Written by: Austin King, Co-founder of Omni Network
Translated by: Luffy, Foresight News
Recently, a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen revealed that many founders have been threatened by the banking system. I am one of them: out of fear of retaliation, I have never publicly talked about this matter.
So what is it really like when it happens to you? My personal first experience was in 2021 when I tried to open the company's first bank account.
The beginning of the story
When I was preparing to open our first account, several banks rejected me. Whenever you want to open a business account, banks will ask what your company does. If you mention anything related to 'cryptocurrency' or 'Web3', you will be rejected. After mentioning these terms and being rejected multiple times, you begin to realize what is happening, so I started using terms like 'early fintech startup'. Eventually, this tactic worked, and I successfully opened a bank account, allowing me to conduct business operations in this country.
Repeated strikes
Is the situation really just like this? No, it is a repetitive and ongoing process of strikes. Once you have an account, you will realize that having only one account is a serious risk for a business. You will eventually receive an email with a subject like this:
You will open it, but this request really doesn’t make much sense because they already have the documents they requested, yet you still comply with the requirement to submit documents. The problem is that compliance does not solve the issue; even if we quickly respond with all requested documents, our account is still arbitrarily frozen.
This account freeze has prevented us from issuing salaries. My team has a lot of faith in me, but when the company cannot issue salaries, you will definitely start to question whether this is a stable place where you can work long-term. When you hear from the boss, 'Honestly, we have the money, we've almost immediately submitted all requested documents, and I really believe we became a target because we are engaged in cryptocurrency work,' you cannot be sure. Another example:
Sounds reasonable, right? They just want a few documents and gave us 5 working days. The problem is: sometimes they don’t even respond within those 5 working days; it’s not about submitting documents but about their approval of the documents. They just re-request the same documents that have already been submitted without explaining what the issue with those documents is. This strategy reflects how the SEC has stifled cryptocurrency in the US over the past 4 years: vague rules that leave people operating in a fog, stifling them with bureaucratic ambiguity rather than directly attacking them.
We are not the only victims. I have talked to many investors in Omni who have found this situation occurring in many of their investment projects, to the extent that their portfolio support teams actively help teams establish multiple independent bank accounts to reduce risk.
Why can I talk about this now?
Because if people like Marc Andreessen publicly talk about this issue, I feel that the likelihood of being targeted individually will decrease. Previously, I refrained from publicly expressing my opinion due to concerns about bringing more risks to myself and the business. I primarily publish this article to provide further evidence that this is a real problem stifling innovation in the US. Over the past 4 years, the government has actively pushed for cryptocurrency innovation to shift overseas. I think this is genuinely dangerous for the US. We need to take a leadership role in the crypto space rather than pushing innovation to arbitrary countries like the Bahamas. Cryptocurrency is a technology that has the potential to significantly enhance the autonomy and personal freedom of people worldwide. I really can't think of any other technology that fits the 'American Dream' as well as cryptocurrency does.