Schlagwort: crypto business

• Coinbase is seeking FDIC docs on crypto ‘pause letters’.
• The lawsuit has resumed after the FDIC’s transparency fell short.
• History Associates has also filed a motion to lift a stay in its own FOIA case against the FDIC.

Coinbase, a leading US-based cryptocurrency exchange, has filed a motion in the D.C. District Court to revive its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

The exchange alleges that the FDIC has been withholding critical documents related to its communications with banks about cryptocurrency activities.

Specifically, Coinbase is seeking records tied to the so-called “pause letters,” which reportedly instructed banks to halt crypto-related services, a move the company views as part of a broader effort to stifle the industry.

Why is Coinbase reviving the lawsuit?

This legal action marks the resumption of a case that was initially paused in February 2025 following the appointment of Travis Hill as acting FDIC chairman by President Trump.

Hill had pledged to enhance the agency’s transparency beyond FOIA requirements, raising hopes that Coinbase might obtain the information it sought without further litigation.

The pause reflected an optimistic moment, suggesting a potential shift in the FDIC’s approach under new leadership.

However, Coinbase’s Chief Legal Officer, Paul Grewal, recently expressed to journalist Eleanor Terrett that while cooperation has improved, it remains insufficient, prompting the company to push forward with the lawsuit.

Also, the FDIC’s recent policy shift adds context to Coinbase’s persistence. The FDIC had announced that banks no longer need prior approval to engage in legally permitted cryptocurrency activities, provided they manage associated risks effectively.

However, FDIC reversed the policy, departing from the previous administration’s cautious stance and signaling a more crypto-friendly environment.

However, Coinbase argues that this change does not negate the need for transparency about past actions, particularly what it calls “Operation Chokepoint 2.0”—an alleged coordinated effort by regulators to restrict the crypto sector’s access to banking services.

History Associates has also filed a motion against the FDIC

Coinbase’s lawsuit echoes a parallel legal effort by History Associates Incorporated, which also filed a motion on March 31, 2025, to lift a stay in its own FOIA case against the FDIC.

History Associates claims the FDIC has failed to cooperate in an informal information-sharing process ordered by the court, refusing to provide details about its FOIA practices, such as document preservation and search methods.

Both lawsuits highlight growing frustration with the FDIC’s opacity, despite its promises of openness under Hill’s leadership.

Notably, the stakes are high for Coinbase, as the documents it seeks could reveal the extent of regulatory pressure on banks to limit crypto dealings.

Previous FOIA requests have uncovered letters from the FDIC advising banks to pause such activities, fueling suspicions of a deliberate campaign against the industry.

With the FDIC expected to respond to Coinbase’s motion within two weeks, the outcome could set a precedent for how federal agencies handle transparency in the rapidly evolving crypto landscape.

The post Coinbase moves to revive lawsuit against FDIC appeared first on CoinJournal.

• FDIC has released a new crypto policy, scrapping a previous guidance that curtailed engagement in crypto activity.
• The US banking agency issued the new guidance in a press release on March 20, 2025

The US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced on Friday, March 28, 2025, that it is rescinding previous guidance requiring banks to notify the agency before engaging in crypto-related activities.

It is a fresh approach under the President Donald Trump’s administration, one that aims to streamline how financial institutions interact with digital assets and blockchain technology.

FDIC reverses policy on crypto

The US banking agency’s about turn means banks and other supervised financial institutions do not need to report their current and planned crypto-related activities. Previously, this was the case, with the FDIC citing potential risks to the stability of the U.S. banking system. The guidance was in the regulator’s Financial Institution Letter (FIL-16-2022), issued in April 2022.

However, the new guidance eliminates this requirement, allowing FDIC-supervised banks to pursue permissible crypto-related activities without prior agency approval.

“The FDIC is rescinding FIL-16-2022 and providing new guidance to clarify that FDIC-supervised institutions may engage in permissible crypto-related activities without receiving prior FDIC approval,” reads a statement from the FDIC.

The decision reflects a broader push to adapt regulatory frameworks to the evolving digital asset landscape while maintaining oversight to ensure financial stability. The agency emphasized that while banks are now free to explore these activities independently, they must still adhere to existing safety and soundness principles—a balance intended to foster innovation without compromising the integrity of the banking system

“With today’s action, the FDIC is turning the page on the flawed approach of the past three years,” said FDIC acting chairman Travis Hill. “I expect this to be one of several steps the FDIC will take to lay out a new approach for how banks can engage in crypto- and blockchain-related activities in accordance with safety and soundness standards.”

The announcement is one of positive crypto events today, with this coming after Trump’s pardoning of three co-founders of BitMEX crypto exchange.

The post FDIC rescinds policy that hindered banks’ crypto participation appeared first on CoinJournal.

• European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) proposes 100% capital reserves for insurers’ crypto holdings.
• As of late 2023, European insurers weren’t heavily invested in cryptocurrencies. They held a tiny 0.0068% of the industry’s overall assets.
• The proposal may discourage future crypto investments by insurers.

The European Union’s insurance regulator, European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), has proposed a new rule that would require crypto insurers to hold capital reserves equal to the full value of their cryptocurrency investments.

Unveiled by the EIOPA in a technical report submitted to the European Commission on March 27, 2025, this proposal seeks to shield policyholders from the wild swings and uncertainties tied to digital assets.

With cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) known for their rollercoaster price movements, EIOPA is taking no chances, advocating for a 100% capital charge that far exceeds the requirements for traditional investments like stocks or real estate.

