Cameron Winklevoss claims regulatory double standards over banking crisis

According to Winkelvoss, if First Republic had been a “crypto bank” it would have been “assassinated weeks earlier. Related: First Republic Bank dives another 20% with Bitcoin ready for $40K Things came to a head for First Republic on Monday, April 23, when the beleaguered firm reported in its Q1 profits call that amount to deposits had dropped by more than $100 billion. The company mentioned that it would be “pursuing strategic choices” to strengthen its financial standing as rapidly as possible.Since Monday, shares in First Republic Bank have collapsed more than 64%, falling from $16.14 to just $5.68 at the time of writing.

Both Silvergate and Silicon Valley Bank were taken into federal government receivership on March 8 and March 10 respectively. Advisors at First Republic apparently said that the current private market service to the firms liquidity problems would see the bank stay in operation. Federal government receivership is being referred to as the “closed-bank” scenario.Charles Gasparino, Senior Correspondent at Fox News informed his 160,000 Twitter fans on April 26 that the “personal bailout” is being pushed by the U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen who does not want to bail out depositors with government funds as they did with Silvergate and Silicon Valley Bank.

Cameron Winklevoss, the co-founder, and CEO of New York-headquartered crypto exchange Gemini, has accused U.S. regulators of perpetrating double standards in dealing with the First Republic Bank crisis. According to Winkelvoss, if First Republic had actually been a “crypto bank” it would have been “assassinated weeks back.” It is essential to note that First Republic at first began experiencing “structural challenges” with its balance sheet at the time that Silicon Valley Investment Bank and Silvergate Bank were being shut down by federal regulators or unwinding operations. First Republic Bank is down another 35% and falling quickly. If this was a “crypto” bank it would have been assassinated weeks earlier. The fact that is hasnt been taken into receivership shows simply how blatant the double standard is.– Cameron Winklevoss (@cameron) April 26, 2023

Related: First Republic Bank dives another 20% with Bitcoin prepared for $40K Things capped for First Republic on Monday, April 23, when the beleaguered firm reported in its Q1 revenues call that total deposits had actually plummeted by more than $100 billion. The company stated that it would be “pursuing strategic alternatives” to reinforce its financial standing as rapidly as possible.Since Monday, shares in First Republic Bank have actually collapsed more than 64%, falling from $16.14 to just $5.68 at the time of writing. Republic Bank share rate because Feb. 2, 2023. Source: TradingView.The downfall of First Republic Bank is believed to be supplying a tailwind for financial investment into Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, as financiers grow increasingly distrustful of central banking institutions. At the time of composing Bitcoin (BTC) was trading for $29,279 up 7% over the last seven days according to information from the Cointelegraph Price Index. Publication: Unstablecoins: Depegging, bank runs and other dangers loom

Other Questions People Ask

What are Cameron Winklevoss's views on regulatory double standards during the banking crisis?

Cameron Winklevoss has expressed strong concerns regarding what he perceives as regulatory double standards in the treatment of banks during the current financial crisis. He argues that if First Republic Bank had been a "crypto bank," it would have faced severe consequences much earlier, potentially being shut down weeks ago. Winklevoss believes that the lack of immediate federal intervention for First Republic highlights a significant disparity in how traditional banks and crypto institutions are treated by regulators.

How has the First Republic Bank situation influenced Cameron Winklevoss's stance on regulation?

The ongoing turmoil at First Republic Bank has prompted Cameron Winklevoss to criticize the regulatory framework governing financial institutions. He suggests that the bank's struggles, including a dramatic drop in deposits, would have led to a different outcome if it were a crypto-focused entity. Winklevoss's claims underscore his belief that regulators are applying inconsistent standards, favoring traditional banks over those in the cryptocurrency sector.

What implications does Cameron Winklevoss see for crypto banks amid the banking crisis?

Cameron Winklevoss believes that the current banking crisis reveals a troubling trend for crypto banks, suggesting they face harsher scrutiny compared to traditional banks. He argues that the swift actions taken against banks like Silvergate and Silicon Valley Bank demonstrate a bias that could jeopardize the future of crypto institutions. Winklevoss's comments imply that if regulatory practices do not change, crypto banks may continue to face undue challenges in maintaining their operations.

What recent events have led Cameron Winklevoss to speak out about regulatory practices?

The recent financial difficulties faced by First Republic Bank, including a staggering loss of over $100 billion in deposits, have catalyzed Cameron Winklevoss's remarks about regulatory practices. He points out that while traditional banks struggle, there seems to be a lack of urgency from regulators to intervene as they did with crypto banks. This situation has fueled his argument that there is a clear double standard in how financial institutions are treated based on their classification.

How does Cameron Winklevoss connect the banking crisis to cryptocurrency investment trends?

Cameron Winklevoss connects the ongoing banking crisis to a growing interest in cryptocurrency investments, suggesting that investors are increasingly wary of traditional banking systems. He posits that as confidence in banks like First Republic wanes, more individuals may turn to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as alternative investment options. This shift indicates a potential long-term impact on the financial landscape, driven by distrust in conventional banking practices.