2026-01-05 19:28:51

A certain compliant platform recently submitted a policy recommendation letter to U.S. regulators, with the core content being: the ambiguous "reputation risk" standard in the banking regulatory framework should be eliminated.

The platform pointed out a phenomenon — recently, inspectors from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have frequently used the so-called "reputation risk" as an excuse to pressure fully compliant businesses. This practice has sparked widespread concern within the industry.

In fact, this reflects a deeper issue: when regulatory standards are too broad and subjective, enforcement can easily become a tool for suppression. The term "reputation risk" sounds reasonable, but in practice, it is difficult to define, granting regulators excessive discretionary power. For companies actively seeking compliance, this uncertainty undoubtedly increases operational costs and legal risks.

If this recommendation is adopted, it would mean that the regulatory framework becomes clearer and more predictable, which would be a positive signal for the standardized development of the entire crypto financial industry.

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ColdWalletGuardian

· 22h ago

It's the same old game again, regulatory authorities have so much discretionary power that they just bully us. Finally, someone dares to call out this frustrating point—this excuse of "reputation risk" is just legitimate PUA. When the framework is unclear, they can do whatever they want to you. That's the real systemic risk.

View OriginalReply0

ApeWithNoFear

· 01-08 06:42

Someone finally spoke out: this kind of "reputation risk" is the regulator's万能刀 It's really outrageous that compliant companies are being woolled like this If this can really be fixed this time, we'll have a chance to breathe.

View OriginalReply0

AlphaLeaker

· 01-07 19:19

Haha, so that's the "reputation risk" ultimate weapon, the regulators'万能 excuse. Where's the promised compliance? Turns out it was all behind closed doors. I've seen through this trick a long time ago. Finally, someone stands up to criticize this vague standard. Someone should have said this earlier. But will the Americans really change? I'm a bit skeptical... That's why self-custody has become the only way out.

View OriginalReply0

SadMoneyMeow

· 01-05 19:58

That's why I say regulators are the most annoying. Using the banner of "reputation risk" to do whatever they want is really outrageous. --- It's the same old story. When rules are written vaguely, they can be interpreted arbitrarily, right? --- We must push this matter, or compliant companies will always be stuck. --- Finally, someone dares to directly confront this issue. Thumbs up. --- Basically, it's because too much power is unchecked, and "reputation risk" is just a universal excuse. --- Clear rules are good for everyone. I don't understand why they still want to delay. --- If this proposal can really pass, then there's hope; otherwise, we'll just keep getting exploited. --- The discretionary power of regulators is a nightmare, endlessly increasing costs for companies. --- Finally, a platform has spoken out. The industry has long had opinions on this. --- Those who create the rules and those who enforce them need to be synchronized. Right now, it's just one idea with two standards.

View OriginalReply0

MoneyBurner

· 01-05 19:57

Reputation risk is just a regulatory black box—whoever the regulators want to blame, they blame. Compliant companies still have to spend extra money to hedge against this uncertainty. This game is played quite ruthlessly.

View OriginalReply0

MevHunter

· 01-05 19:57

Coming back with this again? The regulatory authorities hold the "reputation risk" gun, and they point it at whoever they are dissatisfied with.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketSurvivor

· 01-05 19:53

This is the classic "supply line being cut off." Regulatory authorities hold vague standards as weapons, and compliant companies still get penalized no matter how hard they try. Frankly, it's a matter of discretionary power; clear operational rules are necessary.

View OriginalReply0

DuskSurfer

· 01-05 19:50

Finally, someone has hit the nail on the head. This "reputation risk" is just a catch-all, stuffing everything into it. The operational space is too large. Regulatory authorities can easily target you with a few words, while compliant companies are instead sidelined. It must be changed, it has to be changed, or this industry will always be on the defensive.

View OriginalReply0

OnChainSleuth

· 01-05 19:36

Really, this "reputation risk" is just a basket to put everything in --- Compliance companies have long been frustrated by such vague standards and should have pushed back earlier --- Regulatory discretion is too broad, I look down on such rules --- Cancel "reputation risk"? Dream on, the authorities will never let go --- Forget it, most of these suggestions will probably be shelved in a drawer --- Basically, it's giving inspectors a knife to arbitrarily attack --- Wait, can this suggestion really pass? I am skeptical --- The clearer the standards, the better, at least companies can operate with peace of mind --- It's the same old story in the US, using one reason to block you --- The term "reputation risk" is just for convenience

View OriginalReply0