Skip to main content

Deposits at non-bank entities, including crypto firms, are not insured — FDIC

The government agency said that while deposits at insured banks were covered for up to $250,000, no such protections applied to those at crypto companies.

The United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, has issued an advisory informing the public it “does not insure assets issued by non-bank entities, such as crypto companies.”

In a Friday notice, the FDIC advised banks in the U.S. that they needed to assess and manage risks in third-party relationships with crypto firms. The government agency said that while deposits at insured banks were covered for up to $250,000, no such protections applied “against the default, insolvency, or bankruptcy of any non-bank entity, including crypto custodians, exchanges, brokers, wallet providers, or other entities that appear to mimic banks.”

“Some crypto companies have misrepresented to consumers that crypto products are eligible for FDIC deposit insurance coverage or that customers are FDIC-insured if the crypto company fails,” said the FDIC. “These sorts of statements are inaccurate and can cause consumer confusion about deposit insurance and harm consumers under certain circumstances.”

The advisory followed a Thursday letter from the FDIC’s enforcement division, in which assistant general counsels Jason Gonzalez and Seth Rosebrock claimed crypto lender Voyager Digital had made “false and misleading” statements concerning insured deposits. The legal team suggested the FDIC would insure neither Voyager customers nor funds deposited to the platform against the firm’s failure.

“Customer confusion can lead to legal risks for banks if a crypto company, or other third-party partner of an insured bank with whom they are dealing, makes misrepresentations about the nature and scope of deposit insurance. Moreover, misrepresentations and customer confusion could cause concerned consumers with insured-bank relationships to move funds, which could result in liquidity risk to banks and in turn, could potentially result in earnings and capital risks.”

Related: FDIC wants US banks to report on current and intended crypto-related activities

The FDIC began insuring deposits in 1934, first starting with up to $2,500 in coverage. Since that time, the government agency reported no depositor “lost a penny” in an FDIC-insured bank, despite more than 9,000 such institutions failing before 1940. The FDIC reported that 561 insured banks failed between 2001 and 2022, reaching a peak of 157 in 2010.



from https://ift.tt/u1IctR0
https://ift.tt/FN4MWDU
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Any questions, Please.

Popular posts from this blog

ENS DAO delegates offer perspective on DAO governance and decentralized identity

AlphaWallet CEO and Spruce co-founder talk about their roles as contributors to the Ethereum Name Service following the project's recent airdrop. Earlier this month, the Ethereum Name Service, or ENS, formed a decentralized autonomous organization, or DAO, for the ENS community.  Cointelegraph spoke to two ENS DAO delegates who applied for the opportunity to represent the community and stay involved in the decision making process: Victor Zhang, CEO of AlphaWallet, an open source Ethereum wallet, and Gregory Rocco, co-founder of Spruce, a decentralized ID and data toolkit for developers. Zhang spoke about his experience as an external contributor to ENS and an early supporter since 2018. Zhang initially sought to help ENS by offering Alpha Wallet as a user-friendly tool for  resolving .eth names and cryptocurrency wallet addresses. Essentially, if a user inputs an .eth name in the AlphaWallet, it will show the wallet address, and vice versa using reverse resolution. Alpha...
Post a Comment
Read more

How Social Platform Chingari is Using Web 3.0 to Transform the Traditional Way We Use Social Media

The world is changing. This isn’t news to anyone, but sometimes it is nice to realize that—contrary to news headlines—not all the change is bad.  In fact, the last decade has seen so much innovation and so many improvements to technology that even 2015 seems like a different world.  Internet speeds, connecting with anyone globally (for free), and our ability to reach large groups of people without a middleman is nothing short of revolutionary. When it comes to technology evolution, this often happens with different iterations.  Once a system is mature, there’s a better idea of what we would like to change and improve.  We go back to the drawing board, target our creative minds at the issues, and create a new version that has evolved to better meet our needs.  The Internet has followed this model since its inception, evolving through three distinct stages.  We are only at the cusp of the third stage, called Web 3.0, with technologies such as blockchain and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Osprey sues Grayscale for misrepresenting likelihood of GBTC ETF approval

Osprey alleges its only competitor on the BTC OTC trust asset market gained its 99.5% market share by misrepresenting the likelihood of its trust becoming an ETF. Digital asset manager Osprey Funds filed suit against Grayscale Investments in Connecticut Superior Court on Jan. 30, alleging violation of the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. The suit concerns Grayscale advertising and promotion of the Bitcoin ( BTC ) exchange-traded fund (ETF) it is seeking to create.  Osprey stated in the suit that it is the only competitor to Grayscale on the over-the-counter traded Bitcoin trust asset management market, and Grayscale maintained its leading position through deceit: “Only because of its false and misleading advertising and promotion has Grayscale been able to maintain to date approximately 99.5% market share in a two-participant market despite charging more than four times the asset management fee that Osprey charges for its services.” Specifically, Osprey alleged that Graysc...
Post a Comment
Read more