Lately, I’ve been noticing more and more discussions about a phenomenon that isn’t talked about enough: de-banking. It’s not a new thing, but in recent years it has become almost a systematic practice, especially when it comes to crypto.

What exactly are we talking about? De-banking is when a person or a completely legitimate company suddenly finds themselves without a bank account, without warning, without detailed explanations, and without recourse. Banks close accounts like that, period. There’s no preliminary investigation, no time to transfer the money, no appeal process. It’s different from when they close an account due to suspected illegal activities — in those cases, at least, there’s a process, procedures. True de-banking is more insidious.

Why should we care? Because today banking services are essential for operating in modern society. Losing an account means being unable to pay salaries, manage transactions, operate normally. It’s like the government deciding to cut off someone’s electricity without explaining why. There are rules against banking discrimination, but strangely they don’t protect against arbitrary revocations in other circumstances. And here’s where the real problem begins: de-banking could become a tool to systematically target certain sectors or individuals.

How did we get here? In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice launched what they called “Operation Chokepoint.” The idea was to fight high-risk or politically unpopular activities, but the method was interesting: instead of acting directly, the government pressured banks to cut off services to certain sectors. In 2014, Frank Keating, president of the American Bankers Association, publicly wrote: “Bankers are not police or judges, but the Department of Justice asks them to play those roles.” The operation was halted in 2015 due to legal pressures, but the model remained. In recent years, people talk about “Chokepoint 2.0” to describe similar practices.

Which institutions are involved? The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) sent letters to banks to suspend activities related to crypto assets. The Department of Justice, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — all played a role. And the phenomenon isn’t just American: Canada and the UK have had their own similar controversies.

But what strikes me most is the impact on crypto and innovation. According to the venture capital firm a16z’s report, in just the last four years, their portfolio companies have experienced at least 30 de-banking events. Legitimate startups, funded by pension funds and university foundations, found themselves without banking access. The reasons? “We don’t serve the crypto industry,” or “compliance issues” without specific explanations. No recourse.

This systematic de-banking is creating several negative effects. On the financial system: activities shift toward informal channels, weakening regulation. On consumers: limiting rights of choice and access to services. On innovation: startups that can’t operate normally, some risk of failure, a slowing effect on the entire ecosystem.

What should happen? Greater transparency from regulatory authorities, transparent recourse mechanisms for those affected, banks developing more sophisticated risk management capabilities instead of blanket refusals, and more people sharing these cases publicly.

Basically, de-banking represents an abuse of power that threatens both the financial system and innovation. Governments, banks, and society must find a balance between financial security and fair competition. Otherwise, we risk choking entire sectors out of fear.