BIDEN ADMIN DELIBERATELY KILLED OFF SILVERGATE TO DECAPITATE CRYPTO — NIC CARTER

The crypto industry has faced increasing scrutiny and regulatory pressure in recent years. The now-bankrupt Silvergate Bank was forced to cap its crypto deposits at 15% under threat of being shut down by US regulators, claims Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter. 3166 Total views 2But could some of the challenges be the result of a deliberate strategy to undermine the sector? Biden admin deliberately killed off Silvergate to decapitate crypto Nic Carter Former crypto-friendly bank Silvergate likely would have survived had it not been forced into voluntary liquidation by United States regulators trying to decapitate the cryptocurrency industry, an industry executive claimed.That's the explosive claim made by Nic Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures, who argues that the Biden administration intentionally targeted Silvergate Bank, a key player in the crypto ecosystem, as part of a broader effort to ""decapitate"" the industry. Biden admin deliberately killed off Silvergate to decapitate crypto: Nic Carter. with sources revealed that the bank was told by Joe Biden s administration that it must cap cryptoCarter's allegations, based on confidential sources and Silvergate's bankruptcy filings, suggest that the bank was pressured by regulators to drastically limit its crypto-related deposits, ultimately leading to its downfall. The now-bankrupt Silvergate Bank was forced to cap its crypto deposits at 15% under threat of being shut down by US regulators, claims to Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter. Former crypto-friendly bank Silvergate Bank likely would have survived had it not been forced into voluntary liquidation by United States regulators that were tryingThe ramifications of these alleged actions extend beyond Silvergate, raising serious questions about the future of crypto-friendly banking and the overall regulatory environment for digital assets in the United States. Venture Capitalist Nic Carter returns with a new article that explores at-length how the Biden administration allegedly imposed an informal mandate for banks to cap their crypto deposits at 15%, leading to the downfall of Silvergate, Signature and Silicon Valley Bank. In it, Carter states thatThis article delves into Carter's claims, explores the evidence, and examines the potential implications for the crypto industry and the future of financial innovation.Was Silvergate a casualty of circumstance, or a calculated move in a larger game? Biden admin deliberately killed off Silvergate to decapitate crypto Nic Carter Tornado Cash s Roman Storm case moves to trial as judge denies dismissal BNY Approved by SEC for Crypto Custody Beyond ETFs, Gensler SaysLet's explore the evidence.

The Downfall of Silvergate Bank: A Timeline

To understand Carter's accusations, it's crucial to understand the timeline of events leading to Silvergate's collapse. On the first day of 2025, there were three major banks commonly known to serve crypto firms: Silvergate, a smallish bank almost exclusively focused on crypto; Signature, a relatively large bank with a significant but not exclusive concentration of deposits from crypto firms; and Metropolitan Commercial Bank, another boutique with a crypto arm.Silvergate Bank, once a pillar of the crypto banking world, found itself in a precarious position.Here's a breakdown:

• Early Success: Silvergate established itself as a go-to bank for crypto companies, providing essential banking services to a rapidly growing industry.
• Market Turmoil: The crypto market experienced significant turbulence in 2022, triggered by events like the collapse of Terra/Luna and FTX.
• Deposit Withdrawals: Silvergate faced massive deposit withdrawals as crypto companies scrambled to secure their assets.
• Regulatory Pressure: According to Carter, US regulators pressured Silvergate to cap its crypto deposits at 15% under the threat of being shut down.
• Voluntary Liquidation: Faced with mounting losses and regulatory pressures, Silvergate announced its voluntary liquidation in March 2023.

This timeline highlights the rapid decline of Silvergate and sets the stage for examining the alleged role of the Biden administration in its demise.

Nic Carter's Allegations: Operation Choke Point 2.0?

Nic Carter's claims center around the idea that the Biden administration implemented a strategy akin to ""Operation Choke Point,"" a controversial initiative from the Obama era that targeted businesses deemed ""high-risk,"" including firearms dealers and payday lenders.Carter argues that this strategy was revived to target the crypto industry.

