Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) has strongly criticized the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), accusing the agency of destroying documents and threatening employees during its oversight of the crypto market.
Allegations of misconduct from the FDIC
In a letter to Chairman #FDIC Marty Gruenberg, Ms. Lummis cited information from a whistleblower alleging that the FDIC has:
Destruction of documents related to the oversight of digital assets.
Monitoring and threatening employees to prevent information disclosure to the Senate.
Ms. Lummis asserted that these actions are "unacceptable and illegal," while demanding the FDIC preserve all related documents from January 2022.
"Operation Chokepoint 2.0" and its impact on the crypto industry
Ms. Lummis believes the FDIC is conducting a campaign called "Operation Chokepoint 2.0," aimed at severing ties between crypto companies and banks. This campaign is said to be:
Coercing banks to cease providing services to the crypto industry.
Ignoring transparent oversight processes and instead implementing informal measures to restrict the industry.
Calls for transparency and warnings from the Senate
Ms. Lummis's letter requests the FDIC to preserve all documents related to banks such as:
Signature Bank
Silvergate Bank
Law enforcement activities and guidance related to crypto.
The senator also warned that the FDIC could face criminal charges from the Department of Justice if found obstructing Senate oversight.
Response from the crypto community
Industry leaders, such as Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Custodia Bank CEO Caitlin Long, have spoken out about the phenomenon "#debanking " (cessation of financial services), arguing that this is an abuse of power by regulators.
Attorney John Deaton called "Operation Chokepoint 2.0" a "clear example of abuse of power" and asserted that this is not just a crypto issue, but a fight to protect transparency and ethics in public institutions.
Conclusion
Ms. Lummis has vowed to ensure justice and hold federal agencies accountable for transparency. This case not only raises questions about crypto oversight but also reflects deep concerns about the abuse of power within government institutions.