Exactly the point I was making elsewhere. The whole concept of free trade is the right to transact and do business all within a set legal framework of course.
Unless, by law, crypto currencies are declared illegal, then the bank has no business denying anyone to trade with anyone else, assuming the traders are operating legally. Otherwise I think it would be questionable, if such an occurrence took place in EU, whether that bank should be afforded its license.
It's troublesome though that the only people that appear to care about this blatant cartelism is people into crypto.
Does this mean that others here are supportive of this move?
Denying service to competing and legal industry.
But how does one vote with their feet if the banks in said country are colluding?Banks will continue to do what they want, as long as they are permitted to do what they want.
Customers who are not happy with a Bank policy such as refusing to process crypto related transactions, need to vote with their feet and be very public about it !
... that said, we will never see action like that happen in Ireland, as we just like to bitch and moan in the pub, at the ICA, or on discussion based websites like this one
The Central Bank of Poland has admitted to sponsoring a smear campaign against cryptocurrencies on Facebook, Google and Youtube. This news was first reported on a Polish news portal, money.pl.
It is illegal in Poland to create sponsored content without explicitly mentioning it. There is no law against cryptocurrencies in Poland which makes people wonder why the Central Bank had to sponsor a smear campaign in the first place. Also, money.pl has questioned the NBP for a reason behind this smear campaign, and they haven’t received any response yet.
Will depositers get their funds back?But after the U.S. Treasury singled it out as a recipient of illicit financing it lost around a fifth of its 2.7 billion euro deposit base in a week. At the weekend, the European Central Bank declared it at as likely to fail.
I guess we'll just have to hope that contagion is limited here and they don't start raiding tax payers like has happened in recent times.ABLV, which controls 13 percent of Latvian banking assets and deposits, will now be wound up in accordance with local laws, the ECB says. Latvian authorities, mindful of the painful 2008 bailout of Parex Bank, do not want to use taxpayers’ money. This might be feasible. Paying back deposits up to 100,000 euros, which are guaranteed by EU law, should cost 470 million euros, local regulators say. At the end of September 2017, ABLV had around 3.6 billion euros of assets on its balance sheet including 600 million euros in cash or the equivalent, 800 million euros of securities and about 1 billion euros of loans.
guess we'll just have to hope that contagion is limited here and they don't start raiding tax payers like has happened in recent times
Whats this all about?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?