《Banks Refuse to Hold Trump's 1 Billion: Is it Political Suppression or Did Cryptocurrency Stir the Hornet's Nest?》

The news of Trump's bank deposit refusal has become a 'Rashomon' in the public discourse. JPMorgan Chase has ordered the transfer of hundreds of millions, while Bank of America has directly rejected a 1 billion deposit, leaving the funds to be split among smaller banks. This issue seems simple, yet the controversy has sparked a huge uproar.

Some insist it is political suppression: Trump is racing towards the 2024 election as a leading Republican candidate, and it is not impossible for opponents to use regulatory pressure to cut off his cash flow. Moreover, he has had conflicts with Wall Street during his presidency, and since leaving office, he has faced continuous lawsuits, making the suspicion of banks 'taking sides' difficult to dispel. However, the rebuttal is also loud: 1 billion is just a drop in the bucket for major banks; it would be commercially unwise to offend a former president who might return to the White House over such a small amount of money, so why make it widely known?

The cryptocurrency community offers another interpretation: this is a direct conflict between old and new finance. Over the past six months, Trump has been vigorously promoting decentralized stablecoins and even pushing for legislation to pave the way. It's important to note that the cost of cross-border settlement with stablecoins is 90% lower than that of banks, and efficiency has been reduced from 3 days to 10 minutes, directly impacting the banks' annual cake of over 20 billion. He is threatening their jobs, and banks retaliate by refusing deposits; the logic makes sense. But skepticism has also arisen: the stablecoin legislation has not yet been implemented, and the 1 billion cash is unrelated to cryptocurrency; why would banks risk their deposits?

At the heart of the controversy are actually two questions: When politics and capital collide, which side will banks stand on? How will traditional forces defend themselves when new technologies rewrite the rules? The truth may lie in silence — the two major banks have yet to respond, while Trump cries out against 'regulatory persecution' and continues to advocate for stablecoins.

The answer to this Rashomon may not matter, but what is important is the rift it has opened: in the entanglement of finance and politics, tradition and innovation, any slight disturbance could cause ripples far beyond the event itself. $BTC #美国初请失业金人数 $ETH