bankingnews

📅 August 14 | Washington, D.C., United States
The US banking industry is sounding the alarm against the recently enacted "Genius Act," signed by former President Donald Trump. The law, presented as a boost to financial and technological innovation, is now being accused by banks and regulators of jeopardizing the stability of the system and opening potential security breaches. Between emergency meetings, official statements, and political pressure, financial institutions are seeking Congressional intervention before the damage becomes irreversible.

From promise to controversy
The Genius Act was touted as "visionary" legislation that would pave the way for new business models in digital payments, tokenization, and decentralized banking. However, the first months of its implementation have raised concerns:
Risk of exposure to high-leverage transactions without sufficient oversight.Potential misuse of banking structures for unregulated digital assets.Gaps in anti-money laundering (AML) and KYC control protocols.
The American Bankers Association and other influential groups sent a formal letter to the Treasury Department and key lawmakers, requesting “immediate modifications” to mitigate what they call “latent systemic risks.”

Clash between innovation and prudence
While the Trump administration defended the Act as an opportunity to compete globally in financial technology, critics point out that the lack of clear rules for new entrants into the ecosystem opens the door to fraud and a possible “legal bubble” that could undermine confidence in the banking system.
Legislative sources indicate that specific amendments are already being considered, including greater oversight of crypto-banking operations and the requirement to report real-time risk metrics. The discussion promises to be intense: on the one hand, the pro-innovation bloc sees the law as a catalyst for growth, and on the other, the regulatory bloc prioritizes stability over experimentation.

Topic Opinion:
The Genius Act appears to be a classic example of how political speed sometimes trumps technical preparation. Innovation must go hand in hand with solid regulation, or the price to pay can be very high. In this case, the balance between opportunity and risk is not optional; it is urgent.
💬 Do you think the Genius Act is a leap into the future?

Leave your comment...
#BankingNews #TRUMP #CryptoRegulationBattle #FinancialInnovation #CryptoNews

The impact of cryptocurrency on US banking credit risk is a nuanced and rapidly evolving issue that financial institutions and regulators are carefully navigating in 2025.
Banks are increasingly integrating crypto-related activities such as custodial services trading and exploring stablecoin ventures which introduces new dimensions to traditional credit risk management Unlike conventional loans crypto assets bring heightened volatility regulatory uncertainties and operational risks including fraud and cybersecurity threats
Historically regulatory caution maintained a separation between traditional banks and crypto markets limiting systemic risks exemplified by the collapse of major crypto firms like FTX in 2022 without triggering wider banking crises.
However recent regulatory easing by agencies like the Federal Reserve and FDIC has allowed greater crypto integration into banking services This growing interconnectedness raises concerns about deposit flight risks and credit quality particularly as interest-paying stablecoins create competition for bank deposits Studies indicate that such dynamics could substantially reduce lending capacity especially impacting smaller community banks and their crucial role in financing small businesses and farms
Regulators also face challenges in balancing innovation with safeguarding financial stability The potential for crypto-related failures to cascade into the broader financial system has prompted calls for stronger oversight and safeguards to prevent overexposure of banks and retirement systems to unstable crypto assets.
Without vigilant regulatory frameworks the expanding crypto footprint could amplify risks such as speculative bubbles complex financial product opacity and operational vulnerabilities within the US banking sector
In conclusion cryptocurrency is reshaping US banking credit risk by adding layers of volatility complexity and regulatory challenges Banks are adapting their credit risk management to include these new factors while policymakers emphasize reinforcing boundaries and risk controls to protect the financial system and consumers from potential crypto-induced shocks.
This balance between fostering digital innovation and ensuring financial stability remains a critical priority for US banks and regulators alike in 2025.
Bitcoin impacts US banking credit risk
in several significant ways in 2025 Bitcoin serves increasingly as a barometer of systemic financial stress with its price movements often signaling vulnerabilities in the US banking sector and broader macroeconomic risks.
The surge in Bitcoins price alongside rising US national debt reflects investor concerns about dollar devaluation and fiscal instability Institutional adoption of Bitcoin reinforces its role as a non-sovereign store of value providing a hedge against traditional financial risks
However this integration introduces fresh systemic vulnerabilities
Banks are now allowed to custody and trade Bitcoin increasing their exposure to crypto market volatility and operational risks Additionally Bitcoins relationship with leveraged nonbank financial institutions ties crypto risks more closely to bank credit and liquidity profiles Regulatory shifts and technological threats such as quantum computing add complexity to managing Bitcoin-related credit risks
For investors and banks alike Bitcoins price trends offer early signals of banking sector stress but its pronounced volatility demands caution.
The intertwining of Bitcoin with US fiscal policy banking stability and innovation signals a critical crossroads where crypto is both an indicator and participant in evolving financial risks
This growing complexity requires adaptive credit risk management and robust regulatory oversight to mitigate potential shocks linked to Bitcoin exposure in the financial system.
Bitcoin has become a critical barometer for macroeconomic health as well as a participant in the evolving landscape of US banking credit risk.

