The term 'debanking' refers to the phenomenon where lawful individuals or entities lose their relationship with banks without due process or notice, and are unable to obtain relief. This has raised concerns about regulatory abuse of power and unfair suppression of legitimate industries. This article is based on a16z's article (Debanking: What you need to know), compiled, translated, and written by Blockchain in Plain Language. (Background: a16z executives call on Trump: How should the U.S. government seize Web3 opportunities after being elected?) The phenomenon of 'debanking' has been happening behind the scenes for years and has once again become a topic of public discussion. Many individuals, policymakers, companies, especially entrepreneurs who are crucial to American innovation, have begun to voice their concerns on this issue. Due to frequent mentions of the cryptocurrency industry and certain specific institutions in this discussion, here is a brief explanation of this phenomenon, aimed at helping everyone distinguish between truth and noise. What is 'debanking'? In simple terms, 'debanking' refers to lawful individuals or entities unexpectedly losing their relationship with banks, which may even result in being kicked out of the banking system. 'Debanking' is different from situations where banking services are lost due to suspicion or confirmation of involvement in fraud, money laundering, or other illegal activities. Such situations usually undergo some form of investigation or procedure. 'Debanking' can occur without any apparent investigation, detailed explanation, or prior notice, and does not give the relevant entities sufficient time to transfer their funds. More importantly, this process lacks due process, appeal mechanisms, or other remedies. 1) Why is this important? We already have fair banking rules aimed at ensuring that individuals are not discriminated against based on factors like age, gender, marital status, nationality, race, or religion. However, there are currently no relevant rules restricting banks (or their regulatory agencies) from arbitrarily stripping or canceling someone's right to access banking services. Therefore, 'debanking' can be used as a tool or weapon by certain specific political actors or institutions to systematically target private individuals or industries without having to follow due process. Imagine if the government decided who could use electricity and who could not, solely based on political stance or some arbitrary reason, without explanation, investigation, notification, or providing relief — this is a true reflection of the 'debanking' issue. 2) Why does 'debanking' occur? Not all account closures fall under 'debanking'. It is reasonable for banks to close customer accounts for a variety of reasons, such as suspicion of the customer engaging in suspicious activities. Additionally, banks may proactively choose to reduce regulatory compliance costs and burdens, thereby limiting their exposure to certain individuals, industries, or business models. However, legitimate behavior is not why 'debanking' has raised concerns. Many are worried about reports indicating that regulators may illegally abuse their power, exert undue pressure on banks to stop providing services to certain industry clients, or terminate relationships with clients who have specific political affiliations or stances. This allows these regulatory bodies to exert influence over industries, even though Congress has not granted them such power. Banks typically succumb to this pressure because they do not want to confront regulators. Many banks also prefer to avoid compliance troubles or additional scrutiny that may arise from non-cooperation. What is the origin of the 'Choke Point' operation? In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice, as part of the Presidential Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force's policy initiative, initiated investigations into certain businesses suspected of fraud and money laundering. This marked a shift in government strategy: no longer taking action solely against individual companies for suspected illegal activities, but instead issuing subpoenas to banks and payment companies to provide information related to high-risk or politically unpopular (but legal) clients. In other words, the government improperly used regulatory power to 'cut off' financial services pipelines for certain businesses, hindering industries not supported by the administration by closing accounts (as pointed out by the then-president of the American Bankers Association). In 2014, Frank Keating, former president and CEO of the American Bankers Association and former governor of Oklahoma, wrote in a commentary published in The Wall Street Journal: 'When you become a banker, no one gives you a badge, nor do they tailor a robe for you. So why does the Department of Justice require bankers to act like police and judges? The new DOJ investigation, known as 'Choke Point', requires banks to identify customers who may be engaging in illegal activities or simply customers that government officials do not like.' The program was halted the following year due to strong opposition from legal, congressional, and relevant agencies. Today, the term 'Choke Point 2.0' is sometimes used to refer to the government's targeting of 'political enemies and unpopular tech startups' through 'debanking' measures. Or as others describe it, the term refers to banks cutting off contact with certain clients deemed 'politically incorrect, extreme, dangerous, or non-compliant'. Regardless of how defined, this issue impacts entities across the political spectrum and all affected parties. Which institutions are involved? The specific operational mechanisms of the 'Choke Point' operation, as well as any related or subsequent systemic debanking initiatives, were previously unclear to the outside world, as any relevant investigations (if any) were conducted in secrecy, and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests still await responses. However, a letter from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) dated March 11, 2022 (as court record evidence) shows that the agency instructed a bank: 'Currently, the FDIC has not decided whether banks engaging in such activities are required to submit any regulatory filings. Therefore, we urge you to suspend all activities related to cryptocurrency assets.' In this case, multiple similar FDIC letters were submitted as evidence. Furthermore, it is known that the financial fraud enforcement task force executing 'Choke Point 1.0' in 2013 included agencies such as the FDIC and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Independent agencies under the U.S. Treasury, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve (FRB), were also involved. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has also been mentioned. It is important to note that the U.S. is not the only country implementing debanking. Other countries, such as Canada, have also used this tactic; the UK has also launched an investigation into government-led debanking complaints. Why is the government taking this action? What are the implications? The reasons for debanking include combating payment processing fraud and preventing high-risk businesses from operating, as these businesses may be considered more associated with money laundering activities. However, these measures are often framed in the name of 'de-risking', meaning 'financial institutions indiscriminately terminate or limit business relationships with certain categories of clients, rather than specifically analyzing and managing customer risks.' In a broader application, de-risking and debanking can be used as a 'partisan tool' to politically target legitimate businesses for purely political reasons. Another possible reason is that certain government agencies wish to gain greater discretion and power to determine 'where and under what circumstances consumers can obtain loans, financial products, and other banking services.' It is important to clarify that the issue is not whether a specific government agency is diligent, but rather the excessive intervention (or abuse of power) by the government against legitimate businesses, often lacking due process, effective limitations, and largely conducted behind the scenes. Especially when existing laws and legitimate means are already sufficient to regulate...