By claiming that the closure of Signature Bank has “nothing to do with crypto,” the financial authorities from New York seek in vain to explain their erroneous judgment.
Instead, “a serious crisis of confidence in the bank’s leadership” was the rationale given by the authorities for closing down Signature Bank.
The statement to Barney Frank, a former representative of the United States and a member of the Signature Bank board, on the bank’s closure comes from a spokeswoman for the New York State Department of Financial Services.
“I believe part of what occurred was that regulators wanted to convey a very strong anti-crypto message,” Frank said in an interview. No one can now deny the authorities’ displeasure with cryptocurrency.
NYDFS, however, keeps making flimsy claims about the bank’s precarious condition and incapacity to do business on Monday in a secure way.
“The choices taken over the weekend have nothing to do with cryptocurrency,” the official said. A classic commercial bank, Signature had a broad variety of clients and operations.
DFS, they said, “has been supporting well-regulated crypto operations for a number of years, and is a national model for regulating the field.
Strangely, no actual proof of its precarious status in the bank has been given. According to Frank, even bank executives were striving to provide data to authorities.
In light of the announcements of those two policies, Frank said, “What we heard from our executives is that the deposit situation had stabilized and they would be getting the capital from the discount window. I continue to be convinced that if we had opened on Monday, we would have been in a reasonably good shape and certainly functional.
The majority of procedures using cryptography use signature. It had planned to reduce the $8 billion in crypto-related deposits that made up more than 25% of its total deposits.
Compiled by Coinbold