Why the 100% capital requirement for crypto insurers?

Cryptocurrencies have surged in popularity over the past decade, drawing in everyone from casual investors to major institutions. However, their appeal comes with a catch: extreme volatility.

For instance, BTC has weathered price drops as steep as 82% in a single year, while ETH has seen declines of up to 91%.

Such dramatic shifts have prompted regulators to act, and EIOPA’s latest proposal is a direct response to these risks.

By requiring insurers to set aside capital matching the entire value of their crypto holdings, the watchdog aims to ensure that firms can absorb a total loss if the market crashes, protecting the millions of policyholders who rely on their stability.

Notably, this 100% capital requirement stands out when compared to the rules for more familiar asset classes. Stocks, for instance, typically carry a capital charge of 39–49%, meaning insurers must hold less than half their value in reserve. Real estate is even lighter, requiring just 25%.

Cryptocurrencies, however, are in a league of their own, according to EIOPA, which points to historical data showing severe price drops even in well-known assets like BTC and ETH.

Unlike stocks or property, crypto assets don’t benefit from diversification, leaving insurers fully exposed to their unpredictable nature—a risk the regulator isn’t willing to overlook.

EIOPA’s careful deliberation

The decision to impose a 100% capital charge didn’t come lightly. EIOPA weighed several options, including sticking with the current patchy rules or adopting an 80% stress level akin to what’s used for intangible assets.

Another idea was a “look-through” approach for tokenized assets, where the capital charge would reflect the underlying asset’s risk.

But with the crypto market still young and data scarce, compounded by the early stages of the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), EIOPA opted for the most cautious path. The 100% requirement, it argues, is the safest bet until more clarity emerges, though it’s open to revisiting this stance as the market matures.

Notably, EIOPA’s proposal doesn’t exist in isolation—it echoes the approach taken in the banking sector. Under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR), banks face a similar 100% stress test for certain crypto assets during a transitional period.

The move brings insurers in line with this, creating a unified front across EU financial sectors. It also plugs a gap left by MiCA, which offers a broad framework for crypto-assets but lacks specific guidance for insurers.

By aligning these regulations, the EU is signaling a coordinated effort to tame the risks of digital currencies while fostering a stable financial environment.

Mixed reactions from the industry

Not everyone is on board with EIOPA’s tough stance. During consultations, some stakeholders argued that a blanket 100% requirement is too harsh, ignoring the differences between volatile cryptocurrencies and more stable tokenized assets.

Critics say this one-size-fits-all approach could stifle innovation or deter insurers from exploring digital markets.

On the flip side, supporters applaud the caution, pointing to the crypto market’s history of sudden crashes and scandals.

EIOPA has heard both sides but insists that, for now, prudence trumps flexibility—though it’s left the door open for future tweaks as more data rolls in.

If the European Commission greenlights this proposal, it could reshape how insurers approach cryptocurrencies.

The high capital cost might discourage significant holdings, at least until the market stabilizes or the rules soften.

Beyond insurers, the decision could ripple outward, influencing how other regulators worldwide handle digital assets in finance.

The post EU watchdog proposes full capital reserves for crypto insurers’ holdings appeared first on CoinJournal.

• South Korean court has temporarily lifted a 3-month ban on top crypto exchange Upbit.
• Regulators imposed the ban in February.

South Korea’s cryptocurrency exchange Upbit has received reprieve from the courts, with a three-month ban on the crypto exchange now lifted albeit temporarily.

This relates to an order that had Upbit, the country’s leading crypto exchange, banned from onboarding new clients.

On March 27, 2025, the court lifted the injunction imposed on Upbit’s parent company, Dunamu, allowing the exchange to offer its products and services to new clients.

The company can now resume operations despite the ongoing legal battle with South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), a division of the Financial Services Commission (FSC).

Upbit and it’s ban in South Korea

Regulators have accused Upbit of regulatory violations, with this seeing the FIU impose the partial suspension on February 25, 2025.

The ban temporarily prohibited Upbit from processing deposits and withdrawals for new customers for three months.

In an announcement, the regulator said the sanction resulted from findings of a peobe carried out in 2024. The market watchdog said it had uncovered significant lapses in Upbit’s compliance with Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations.

The FIU pointed to between 500,000 and 600,000 potential KYC violations, alongside accusations that Upbit facilitated approximately 45,000 transactions with unregistered foreign crypto exchanges. These breaches, regulators argued, violated South Korea’s stringent financial laws, including the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information.

Unwilling to accept the penalties without a fight, Dunamu took swift legal action.

The company filed a lawsuit against the FIU on February 27, seeking to overturn the suspension order entirely.

Simultaneously, Dunamu requested an injunction to halt the enforcement of the sanctions pending the lawsuit’s outcome.

What next?

The Seoul Administrative Court sided with Dunamu on the injunction, ruling that the suspension would be deferred until 30 days after a final judgment is reached in the case. This temporary lift allows Upbit to welcome new users and process their transactions, a move that has been met with relief by the exchange’s vast user base and the broader crypto community in South Korea.

The court’s decision underscores the growing tension between South Korea’s cryptocurrency industry and its regulators. Upbit, which dominates the local market alongside competitors like Bithumb, has faced increasing scrutiny as the FSC intensifies efforts to enforce compliance in the rapidly evolving digital asset sector.

As of now, Upbit can breathe a sigh of relief.

However, with the suspension deferred rather than canceled, uncertainty remains as to what the court’s final ruling will be.

The post South Korea court temporarily lifts 3-month Upbit ban appeared first on CoinJournal.