$BTC

🔥🏛️ BREAKING: RIPPLE’S U.S. BANKING LICENSE UNDER REVIEW — A NEW ERA BEGINS! 🔥💼
🏦 Ripple National Trust Bank — Ripple Labs’ official U.S. National Trust Bank Charter application is now live on the OCC’s public registry! 🇺🇸
This confirms Ripple’s direct move into regulated banking — bridging blockchain with traditional finance.
📜 Key Highlights:
✅ Filed with: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
🏛️ Proposed Name: Ripple National Trust Bank
📍 HQ: 111–119 W. 19th St., 6th Floor, New York City
⚖️ Legal Team: Paul Hastings LLP (Dana Syracuse & Josh Boehm)
💳 License Type: De Novo National Trust Bank — enabling digital asset custody, fiduciary services & institutional banking
🕒 Status: Application under OCC review — not yet approved but officially recognized.
💹 Market Snapshot:
💰 $XRP ≈ $2.40
📈 Analysts eye a potential $7–$10 breakout upon approval.
🏆 Ripple’s SEC victory in 2024 boosted regulatory trust — now it’s turning that credibility into real banking power.
🌐 Why It Matters:
If approved, Ripple could gain access to Fedwire & FedNow, offering on-chain liquidity, institutional custody, and real-time settlement at a scale never seen before in crypto.
⚠️ Approval may take time — but one thing is clear:
Ripple isn’t waiting for adoption. It’s building the future of global finance. 🚀
#Ripple #BankingNews #

Los bancos más vulnerables incluyen principalmente instituciones regionales o medianas, no tanto los grandes bancos sistémicos. Algunos mencionados por analistas:

First Republic Bank: Tenía un ratio préstamo/depósito (“loan-to-deposit ratio”) muy alto (~94 %) frente a un promedio de ~68 % para bancos comparables. Esto indica que estaba usando casi todos sus depósitos para prestar, lo cual reduce su colchón de liquidez. Truist Financial, KeyCorp, Huntington Bancshares, Comerica: Estas también fueron identificadas como bancos regionales que enfrentan mayores riesgos de liquidez o capital en análisis de Morningstar.

Los bancos grandes (“globally systemically important banks” o GSIBs) tienen buffers mayores de liquidez, pero también han mostrado flujos de salida de efectivo (net cash outflows) que sugieren que incluso para ellos la situación no es totalmente libre de riesgo. Por ejemplo, el reporte indica que los bancos grandes registraron un aumento de ~US$ 123.8 mil millones en salidas de efectivo previstas bajo estrés de 30 días al 30 de junio de 2025.

#USBankingCreditRisk

📋 ¿Por qué están expuestos? (Razones clave)

Alta proporción de depósitos no asegurados o grandes depositantes: Si muchos depositantes tienen cuentas superiores al umbral asegurado (~US$ 250 000 en EE.UU.), pueden retirarse rápidamente ante preocupación.Ratio préstamo/depósito elevado: Cuando un banco presta una gran parte de sus depósitos, queda menos para respaldar retiros o cláusulas de liquidez inmediata.Exposición a valores con pérdidas ocultas/unrealized losses: Con tasas de interés elevadas, muchos bancos tienen pérdidas latentes en sus carteras de bonos o valores de largo plazo, lo que reduce la flexibilidad de vender activos sin pérdidas si necesitan liquidez. Dependencia de financiación mayorista o de corto plazo: Los bancos que dependen más de mercados de financiación mayorista (repos, papel comercial, etc.) pueden ser más vulnerables cuando esos mercados “cierran” en momentos de estrés.Coste de fondeo elevado / márgenes de interés reducidos: En entornos de tasas altas, mantener liquidez cuesta más y las ganancias de prestar pueden caer, aumentando la presión sobre el banco.Exposición a entidades no bancarias (non-bank financial institutions, NBFIs): Muchos bancos tienen grandes préstamos o exposiciones hacia instituciones menos reguladas, lo cual incrementa el riesgo de contagio desde el sector “sombra”. Por ejemplo, el International Monetary Fund advierte que algunos bancos tienen exposición a NBFIs que supera su capital Tier 1.

