After Silvergate Bank announced its voluntary liquidation, US Senator Elizabeth Warren attributes the financial institution’s downfall to “crypto risk.” According to Warren, she had previously warned about Silvergate. However, some critics dismiss Warren’s opinion as “terribly misinformed” and claim that she is “dropping egregious accusations”.
Crypto advocates offer different perspectives on Silvergate Bank’s downfall after Elizabeth Warren criticizes so-called “cryptocurrency risk”
Hours after Silvergate Bank announced its liquidation, US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tweeted about the disappearance of the financial institution. Warren once again referred to cryptocurrencies as risky and expressed his disappointment at the failure of Silvergate, which he considered “predictable.”
On March 9, US Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted: “I have warned of risky, if not illegal, activity by Silvergate and identified serious lapses in due diligence. Now, customers need to be whole and regulators need to step up crypto risk.” The Massachusetts senator’s statement was met with criticism almost immediately after it was published. “You caused a run on the bank with false accusations and now you claim you predicted it: gym Olympic-level mentality,” said one individual. answered to Warren’s tweet.
The individual’s comment about Warren starting the Silvergate bank run stems from the letter Senator Warren wrote, along with Senators Roger Marshall (R-KS) and John Kennedy (R-LA). He bipartisan letter it contained numerous accusations, as it solicited information about a “massive crypto scandal.” In response to Warren’s tweet on Thursday, one person asked politics if she had ever managed “not to be terribly misinformed while hurling egregious accusations?”
Some critics argue that Warren is employing the old propaganda that blames objects rather than people and companies for failure. This approach is similar to inanimate weapons causing violence by themselves, a pencil writing a hateful letter autonomously, or cryptocurrencies causing harm to investors rather than crypto business operators. Many critics on Twitter in disagreement with Senator Warren’s views on the matter. In response to accusations from him, crypto CFA Ram Ahluwalia offered a different perspective on the Silvergate situation.
“Silvergate, the first crypto bank, faced a bank run that led to its downfall”, Ahluwalia wrote. “Despite facing AML allegations, it was not these issues that ultimately caused (Silvergate Bank) to disappear. The responsibility for banking supervision lies with the Executive Branch, but this process was cut short. A senator’s letter, amplified by social media, undermined public confidence in Silvergate and ultimately led to a crisis of confidence.”
Reviewing Warren’s Twitter thread, there appears to be little to no support for his comment on the post, despite the fact that the tweet received 942 likes and was viewed over 724,000 times. Most responses to Warren’s tweet express disgust for their statements on the matter. As usual, critics of the politicians’ actions compared them to politicians breaking legs to sell crutches.
“This is why I hate political self-elevation at the expense of others,” one person said Burrow. “Crypto (and) blockchain solves a lot of problems. Unfortunately, it doesn’t address the posturing, selfish interests, and scaremongering of elected officials. Thank you for making it harder for honest, hard-working people.”
What do you think about Senator Warren’s views on cryptocurrencies and his role in the fall of Silvergate Bank? Does he believe that his accusations were justified or does he believe that they were wrong and detrimental to the institution? Share your thoughts on him in the comments below.
image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any product, service or company. bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.
