There is a history of conflict and strain in the interaction between cryptocurrencies and financial institutions. Meanwhile, Signature Bank was first closed down by the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYFDS) as a precaution to safeguard account holders and guarantee they would get their money.
Flagstar Bank, a banking institution established in Michigan, will take over the credits and deposits of Signature Bank, according to a recent revelation on March 20th by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) of the US.
| Name | Price | 24H (%) |
|---|---|---|
 Bitcoin(BTC) | $90,375.00 | -1.41% |
 Ethereum(ETH) | $3,119.32 | -2.23% |
 Dogecoin(DOGE) | $0.378070 | -4.07% |
 Cardano(ADA) | $0.62 | 9.82% |
 Polygon(MATIC) | $0.370551 | 0.06% |
>> Try the #1 AI Trading Robot - Click Here <<
Under the deal, Flagstar would purchase $12.9 billion through loans and $38.4 billion in deposits. This action is part of an overall strategy to deal with the impending banking crisis in the US and stop it from worsening. It was suggested in a recent economic analysis that 186 US banks may be in danger of failing.
The US Federal Reserve, EU Central Bank, Canada Central Bank, and Japan Central bank, among others, have set up an give and take-line system to address the problem.
The results of these moves still need to be discovered, although the failure of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) influenced the cryptocurrency market. In contrast, Switzerland’s conventional financial system, specifically Credit Suisse, was most significantly influenced.
Deposits of digital assets or holdings with Signature Bank are not covered by the agreement, as stated by the FDIC; hence it is doubtful that they will be impacted. However, the FDIC indicated no connection between the closure of Signature Bank and cryptocurrencies.
Nonetheless, it is essential to note that the top banks offering services to the cryptocurrency business were Signature Bank, Silvergate Bank, and Silicon Valley Bank.
Banking and Crypto
Although the FDIC’s plans for closing down Signature Bank are still unknown, and it is unclear whether or not it will accept cryptocurrency deposits in the future, this circumstance may signal a more positive outlook on cryptocurrency as a substitute for the established banking platform, which it governs.
The conflict involving banking laws and cryptocurrency startups has been debatable for a while now. The unrestrained and decentralized structure that cryptos frequently provide conflicts with the rules and norms that regulate conventional banks.
Some cryptocurrency businesses have cut ties with banks, but others have begun to use banking services, drawing condemnation first from the cryptocurrency world, who consider it a betrayal. Banks and cryptocurrencies have had a long-standing rivalry since Bitcoin’s launch.
Headlines hit the center of the stage when the said the inventor of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, wrote a statement on UK’s Chancellor’s financial rescue in January 2009. The information was reported in the first cryptocurrency block, Bitcoin’s Genesis Block.
The Satoshi Nakamoto statement emphasizes the importance of a decentralized solution and the lack of confidence in centralized banking firms. Yet, there is a rising worry that the initial idea of cryptos may be undermined as more crypto startups collaborate with banking firms and even join the banking system.
The worry is due to the possibility of undermining the fundamental concepts of decentralization, economic freedom, and defiance of surveillance that initially attracted people to cryptocurrencies if they allied themselves with banks.
Yet, advocates of these alliances contend that social approval and more significant usage of cryptocurrencies depend on including cryptocurrency operations in the conventional banking system. It is possible to strike a compromise between the particular characteristics of cryptos as well as the compliance standards of financial institutions.