#BankingNews

🔍 Indicadores clave para evaluar exposición
Al evaluar qué bancos tienen más riesgo de liquidez, estos son algunos indicadores que conviene monitorear:
Ratio préstamos a depósitos (“loan-to-deposit ratio”).Porcentaje de depósitos que están asegurados vs no asegurados.Calidad de los activos líquidos (liquid assets) frente al total de activos; cuánto de esos activos son de “alta calidad” / fácilmente realizables. Por ejemplo, el reporte de la Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) indicaba que el ratio de “activos líquidos a total de activos” bajó modestamente a ~25.8 % en 2024. Exposición a pérdidas latentes en valores marcados al mercado (unrealized losses en cartera de bonos) y la proporción de activos que están en “held-to-maturity” vs “available-for‐sale”.Dependencia de financiación mayorista o de mercados de corto plazo (vs depósitos estables).

#CryptoNews

🎯 Relevancia para los mercados cripto
El estado de liquidez de los bancos importa para el ecosistema cripto por varias razones:

Si los bancos enfrentan restricciones de liquidez, pueden reducir la provisión de servicios al ecosistema cripto (on/off ramps, líneas de crédito, custodia bancaria), lo que puede aumentar el coste de operar en cripto.

Un episodio de estrés bancario puede generar un “flight to safety” (huida hacia activos considerados menos riesgosos) o ventas para cubrir posiciones, lo que puede arrastrar cripto.

En contraste, si los bancos están débiles, algunos inversores podrían ver a ciertas criptomonedas como alternativa de liquidez o refugio (aunque este efecto es menos predecible).
El mercado de cripto puede reaccionar ante noticias del sistema bancario (por ejemplo grandes retiros, pérdidas bancarias, etc.) con volatilidad adicional

In Pakistan, many individuals involved in P2P (peer-to-peer) cryptocurrency trading are finding their bank accounts frozen or permanently blocked. Here's why:
1. Suspicious Activity Alerts
Banks track unusual or high-volume transactions. Receiving multiple payments from strangers or frequent crypto-related transactions may trigger alerts. This flags your account for possible money laundering.
2. Violation of Banking Policies
Most personal bank accounts are not intended for commercial or crypto-related activity. If you’re acting like a middleman in P2P trades using your personal account, banks can block your access.
3. Fraudulent Transfers
Some P2P traders may unknowingly receive money from stolen or hacked accounts. When reported, banks often reverse those transfers and freeze both parties’ accounts during investigation.
4. Regulatory Pressure from Authorities
Pakistan’s State Bank has repeatedly warned against crypto trading. Banks may proactively block accounts to avoid penalties or investigations.
5. Use of Trigger Words
Using keywords like "Bitcoin," "USDT," or "Binance" in transfer remarks often draws attention and increases the risk of account suspension.
How to Avoid Account Blocks
Use business accounts for regular trading.
Don’t accept payments from multiple strangers daily.
Avoid using crypto-related words in bank references.
Use secure and verified P2P platforms like Binance P2P.
Stay safe. Stay compliant.
#CryptoPakistan #BankingNews #Square #Write2Earn #AugustEffect

