Article author: Edward Woodford Article compilation: Block unicorn

Recent conversation on "Joe Rogan Experience" , Marc Andreessen (@pmarca) highlights a worrying trend affecting the financial landscape: debanking. Under pressure from regulators and advocacy groups, financial institutions are increasingly refusing to provide banking services to individuals, organizations and entire industries. I think a key point about debanking has been missed in the narrative, as follows:

0. Overview

A. Agree on a definition of debanking

Debanking is not a binary concept. Rather, it is a general attempt to restrict financial services to a specific industry, rather than adopting a risk assessment-based approach to every player in the sector. The fact that Zero Hash and other Tier 1 players in the stablecoin and cryptocurrency space have strong banking partners does not rule out “de-banking”. Specifically, we hold client and operating funds in multiple top 20 banks.

The rebuttal I hear is that banks have the right to decide who they serve based on risk assessment. However, the difference here is that:

Emphasis on a specific industry is directly contrary to guidance issued by the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency), which clearly states that no Extensive and categorical discrimination against businesses engaged in legitimate activities.

The FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) has attempted to unilaterally predetermine a bank's risk profile, rather than allowing banks to determine this on their own. By setting risk profiles for legitimate businesses, regulators go against the OCC's longstanding directive that regulated banks should make deposit account decisions based on the bank's risk assessment of all customer accounts. This is an extreme form of "implicit regulation" (a term I coined in a recent blog) whereby it is made clear that certain activities will be subject to intense scrutiny, creating such a burden that it is effectively to prevent certain activities not prohibited by law.

B. Debanking is a fact

Of course, the impact of debanking is clear and we have experienced bank accounts being closed in a single day, including with partners we have been working with since 2017.

The scope of influence is incredible. We had been nominated as candidates for an award and the candidates' dinner for the award was sponsored by a bank. I was disinvited at the bank's request because "paying for my dinner might cause misunderstanding".

We operate a business that spans multiple jurisdictions. The same banks bank all of our non-U.S. subsidiaries but not our U.S. entities. Same owners, same risk profile.

Over the past 18 months, approximately 80% of the more than 120 banks we have proactively contacted have declined to engage in any form of substantive discussion (in order to Looking at the risk profile in more detail), purely based on the industry in which we operate.

C. Why should everyone care?

Is this a rights issue? Banking is critical to modern life (and to any business), and arbitrary denial of banking services raises constitutional and ethical concerns.

The cost is higher. This essentially distorts the market due to reduced competition.

Create concentration risk. The fewer banks that can serve an industry creates concentration risk, which creates more risk to the customer base.

Andreessen used the term "Operation Choke Point 2.0" (originally coined by @nic__carter), which has similarities to the controversial Obama-era initiative place. At the time, regulators pressured banks to cut ties with legal but politically unpopular industries. Today, this trend has expanded, with industries such as cryptocurrency being debanked not because of illegal activity, but due to reputation issues or stress.

Banking, long considered a neutral utility, has become a battleground for cultural, economic and cultural conflicts. The question we must ask is: when financial access is weaponized, who gets to decide whoCan you participate in the modern economy?

1. The rise of debanking in the public eye

Since November 26 Since Andreesen’s appearance, discussion on this topic has accelerated:

November 29 - Former PayPal President and Lightspark co-founder David Marcus (@davidmarcus) shared wrote a post about How pressure killed Meta’s stablecoin project Libra.

Elon Musk (@elonmusk) responded to Marcus' post" Wow" reaction.

Coinbase (@coinbase) CEO Brian Armstrong (@brian_armstrong) shared Marcus post, adding: "That makes sense - put pressure on the banks (again)."

December 4th—U.S. Congressman French Hill (@RepFrenchHill) spoke to Congress about debanking the cryptocurrency industry and pledged to "stop, reverse and investigate 'Operation Kill 2.0.'"

< /p>

December 6 — Former Silvergate CTO Chris Lane (@D_CentralBanker) shares his experience with regulatory pressure on crypto banks, eliciting David Sacks (@DavidSacks), who shared Lane's post and commented: "There are so many stories of people being harmed by Operation Killer 2.0. This needs to be investigated."

12March 6 – Court documents filed in a lawsuit against the FDIC reveal a letter from the agency asking banks to suspend crypto-related activities. “These letters demonstrate that Operation Kill 2.0 is more than some crypto conspiracy theory,” said Paul Grewal (@iampaulgrewal), chief legal officer at Coinbase.

December 10 – The New York Times published Erin Griffith (@eringriffith ) and David Yaffe-Bellany (@yaffebellany) analyze how debanking has quickly become a “weapon.”

