> It is the crypto industry fault that they refuse to take the actions and accountability to work with the banks.
Yes and no. Are there many bad actors in the crypto industry who would be refused service by a reasonable, rule-of-law-based banking system? Yes, absolutely. Is the banking system that the US currently such a system? No. The SEC spent two years pretending to come up with a system of rules for determining whether a cryptocurrency is a security or not, and they still can't - or rather won't - tell you whether Ethereum qualifies.
Think of a guy trying to buy a house in a redline district. He says "I met all their lending criteria, but the bank still denied my loan, and they won't even tell me why! I don't even know what I did wrong or what I have to do to get them to approve me!" Is he lying? Strictly, yes, he probably does know exactly why his loan was declined and what he would have to do to get approved. So his statement is disingenuous in that way. But my sympathies are still with him.
> Like all businesses, banks have the right to refuse to service customers they don’t want to serve because the costs exceed the income.
Not in general - the article already mentions how they are obliged to serve unprofitable zip codes. Again, this is the current state of the US system (partly the result of written law and partly of other things), not inevitable objective fact, not something that can't be changed, and not something that the banking industry has no input into.
Yes and no. Are there many bad actors in the crypto industry who would be refused service by a reasonable, rule-of-law-based banking system? Yes, absolutely. Is the banking system that the US currently such a system? No. The SEC spent two years pretending to come up with a system of rules for determining whether a cryptocurrency is a security or not, and they still can't - or rather won't - tell you whether Ethereum qualifies.
Think of a guy trying to buy a house in a redline district. He says "I met all their lending criteria, but the bank still denied my loan, and they won't even tell me why! I don't even know what I did wrong or what I have to do to get them to approve me!" Is he lying? Strictly, yes, he probably does know exactly why his loan was declined and what he would have to do to get approved. So his statement is disingenuous in that way. But my sympathies are still with him.
> Like all businesses, banks have the right to refuse to service customers they don’t want to serve because the costs exceed the income.
Not in general - the article already mentions how they are obliged to serve unprofitable zip codes. Again, this is the current state of the US system (partly the result of written law and partly of other things), not inevitable objective fact, not something that can't be changed, and not something that the banking industry has no input into.