According to Carter, the key elements of this alleged ""Operation Choke Point 2.0"" include:

• Informal Mandates: Regulators allegedly issued informal mandates to banks, encouraging them to limit their exposure to the crypto industry.
• Pressure on Silvergate: Silvergate was allegedly singled out and pressured to drastically reduce its crypto deposits.
• Coordination: Carter suggests a coordinated effort between various regulatory agencies to target the crypto industry.

Carter further claims that these actions were not based on legitimate financial concerns but rather on a political agenda to stifle the growth of the crypto industry.

Evidence Supporting Carter's Claims

While direct evidence of a coordinated ""Operation Choke Point 2.0"" is difficult to obtain, Carter points to several pieces of circumstantial evidence that support his claims:

• Confidential Sources: Carter cites conversations with confidential sources within the banking and crypto industries who corroborate his allegations.
• Silvergate's Bankruptcy Filings: Carter argues that Silvergate's bankruptcy filings reveal evidence of regulatory pressure and unusual demands.
• Similar Actions Against Other Banks: The closure of Signature Bank shortly after Silvergate, and similar pressures felt by Silicon Valley Bank, which also served some crypto clients, adds weight to the argument that the government was specifically targeting banks that served the industry.

These pieces of evidence, while not definitive proof, paint a picture of a regulatory environment that was hostile to crypto-friendly banks.

The 15% Deposit Cap: A Smoking Gun?

One of the most significant aspects of Carter's allegations is the claim that Silvergate was forced to cap its crypto deposits at 15%.This alleged mandate, according to Carter, was a key factor in Silvergate's downfall.Why is this significant?

• Unrealistic Target: A 15% cap would have been incredibly difficult for Silvergate to achieve, given its business model.
• Signaling Effect: The mandate would have signaled to the market that Silvergate was in trouble, potentially triggering further deposit withdrawals.
• Undermining Competitiveness: Limiting deposits would have significantly hampered Silvergate's ability to compete with other banks.

If true, this 15% deposit cap would represent a direct intervention by regulators that significantly contributed to Silvergate's demise.

The Impact on the Crypto Industry

The alleged targeting of Silvergate has had a ripple effect throughout the crypto industry. The now-bankrupt Silvergate Bank was forced to cap its crypto deposits at 15% under threat of being shut down by US regulators, claims to Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter.The closure of Silvergate created a void in banking services for crypto companies. Biden admin deliberately killed off Silvergate to decapitate crypto: Nic Carter 23 Former crypto-friendly bank Silvergate Bank likely would have survived had it not been forced into voluntary liquidation by United States regulators that were trying to decapitate the cryptocurrency industry, claims an industry executive.What are the broader implications?

• Reduced Banking Access: Crypto companies are now facing greater difficulty accessing traditional banking services.
• Increased Costs: The lack of banking options has increased costs for crypto companies, as they are forced to rely on less efficient alternatives.
• Innovation Stifled: The uncertainty surrounding the regulatory environment has stifled innovation in the crypto industry.
• Offshore Migration: Some crypto companies are considering moving their operations offshore to avoid the restrictive US regulatory environment.

The long-term impact of these trends could be significant, potentially hindering the growth of the crypto industry in the United States.

The Role of Regulatory Agencies: SEC, FDIC, and the Federal Reserve

Understanding which regulatory agencies may have been involved is crucial to analyzing the allegations against the Biden administration.Several agencies could have played a role:

• Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): The SEC has been actively pursuing enforcement actions against crypto companies, arguing that many digital assets are unregistered securities.
• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): The FDIC is responsible for insuring bank deposits and ensuring the stability of the banking system.They could have pressured banks to limit crypto exposure due to safety and soundness concerns.
• Federal Reserve: The Federal Reserve oversees the nation's monetary policy and regulates banks.They could have influenced bank behavior through supervisory guidance and other measures.

The coordination of these agencies, if proven, would lend further credibility to Carter's claims of a deliberate effort to target the crypto industry.

Counterarguments and Alternative Explanations

It's important to consider alternative explanations for Silvergate's downfall and the broader regulatory environment.Here are some counterarguments to Carter's claims:

• Market Volatility: The crypto market's inherent volatility could have been a primary driver of Silvergate's problems.
• Poor Risk Management: Silvergate may have made poor risk management decisions, leading to its vulnerability.
• Legitimate Regulatory Concerns: Regulators may have had legitimate concerns about the risks posed by crypto-related activities, prompting them to take action.