December 19 – U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce (@HesterPeirce) voted against approving the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) 4 budget, she expressed concern in her comments that the Commission “seeks to use regulatory measures to prevent regulated entities from providing services to the cryptocurrency industry and its participants or otherwise participating in cryptocurrencies.” Despite Peirce's objections, the budget was approved by three other commissioners, including SEC Chairman Gary Gensler.

2. Is banking a right?

Banking is a service provided by private companies. However, in an economy where almost all transactions rely on financial infrastructure, the service operates much like a utility. Without it, participating in modern life—whether paying bills, collecting a salary, or accessing credit—is nearly impossible.

In a conversation with Rogan, Andreesen argued that debanking could violate constitutional rights. If banking services are essential to economic participation, then without clear justification – or under pressure that is not transparent – ​​this may amount to a denial of fundamental rights. Although the right to banking services is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, legal precedent has confirmed that financial activities are closely linked to fundamental rights such as free speech and due process.

The basis for these debates is Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) and other cases. Both rulings emphasized that money, as a medium of expression, is protected by the First Amendment. While these cases centered on campaign finance, they established the principle that the ability to use financial resources is critical to participating in public discourse. If you can arbitrarily deny financial services, you are silencing legitimate voices.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of due process provide another perspective: in Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), the Supreme Court ruled , benefits closely related to personal livelihoods may not be terminated without due process. Although banking is provided by a private institution, its important role in modern life aligns it with a public utility, suggesting that arbitrary denial of banking services may violate due process protections.

The issue of financial neutrality, especially debanking, has been put to the test this year. In NRA v. Vullo (2024), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the director of the New York State Department of Financial Services cannot use her authority to force banks and insurance companies to cut ties with the NRA. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that while regulators can express their opinions, they cannot force financial institutions to discriminate against legal entities based on their position.

These rulings confirm that financial exclusion—whether due to direct coercion or indirect reputational pressure—raises significant constitutional issues. As Andreessen points out in "The Joe Rogan Experience," "In five years, there may be a Supreme Court case that retroactively rules all of this illegal."

3. A legal business is legal

Essentially, debanking raises a simple question: If an entity is Operating within the law, should it have access to banking services? The answer may seem obvious—but the trend toward debanking legal businesses suggests otherwise.

This should be a non-sexual statement. The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has issued guidance saying it does not allow broad, targeted classification discrimination against businesses engaged in legitimate business activities.

Excluding compliant companies from basic financial services is a dangerous trend——It threatens to embed subjective biases into the backbone of modern economic infrastructure. If the financial system chooses which legal entities to support, it ceases to be a neutral platform and becomes a tool for executive or cultural agendas.

Fair access does not mean forcing banks to take undue risks. It is about ensuring that the financial system remains inclusive and neutral, providing all legitimate businesses with the ability to operate. Without this neutrality, we risk turning banking into a gatekeeping mechanism that stifles innovation and undermines trust in one of society's most critical systems.

4. Zero Hash: A Case Study of Overregulation

At Zero Hash, we personally experienced these challenges. Although we operate to the highest standards of regulatory compliance—standards that have earned us the trust of more than 75 institutions, including Interactive Brokers, Stripe and Franklin Templeton—we face significant obstacles in securing and maintaining banking relationships.

Our broad licensing demonstrates our commitment to transparency and compliance. We are authorized to operate in more than 200 jurisdictions worldwide, including all U.S. states and territories. In the United States, our licenses include:

New York Bitlicenses: This is one of the most stringent regulatory frameworks for virtual currency businesses.

Money Transfer Licenses (MTLs): Allow us to operate in all 52 jurisdictions in the United States (50 states plus Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico), and ensuring compliance with state requirements for money services businesses.

FinCen is registered as a Money Services Business (MSB): to comply with anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) obligations under federal law.

Even though we have a license that is comparable to or even better than that of traditional financial institutions, they are still unwilling to cooperate with us. We have proactively contacted more than 120 banks over the past 18 months, approximately 80% of whom have declined to engage in any form of substantive discussions, purely for industry reasons. Only half of the banks participating in the discussion conducted due diligence.

This problem is less prevalent in Europe. International banks willing to work with us actively cooperate abroad, but explicitly refuse to work with us in the United States. Ironically, this is the same bank, with the same companies dealing with the same risk profile—but U.S. regulatory and factors create barriers that don’t exist elsewhere. This disparity highlights the chilling effect of unclear regulatory frameworks and over-regulation, which actively hinders innovation in the United States and forces companies to look elsewhere to build their future. p>

5. The stakes of financial neutrality

Debanking is more than just a logistical hurdle – it directly challenges the principles of fairness, freedom and trust on which our financial system relies. This is not just about cryptocurrencies; it is about ensuring that everyone has access to the foundations of modern finance Access to facilities