After watching pmarca's eye opening interview this morning, I am curious to know how pervasive the debanking phenomenon is.<p>Did you ever have a bank account closed on you for no good apparant reason?<p>What are some other ways this is enforced? I know for example, the the industry in Europe maintains a list for politically exposed persons, for which there is no recourse or transparency. So if you get on that list accountants will refuse to work with you and banks will close silently, and there is no way to contest it. According to pmarca this could be an arbitrary use of power for something you do for work.
Marc Andreessen mentioned what's called "Operation Chokepoint 2.0" in relation to many tech founders being debanked. In the crypto industry you can find many examples of this, however they're often not so public. Here's an instance from the entrepreneur Sam Hamidi-Kazemian:<p>'Kept quiet about this for almost a year out of fear but since I'm in good company with @tyler @cameron @brian_armstrong @elonmusk now.. Last December, I got a call from JPM saying "we have to close anyone's account that we know their primary source of income/wealth is crypto. This is directly from the top from Jamie. I'm really sorry."<p>I had a close relationship with my banker so I assume 99% of people wouldn't even get that kind of transparency/explanation. Wanted to add my own name to the debanked OCP list @nic__carter. It's real. It happened. Hopefully now it will soon be over.' -- <a href="https://x.com/samkazemian/status/1861956394079101391" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/samkazemian/status/1861956394079101391</a><p>Furthermore, this phenomenon affects not only founders but is common to retail investors. Try cashing out seven figures to your bank via a crypto payment rail and see how the bank reacts. If you get close to a successful crypto investors you can find many cases. However, this crowd often stays quiet: revealing that you're a high net worth individual, particularly in crypto, can be a security risk so these stories are shared in private chats amongst individuals of the same status.<p>Another case of added pressure, perhaps in a different vein, can be seen here: <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/business/fbi-seizes-polymarket-ceos-phone-electronics-after-betting-platform-predicts-trump-win-source/" rel="nofollow">https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/business/fbi-seizes-polymarket...</a>
The PEP list is mostly for actual politicians, their spouses and people like senior judges etc. There is a higher risk of bribery and corruption with these people (the people with power tend to be the ones that get bribed).<p>If you get on the list, it means extra due-diligence for anti-money laundering and corruption checks. I guess some accountants etc might not want to deal with the extra work.<p>This rule (at least in the UK) was approved by politicians themselves.<p><a href="https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/anti-money-laundering/peps" rel="nofollow">https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/anti-money-laundering/p...</a><p>What is possibly more arbitrary is debanking people for their political opinions due to "reputational risk" which happened to Nigel Farage in the UK and is done on the regular by PayPal.<p>I guess some institutions might not want to have you as a customer if you're source of income is crypto as it's difficult to know the ultimate source of those funds.
This is the interview OP is referring to: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42253963">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42253963</a>