2025-12-29 02:28:14

Recently, a statement by U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis has caused a stir in the crypto community. She openly stated that the "Simplified Account" plan being studied by the Federal Reserve might be the key to breaking the deadlock of "de-banking" in the crypto industry.

In simple terms, the "Simplified Account" essentially allows compliant institutions to access basic banking services—such as payments, settlement, and custody—without involving complex credit operations or high-risk activities. It sounds straightforward, but it has significant implications for the entire crypto industry.

So, what is the current problem? Many crypto trading platforms and compliant projects simply cannot open bank accounts. These institutions are not illegal; the main issue is that traditional banks are too cautious—regulatory policies are unclear, account opening costs are high, risks are hard to assess, and they simply refuse to serve the industry. As a result, innovation within the U.S. is flowing overseas, which poses a real threat to the financial system.

Lummis pointed out that if the Federal Reserve introduces a standardized, low-risk account access mechanism, it would enable crypto companies to obtain basic financial services, effectively control risks within the framework, and bring the previously "wild" industry activities into a monitored and auditable scope. This is a smart approach to regulation—not by simply banning, but by innovating制度 to balance risk isolation and industry development.

From a broader perspective, this indicates that U.S. regulatory thinking is shifting. Moving from a defensive strategy to structural design, acknowledging the existence of the crypto industry and the need to integrate it into the financial system. If truly implemented, this could significantly improve the financing environment and operational costs for crypto enterprises, potentially ushering in a new phase of industry development.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GateUser-26d7f434

· 10h ago

Lummis's words really hit the point. If the streamlined accounts are truly implemented, the situation where banks are pushed out will have a chance to be saved. But on the other hand, does the Federal Reserve really intend to do this? It sounds good in theory, but in practice, it's still a lot of bickering. The issue of not being able to open accounts for compliant projects should have been resolved long ago. Traditional banks are really stubborn; a one-size-fits-all approach to risk is the easiest. If cryptocurrency can be integrated into the system, it would indeed be beneficial for us. However, the prerequisite is that there must be clear rules. The fact that domestic innovation in the US is being pushed overseas... this really hits home, feels like self-sabotage. If this system becomes a reality, it will truly be a game changer; otherwise, it's just empty talk. How much influence Lummis has in pushing this in the Senate is the key. It also seems related to the change in attitude from Trump’s side; last year, they were still criticizing the crypto space. Don't just look at the good news—do the folks at Bank of America really cooperate this much? Honestly, it's still about the unclear regulatory framework. We'll see when it’s actually written into legislation.

View OriginalReply0

PancakeFlippa

· 12h ago

Lummis's words sound good, but whether it will really be implemented depends on when. Anyway, I don't hold much hope. I'm wondering if this "simplified account" will end up becoming another form of disguised regulation? Banks refusing to open accounts has been a long-standing annoyance; we're just waiting for this step. Well, if you ask me, instead of waiting for the Federal Reserve, it's better to accelerate migration to the chain. Decentralization is the real solution. That's true, but the question is whether Lummis can represent the Federal Reserve. Does this hold any weight? If this push is truly implemented, exchanges will definitely have a better time. Timing is the key. Only when compliance costs are reduced can we truly attract institutions. Right now, it's a vicious cycle. It still feels like the positive news has been overhyped. Let's wait until policies are actually announced.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunter420

· 12h ago

Lummis's words really hit the point; finally, a politician understands the industry's pain points. The streamlined account system can indeed solve the awkward situation of "banks not daring to touch crypto." Why should compliant entities still be pushed out? It's really absurd. The US is pushing innovators out, and it'll be too late to regret it when these projects move to Singapore and Dubai; they won't come back. Regulatory mechanisms catching up can truly give the industry a lifeline, but it still depends on whether the Federal Reserve will really take action... If this plan can be pushed forward, the difficult issues like financing and bank cards will be solved all at once. How can the market not rise?

View OriginalReply0

MidnightSnapHunter

· 12h ago

Finally, someone has spoken out—the banks need to change this rigid risk control logic. --- Simplified accounts? Basically, it's just giving crypto a proper name, and I think that's fine. --- It's that same "promise" again. I'm tired of hearing Lummis say that; only actual implementation counts. --- Got it. It's just about making traditional finance stop giving us the cold shoulder. Reasonable. --- If this really gets implemented, many projects will survive. Just thinking about it is exciting. --- Is the US regulation shifting? Then when will we, the entrepreneurs forced to go overseas, be able to come home? --- Banks would rather lose business than deal with crypto. Serves them right for being disrupted, haha. --- Simplified accounts are basically "low-risk channels." Simple and straightforward but effective. --- Yeah, banning is easier than designing a system, but obviously the former is even dumber. --- Risk isolation and balancing industry development? Sounds great in theory, but what about in practice? --- The key is whether policies are clear or not—that's the real bottleneck. --- So, is the US trying to "tame" crypto before integrating it into the system? Oh my goodness.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeVictim

· 12h ago

Lummis's recent actions are truly awakening, much more understanding than some people. If they really want to implement "streamlined accounts," it's not just talk—it's turning crypto from "suspected illegal activity" into "regulated enterprises." Banks will have an excuse to refuse you. The key is that the US is now trying to do something to retain innovation, and being forced to open this door is actually quite ironic. But will it really be implemented? It feels like another "under study" and then indefinitely shelved. However, on the other hand, if it can be achieved through institutional design rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, it could be a way out—preventing everything from moving overseas. Banks are really struggling now; account opening costs are still ridiculously high. If this actually happens, the overall financing difficulty for the industry could be halved.

View OriginalReply0