Ever since Matt Hancock was forced to resign for kissing his closest aide, Gina Coladangelo, in his office – in breach of his own COVID guidelines – the former health secretary has been trying to defend his record.
He wrote a book, The Pandemic Diaries, that offered his version of events ahead of the official COVID inquiry, and he gave countless interviews defending his actions, be it around the protection – or lack thereof – of care homes, the pandemic plan, or his handling of government PPE contracts.
Given all of that, I didn’t really expect Mr Hancock to turn up at the official inquiry today and offer some retrospection of what he got wrong, as well as where he thought he was right.
With utter predictability, the former health secretary sought to cast himself as the man who single-handedly tried to wake up a sluggish Whitehall machine to the threat, and who was thwarted by the “toxic culture” in Number 10 and government that prevented him from slowing down the spread of the virus.
This wasn’t so much self-reflection, but self-protection. In his version of events, Mr Hancock was never part of the problem, but always trying to find the solution.
More on Covid Inquiry
Related Topics:
That, of course, is not how other former aides and officials recall what happened during the pandemic.
Former deputy cabinet secretary Helen MacNamara told the inquiry Mr Hancock displayed “nuclear levels” of overconfidence, and that he regularly told colleagues in Number 10 things that “they later discovered weren’t true”.
Advertisement
Boris Johnson’s top adviser, Dominic Cummings, said he was a “proven liar” and “unfit for the job”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:15
Hancock ‘wanted to decide who should live’
The government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, told the inquiry Mr Hancock had a “habit” of saying things that weren’t true, while the former cabinet secretary Lord Sedwill told his hearing he would have to “double-check” things to make sure the then-health secretary “wasn’t over-promising”.
To all those accusations of lying, Mr Hancock told inquiry barrister Hugo Keith simply that he had not lied and there was “no evidence from anybody who I worked with in the department or the health system who supported those false allegations”.
In other words, it was “them” – Number 10 and the Cabinet Office – versus “us” – Mr Hancock and his health department team.
But trying to cast these claims and counterclaims as a feature of turf wars between different government factions wasn’t so easy on Thursday as Mr Hancock brought another to the inquiry that wasn’t backed up by any evidence.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:22
‘How’s your eyesight Mr Cummings?’
He claimed he told Mr Johnson a lockdown was necessary on 13 March 2020 – 10 days before the country was shut down.
Mr Cummings immediately tweeted that Mr Hancock was “flat out lying” and had been pushing the herd immunity plan at the time, rather than a lockdown.
The inquiry barrister also questioned the claim, noting Mr Hancock had made no such entry in his book, and there was no written evidence in the thousands of pieces of documentation acquired by the inquiry to back up his versions of events.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
In fact, he pointed out that when Mr Hancock sent WhatsApps to the prime minister on the 13 and 14 March there, was nothing about an immediate lockdown mentioned at all.
When he walked into the inquiry this morning, Mr Hancock was asked by the crowd outside whether “he lied his way through this pandemic”.
And what we heard from the former health secretary today was a version of events at odds with other testimony.
He went into defend his record, but it is hard to see that he came out changing many minds.
Synthetic stablecoin developer Ethena Labs is winding down its German operations less than a month after regulators identified “deficiencies” in its dollar-pegged USDe (USDE) stablecoin, signaling heightened scrutiny around crypto assets in Europe’s largest economy.
Ethena Labs reached an agreement with Germany’s Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, also known as BaFin, to cease all operations of its local subsidiary, Ethena GmbH, according to an April 15 announcement.
As such, Ethena Labs “will no longer be pursuing MiCAR authorization in Germany,” the company said, referring to the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation.
The company reiterated that Ethena’s German subsidiary has not conducted any mint or redeem activity for USDe since March 21, the day BaFin halted the stablecoin’s activities. As Cointelegraph reported at the time, the German regulator identified compliance failures and potential securities law violations tied to USDe.