The crypto space keeps shifting toward systems where users are not just spectators but active contributors and that shift becomes clearer every time a major project gains momentum and shows what participation at scale looks like.
Right now one of the most discussed examples is Notcoin because millions of users became involved not by trading first but by exploring real utility and building an active community around an evolving ecosystem.
The success of that model sparked conversations across the industry about whether the next wave of mainstream adoption will come from platforms that turn user activity into value rather than focusing only on speculation.
Many people in the community now look for protocols that can offer meaningful participation from day one instead of a passive experience where everything depends on market movement.
That is why discussions often expand toward projects that introduce mechanisms for users to contribute to development governance and shared growth.
In several communities the name Lorenzo Protocol comes up when the topic is long term participation because its structure allows users to take part in the evolution of the ecosystem while benefiting from collective progress through BANK.
It shows a direction in crypto where value is not isolated at the top but distributed based on involvement.
The increasing attention toward Notcoin highlights the rising demand for simplified onboarding and accessible experiences that still push blockchain innovation forward.
People want systems that are easy to join but deep enough to grow into and that mindset aligns closely with models where token utility revolves around contribution direction and responsibility inside the ecosystem.
Lorenzo Protocol fits that narrative by using BANK in a way that strengthens the link between community members and protocol development and that is why conversations about sustainable growth often mention it.
Another interesting trend is the growing focus on projects that build real engagement loops rather than relying on hype cycles.
TON for example has been discussed widely due to the massive expansion of its application layer where new users enter crypto through services they already use rather than being pushed toward complex trading behavior from the start.
This redefines what onboarding means and shows that people appreciate platforms that focus on usage and participation instead of pure volatility.
That same principle can be seen in systems where user contributions matter and where tokens give access to responsibility rather than a simple speculative instrument which is part of what makes BANK valuable to its participants.
The more this trend expands the more it becomes clear that communities increasingly want shared ownership and long term direction.
The future may belong to ecosystems where users can build add value and influence development because those environments create loyalty instead of temporary noise.
Lorenzo Protocol represents the type of platform that fits the expectations of users who are not just chasing trends but want to take part in something evolving and durable.
BANK becomes a vehicle for that connection and the system creates structure without limiting innovation.
With projects like Notcoin and TON showing how huge user engagement can transform entire networks it is no surprise that focus is shifting toward protocols designed for real involvement rather than passive speculation.
Many people believe the next cycle will reward the ecosystems that give their communities genuine participation and a reason to stay for the long run.
That is why the discussion about participation centered platforms keeps getting louder and why initiatives like Lorenzo continue to attract attention from people who value fairness transparency and shared progress.
If this direction continues the industry may experience a new era where network growth is defined by user activity and collaboration rather than short lived hype.
The projects built around meaningful contribution could become the benchmark for what crypto adoption looks like in the future and those designed with community first models already have the advantage.
BANK and the structure surrounding it make Lorenzo Protocol a relevant part of that conversation not because of promises but because of a design that matches where the crypto world is heading.
@Lorenzo Protocol $BANK #lorenzoprotocol #BankingNews

The White House is preparing to take action against banks accused of politically motivated discrimination against cryptocurrency companies and conservative organizations. A new executive order, expected to be released soon, could shake up the U.S. banking system.

Banks Face Severe Penalties
According to the draft reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, financial institutions could face serious consequences if they deny services to clients based solely on their political beliefs or ties to the crypto industry.
Regulators would be tasked with investigating potential violations of:

🔹 The Equal Credit Opportunity Act

🔹 Consumer protection laws

🔹 Antitrust regulations
Banks found in violation could face fines, lawsuits, or be required to enter legally binding reform agreements.

Trump Administration Aims to Protect Banking Access
This move is seen as a clear signal from the Trump-aligned administration to ensure fair access to banking services, especially for groups it believes have been unfairly excluded – namely conservatives and crypto companies.

Crypto Firms and Conservative Groups: “Banks Are Cutting Us Off”
Many conservative organizations and crypto-related businesses claim that banks have closed their accounts or denied them services without justification, often based on political disagreement or regulatory pressure, even when no laws were broken.
One notable case involved Bank of America, which allegedly closed the account of a Christian group operating in Uganda. The group accused the bank of religious discrimination. However, the bank stated that it simply does not service small businesses operating outside the U.S.

Banks’ Role in Capitol Riot Investigation Also Under Fire
The draft also criticizes banks for voluntarily sharing customer data with law enforcement during investigations related to the January 6 Capitol riot. Some banks flagged transactions they believed might be linked to the event, sparking concerns about overreach.
Supporters of the executive order argue this sets a dangerous precedent, where banks act as political enforcers.

Crypto’s “Shadow Ban” Under Biden Administration
During President Biden’s term, multiple crypto companies reported being unofficially shut out of traditional banking through what regulators dubbed a “shadow ban” – an unspoken policy of denying services without official mandates.

Banks Respond: “We’re Managing Risk”
Financial institutions argue that their actions are not political but are based on real regulatory risks—particularly related to money laundering and crypto fraud. They cite strict anti-money laundering laws and lack of clear guidance in handling digital assets.

What Else Is in the Draft?
The proposed order would:

🔹 Prohibit the use of “reputational risk” as a reason to deny clients

🔹 Direct the Small Business Administration (SBA) to review how banks treat loan applicants

🔹 Impact thousands of small businesses dependent on federal loan guarantees
Some banks have already begun updating internal policies, meeting with Republican attorneys general, and publicly committing to fair treatment.
A Bank of America spokesperson said:
“We welcome the administration’s efforts to provide more clarity. We’ve submitted proposals and will continue to work with regulators and Congress to improve the framework.”

#whitehouse , #crypto , #BankingNews , #CryptoNews , #usa

Stay one step ahead – follow our profile and stay informed about everything important in the world of cryptocurrencies!
Notice:
,,The information and views presented in this article are intended solely for educational purposes and should not be taken as investment advice in any situation. The content of these pages should not be regarded as financial, investment, or any other form of advice. We caution that investing in cryptocurrencies can be risky and may lead to financial losses.“