These alternative explanations highlight the complexity of the situation and the difficulty in definitively proving a deliberate conspiracy.

Operation Choke Point: A Historical Precedent

To understand the context of Carter's accusations, it's crucial to examine the history of Operation Choke Point. Based on conversations with confidential sources, and new revelations in Silvergate s recently public bankruptcy filings, I believe Silvergate could have survived its drawdown and was on a path to do so before being hamstrung by regulators continuing to advance the covert Biden admin scheme to destroy the US crypto industry we nowThis initiative, launched during the Obama administration, aimed to combat fraud and money laundering by targeting businesses deemed ""high-risk."" While the stated goal was to protect consumers and the financial system, critics argued that Operation Choke Point was used to unfairly target legitimate businesses based on political or ideological grounds.This historical precedent lends credence to Carter's claims that the Biden administration may have revived a similar strategy to target the crypto industry.The debate around Operation Choke Point highlights the potential for regulatory power to be abused, even with good intentions.

The Future of Crypto Regulation in the United States

The allegations surrounding Silvergate raise fundamental questions about the future of crypto regulation in the United States. Silvergate Bank could have survived but US regulators stepped in to decapitate the crypto industry, suggests Nic Carter in his latest report. He claims that Biden s administration reportedly told the defunct bank to cap crypto deposits at 15% or face severe consequences. Fresh revelations have added more weight to Carter s theory of Operation Choke Point [ ] source:What can we expect in the coming years? Inside the Biden Admin s Plot to Destroy Silvergate and Debank Crypto for Good Sep 25 new information suggests biden admin regulators deliberately killed off crypto-friendly silvergate in an attempt to decapitate the us crypto industrySeveral trends are likely to shape the regulatory landscape:

• Increased Scrutiny: Crypto companies can expect continued scrutiny from regulatory agencies.
• Clearer Rules: There is a growing demand for clearer regulatory rules for the crypto industry.
• Congressional Action: Congress may need to pass legislation to provide a comprehensive framework for crypto regulation.
• International Coordination: International cooperation will be essential to address the global nature of the crypto industry.

The future of crypto regulation in the United States will depend on the balance between protecting consumers and fostering innovation.

What Can the Crypto Industry Do?

Given the current regulatory climate, what steps can the crypto industry take to protect itself and advocate for a more favorable environment?

• Compliance: Focus on strict compliance with existing regulations.
• Advocacy: Engage in advocacy efforts to educate policymakers about the benefits of crypto and the need for clear regulations.
• Innovation: Continue to innovate and develop new technologies that address regulatory concerns.
• Collaboration: Collaborate with other industry players to promote responsible growth and innovation.

By taking proactive steps, the crypto industry can help shape the future of regulation and ensure its long-term success.

Conclusion: Weighing the Evidence

The allegations that the Biden administration deliberately killed off Silvergate to decapitate crypto are serious and require careful consideration. BTCUSD Bitcoin Biden admin deliberately killed off Silvergate to decapitate crypto: Nic Carter. The now-bankrupt Silvergate Bank was forced to cap its crypto deposits at 15% under threat ofWhile direct evidence of a coordinated conspiracy remains elusive, the circumstantial evidence presented by Nic Carter and others raises legitimate concerns about the regulatory environment for crypto-friendly banks and the broader digital asset industry.The downfall of Silvergate serves as a stark reminder of the potential for regulatory pressure to stifle innovation and disrupt entire sectors.Whether Silvergate was a victim of circumstance or a calculated target remains a subject of debate.The key takeaways are: Increased regulatory scrutiny is inevitable; the crypto industry must engage in proactive compliance and advocacy; and the future of crypto regulation in the United States will depend on balancing innovation with consumer protection.The crypto community must stay informed and actively participate in shaping the future of the industry.Ultimately, a balanced and well-defined regulatory framework is essential for fostering the responsible growth and adoption of digital assets in the United States.