April 26, 2026

Capitalizations Index – B ∞/21M

Why are Banks reluctant to Bank Crypto?

Why are Banks reluctant to Bank Crypto?

We’ve long seen the reports that crypto entrepreneurs and business owners have faced some pretty significant problems trying to access even the most basic of banking facilities.

Since the early days of the crypto industry, we’ve seen the banking sector regard it with wary apprehension, which was certainly understandable in the early days.

But now? Not so much, although views aren’t changing quite as quickly as some would like.

Avoiding banks altogether

Speaking to Bloomberg, CEO of Hong Kong-based crypto derivatives exchange CoinFLEX, Mark Lamb, claims that the trouble he’s had with banks in the past has led him to go down the road of “washing my hands of them and now avoiding banking altogether.”

Lamb now claims that he pays staff, accountants, and lawyers who provide services to his company in crypto or stable coins such as Tether.

Payment processor BitPay has faced similar issues despite having a former SEC chairman on their board of advisors.

Chief Commercial Officer Sonny Singh claims that traditional banking institutions have “very rigid” know-your-customer and anti-money laddering policies in place that simply “don’t adjust to working with crypto companies.”

Up until recently the divide between a crypto startup and a traditional bank was well defined, but those days are slowly changing.

Bridging the gap

Startups are popping up that are looking to bridge that gap between traditional banking and access to cryptocurrency on a more mainstream level, bringing customers the best of both worlds.

Platforms such as Dubai-based ATRONOCOM can help the modern businessman who finds himself traveling internationally for both business and pleasure.

For many individuals in this position, there are problems when dealing with different currencies, fees that traditional banks place on foreign transactions and so on.

Companies like ATRONOCOM are offering a solution to this problem, and at the same time making it easier for individuals to keep track of their crypto assets without the need for multiple apps.

A multi-currency card that operates with five different currencies, including GBP, EUR, and USD among others, will make the lives of those who find themselves frequently traveling for business a whole lot easier.

We’ve long heard about the standoff between crypto finance companies and traditional banks, but perhaps the answer is a hybrid model. After all, the best of both worlds is the primary aim, isn’t it?

The post Why are Banks reluctant to Bank Crypto? appeared first on AMBCrypto.

Published at Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:53:01 +0000

Previous Article

Facebook Coin potentially worth $19 billion in revenue, says Barclays Analyst

Next Article

What should be known for the main types of crypto mining?

You might be interested in …

Core dev maxwell: uasf ‘does not measure up to standard’

Core Dev Maxwell: UASF ‘Does Not Measure Up To Standard’

bitcoin core developer Greg Maxwell has newly outlined why he “does not support” a user-activated soft fork (UASF) as it figures in BIP 148.


Maxwell: UASF ‘Guarantees Disruption’

In a circular to the Core mailing list Friday, Maxwell said that although he is not strictly against a soft fork, its incarnation in BIP 148’s UASF does not “really measure up to the standard set by segwit itself.”

The debate over whether to galvanize the entire bitcoin ecosystem into Segwit activation via a UASF has gained considerable traction over the last month.

Proponents say it is the quickest way to move bitcoin on from its current stalemate, yet detractors highlight its disruptive nature as a reason for caution. If a UASF occurred, for example, non-supportive miners would find their blocks invalid after the deadline, and would not receive rewards for their work.

Maxwell too notes that this “disruption” is a key difference between a UASF and segwit activation via miners.

“The primary flaw in BIP148 is that by forcing the activation of the existing (non-UASF segwit) nodes it almost guarantees at a minor level of disruption,” he continued. “Segwit was carefully engineered so that older unmodified miners could continue operating _completely_ [sic] without interruption after segwit activates.”

 

Time Still Not Of The Essence

Despite the increasingly slow and expensive nature of the bitcoin network, Maxwell still advocates a measured approach without speed as a priority.

…The fastest support should not be our goal, as a community– there is always some reckless altcoin or centralized system that can support something faster than we can– trying to match that would only erode our distinguishing value in being well engineered and stable.

First do no harm.’ We should use the least disruptive mechanisms available, and the BIP148 proposal does not meet that test.

The developer has meanwhile found himself under fire lately from bitcoin Unlimited proponents, notably Roger Ver, who released a dedicated presentation with quotes from Maxwell highlighting alleged errors.

“It’s important the users not be at the mercy of any one part of the ecosystem to the extent that we can avoid it– be it developers, exchanges, chat forums, or mining hardware makers,” Maxwell concluded.

Ultimately the rules of bitcoin work because they’re enforced by the users collectively– that is what makes bitcoin bitcoin, it’s what makes it something people can count on: the rules aren’t easy to just change.

Meanwhile, bitcoin’s recent price spike over $1,200 has been attributed by some to a sharp rise in the number of UASF-signaling nodes. Though this does not necessarily imply causation, the price has also dipped following the publication of Maxwell’s post.

What do you think about Greg Maxwell’s perspective on a UASF? Let us know in the comments below!


Images courtesy of uasf.org, twitter.com, shutterstock

The post Core Dev Maxwell: UASF ‘Does Not Measure Up To Standard’ appeared first on Bitcoinist.com.

CVE-2018-17144 Full Disclosure

CVE-2018-17144 Full Disclosure CVE-2018-17144, a fix for which was released on September 18th in bitcoin Core versions 0.16.3 and 0.17.0rc4, includes both a Denial of Service component and a critical inflation vulnerability. It was originally […]