In the United States, the cryptocurrency industry has always seemed to stand on the edge of the financial world, yearning for mainstream recognition but often blocked by an invisible wall. This wall is called "reputational risk." For years, American banks have been cautious when dealing with crypto companies, fearing they might cross the regulatory red line. However, recently, the official account of the Republican side of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee indicated that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) may follow the lead of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and remove "reputational risk" as a consideration in bank regulation. This has been described by American cryptocurrency and AI mogul David Sacks as a "huge victory for the crypto industry." So, what exactly is going on? What changes will this bring to the cryptocurrency industry? And what does it mean for industry practitioners?

1. Reputational Risk: The "Tightening Spell" Between Banks and Crypto

To understand the significance of this matter, we first need to discuss what "reputational risk" actually is. Simply put, reputational risk refers to the risk that a bank's reputation may be damaged due to certain business activities or behaviors. For example, if a bank associates with a highly controversial industry, customers may leave, public opinion may escalate, and lawsuits may arise. This risk sounds quite reasonable; after all, who doesn't want to maintain a good reputation? However, in practice, this standard becomes vague and subjective.

U.S. regulatory agencies have previously defined reputational risk as: "Negative publicity regarding an institution's business practices (regardless of its truth) that may lead to a decrease in customers, lawsuits, or a decline in revenue." You see, this definition is broad enough to encompass anything. As a result, regulatory agencies use this broad definition to dictate banks' business practices. Especially in the cryptocurrency industry, reputational risk has become an invisible "tightening spell." Many banks worry that collaborating with crypto companies will make regulators perceive it as "risky," so they simply shut their doors and refuse to open accounts.

For instance, major crypto companies like Coinbase have publicly complained about how difficult it is to find a bank willing to cooperate in the U.S. Sometimes, they even have to go overseas to open accounts. This phenomenon has an unflattering name in the industry—"Operation Chokepoint 2.0," which means using financial regulation to effectively choke the crypto industry.

2. Policy Easing: A New Dawn for the Crypto Industry?

Just as the crypto industry was struggling, things began to take a turn. The FDIC will follow the OCC and remove "reputational risk" as a factor in bank regulation. If this becomes a reality, it means that banks' past refusals to work with crypto companies were largely due to fears of regulatory trouble. Now that this "trouble" is gone, banks can collaborate with crypto companies more confidently. Imagine if you were the owner of a crypto company; in the past, you might have run around trying to find a bank willing to open an account for you, but now the situation has changed. Wouldn't you be able to breathe a sigh of relief and focus on your business instead of begging for help?

More importantly, this is not just a small move by a single institution; it signals a shift in the direction of U.S. financial regulation. U.S. Senator Tim Scott has also proposed a bill called the Financial Institutions Risk Management Act (FIRM Act), which aims to completely restrict regulatory agencies from using reputational risk to pressure banks. Together, these actions suggest that the U.S. government may be shifting from "over-regulation" to "giving some space," acknowledging that the crypto industry is a legitimate economic sector.

3. Industry Perspective: Calm Reflection Amidst the Cheers

The CEO of Bitwise stated in an interview, "This is a great thing for us; collaborating with banks will be easier, and operational costs can be reduced." Many practitioners feel that with the removal of the "reputational risk" hurdle, crypto companies can finally catch their breath and focus on innovation and market competition.

However, while there is much to celebrate, not everyone feels that everything is resolved. Aiying believes that whether banks are willing to cooperate depends not only on regulatory policies but also on their own compliance and anti-money laundering risk management capabilities. Most companies are still weak in this area, or their weakness is instinctive, as being strong would mean losing many business opportunities. Therefore, it is natural for banks to be concerned about associating with crypto companies.

4. Conclusion: The First Step Towards Maturity

The FDIC's removal of "reputational risk" as a regulatory factor is a significant milestone for the crypto industry. It clears a major obstacle for collaboration between banks and crypto companies and shows that the U.S. attitude towards crypto is quietly changing. As David Sacks said, this is a "huge victory." However, victory aside, for the crypto industry to truly establish itself, mere policy easing is not enough. Technology must keep pace, compliance must be well-managed, and public trust must be built gradually.

The road ahead is still long, but at least now, the crypto industry has a glimmer of hope. Perhaps in a few years, when we look back, we will find that this change is not just a small episode but the starting point for cryptocurrency to enter mainstream finance.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。