other cryptocurrencies have been launched, including Ethereum, Ripple, and Litecoin. The market capitalization of cryptocurrencies has grown rapidly, reaching a peak of around $800 billion in January 2018 before crashing to around $250 billion by the end of that year.
The US government has been aware of cryptocurrencies from the beginning and has been regulating them in various ways. In 2013, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidance stating that virtual currency exchanges were subject to the same regulations as traditional money transmitters. In 2015, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) declared that virtual currencies were “commodities” subject to federal oversight.
In 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a report outlining its view that some tokens issued in initial coin offerings (ICOs) were securities and subject to regulation.

The tough stance of US regulators

Despite this regulatory framework, Mati Greenspan believes that US regulators have been hostile to cryptocurrencies from the start. He argues that regulators have been slow to adapt to the new technology and have been overly cautious in their approach, stifling innovation.
In a recent interview, Greenspan claimed that the collapse of several cryptocurrencies and startup-friendly banks, including Silvergate Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, and Signature Bank, was part of a regulatory plan known as “Operation Choke Point 2.0.” This plan is allegedly designed to drive cryptocurrencies and startups out of the banking system.
Greenspan believes that this plan is a continuation of the original Operation Choke Point, which was launched in 2013 and was aimed at protecting consumers from fraud and abuse. However, critics of the plan claim that it unfairly targeted legitimate businesses and caused them to lose access to banking services.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the US government has been regulating cryptocurrencies since their inception, and its stance towards them has been evolving over time. While some critics argue that regulators have been overly cautious and have stifled innovation, others argue that the regulations are necessary to protect consumers.
The collapse of some cryptocurrency-friendly banks has been seen by some as part of a regulatory plan aimed at driving cryptocurrencies and startups out of the banking system. However, there is little evidence to support this claim, and it is possible that these banks have simply failed due to business reasons.
Ultimately, the future of cryptocurrencies in the US will depend on how they are regulated and whether they are able to gain acceptance among consumers and businesses.

FAQs

Q: What is “Operation Choke Point 2.0”?
A: “Operation Choke Point 2.0” is a regulatory plan allegedly aimed at driving cryptocurrencies and startups out of the banking system.
Q: Are US regulators hostile to cryptocurrencies?
A: Some critics argue that US regulators have been overly cautious in their approach to cryptocurrencies, but others argue that the regulations are necessary to protect consumers.
Q: Will cryptocurrencies have a future in the US?
A: The future of cryptocurrencies in the US will depend on how they are regulated and whether they are able to gain acceptance among consumers and businesses.