“All whitelisted mint and redeem users previously interacting with Ethena GmbH have at their request been onboarded with Ethena (BVI) Limited instead and have no ongoing relationship with Ethena GmbH whatsoever,” the company said.
Unlike popular stablecoins USDt (USDT) and USDC (USDC), Ethena’s USDe maintains its dollar peg through an automated delta-hedging strategy that includes a combination of spot holdings, onchain custody and liquidity buffers.
USDe is the fourth-largest stablecoin with a total circulating value of $4.9 billion, according to CoinMarketCap.
The $233-billion stablecoin market is dominated by USDT and USDC. Source: CoinMarketCap
To meet the new requirements, stablecoin issuers must have adequate reserves backing their tokens, ensure reserve assets are segregated from users’ assets and fulfill regular reporting obligations.
Patrick Hansen, Circle’s senior director of EU strategy and policy, told Cointelegraph that a total of 10 euro-pegged stablecoins and five US dollar-pegged stablecoins have been approved so far.
However, notably absent from the list is USDt issuer Tether, which has decided not to pursue MiCA registration at this time.
The crypto industry’s inability to access banking services still concerns many industry observers despite recent policy victories.
In past years, financial services firms and banks concerned about fiduciary risk, reporting liabilities and reputational risk often would refuse to offer service to crypto firms — i.e., “debanking” them.
Legislative efforts in the United States and Australia are attempting to remove these barriers for the crypto industry. In the former, legislators repealed guidelines that made it difficult for banks to custody crypto assets, as well as those stating that crypto carried “reputational risk” for banks. In the latter, the Labor Party has introduced a bill to create a legal framework for crypto, giving banks the clarity they need to interact with the crypto industry.
Despite these tangible efforts, some crypto industry observers say that the crypto’s debanking problem is far from over.
US crypto execs say debanking is still an issue
The crypto industry has long decried “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” its nickname for a suite of policies that they claim constrained the crypto industry from growing under the administration of former President Joe Biden. Among these were measures making it more difficult for crypto firms to access banking services.
The early days of the second administration of President Donald Trump have seen many of these repealed or changed. One of the first was the repeal of Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, which required banks offering custody for customers’ cryptocurrencies to list them as liabilities on their balance sheets — this made it very difficult for banks to justify offering such services.
The administration also appointed a new head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Rodney Hood. Dennis Porter, CEO of the Bitcoin-focused policy organization Satoshi Action, told Cointelegraph that under Hood’s tenure, the OCC has already said banks can offer crypto-related services like custody, stablecoin reserves and blockchain participation.
“This opens the door for broader adoption of digital asset technology and custodial services by traditional financial institutions, signaling a major shift in how banks engage with crypto,” he said.
Despite these victories, Caitlin Long, founder and CEO of Custodia Bank, said on March 21 that debanking is likely to remain a problem for crypto firms into 2026.
Long said the non-partisan board of governors of the Federal Reserve is “still controlled by Democrats,” alluding to Democrats’ more skeptical stance on crypto. Long claimed that “there are two crypto-friendly banks under examination by the Fed right now, and an army of examiners was sent into these banks, including the examiners from Washington, a literal army just smothering the banks.”
Long noted that Trump won’t be able to appoint a new Fed governor until January, meaning that, while other agencies may be more crypto-friendly, there are still roadblocks.
Australia’s Labor Party to create crypto framework
Stand With Crypto, the “grassroots” crypto advocacy organization started by Coinbase that has spread to the US, UK, Canada and Australia, said that “in Australia, debanking is quietly shutting out innovators and entrepreneurs — particularly in the crypto and blockchain space.”
In a post on X, the organization claimed that debanking results in “reputational damage, loss of revenue, increased operational costs, and inability to launch or sustain services.” It also claimed that it forces some companies to move offshore.
In response to these concerns, the ruling center-left Labor Party in Australia has proposed a new set of laws for the cryptocurrency industry. The changes to current financial services law seek to tackle the issue of debanking in the country’s cryptocurrency industry.
Edward Carroll, head of global markets and corporate finance at MHC Digital Group — an Australian crypto platform — told Cointelegraph that in Australia, debanking decisions were “not the result of regulatory directives.”
“Rather, they appear to stem from a more general sense of risk aversion due to the current lack of a clear regulatory framework.”
Carroll was optimistic about the Labor Party’s proactive stance. The major political parties were “showing a shift in sentiment and a shared commitment to establishing formal crypto regulation.”
“We are hopeful that this will give banks the confidence to reengage with crypto businesses that meet compliance standards,” he said.
Canada unlikely to relieve crypto firms
In Canada, “debanking remains a serious and ongoing challenge for the Canadian crypto industry,” according to Morva Rohani, executive director of the Canadian Web3 Council.
“While some firms have successfully established relationships with banking partners, many continue to face account closures or denials with little explanation or recourse,” she told Cointelegraph.
While debanking actions aren’t explicit, financial institutions’ interpretation of Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer regulations “creates a risk-averse environment where banks weigh compliance and reputational concerns against the relatively low revenue potential of crypto clients.”
The end result, per Rohani, is a systemic debanking problem for the digital assets industry.
But unlike in the US and Australia, the Canadian crypto industry may not find relief anytime soon. Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose more crypto-skeptic Liberal Party is surging in the polls ahead of the April 28 snap elections, is himself a crypto-skeptic.
Polls show Carney firmly in the lead. Source: Ipsos
Carney has stated that the future of money lies more in a “central bank stablecoin,” otherwise referred to as a central bank digital currency.
Rohani said that “no comprehensive legislative solution has been implemented” with regard to debanking. “A more structured approach, including mandated disclosure of reasons for account termination and regulatory oversight, is needed,” she said.
Critics claim crypto is “hijacking” the debanking issue
There is another side to the debanking debate, which claims that crypto’s debanking “problem” is a non-issue or a vehicle for crypto firms to get what they want in terms of regulation.
Molly White, the author of Web3 Is Going Just Great and the “Citation Needed” newsletter, has noted that, in the US at least, crypto firms have claimed to be victims of debanking while lauding Trump’s efforts to end protections for debanking at the same time.
In a Feb. 14 post, White stated that the crypto industry had “hijacked” the discussion around debanking, which contains legitimate concerns regarding access to financial services — particularly regarding discrimination due to race, religious identity or industry affiliation.
She claims the crypto industry has used debanking as a means to deflect legitimate regulatory inquiries into crypto companies’ compliance efforts.
Further of note is the fact that Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has applauded the efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with Elon Musk at the helm, to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
One of the CFPB’s responsibilities is to investigate claims of debanking. But when DOGE instructed the agency to halt all work, Armstrong said it was “100% the right call,” in addition to making dubious claims about the agency’s constitutionality.
In the meantime
Whether the industry’s debanking concerns stem from legitimate discrimination or an attempt at regulatory capture, crypto firms are developing solutions in the interim.
Porter said that, as an alternative to banking services, “many crypto companies have leaned on stablecoins as a primary tool for managing finances,” while others have worked with “smaller regional banks or specialized trust companies open to digital assets.”
Rohani said that this kind of “patchwork of relationships” can increase operational costs and risks and are “not sustainable long-term solutions for growth or to build a competitive, regulated industry.”
Porter concluded that the banking workarounds could actually strengthen the industry’s position, stating that they may “continue evolving into fully integrated relationships with traditional financial institutions, further cementing crypto’s place in mainstream finance.”
Only 20 of the 181 Bitcoin service providers registered with El Salvador’s central bank are operational, with the rest failing to meet the country’s requirements under its Bitcoin Law.
Local media outlet El Mundo cited data from the Central Reserve Bank of El Salvador, showing that 11% of the service providers are operational. According to the central bank’s database, the rest of the providers are classified as non-operational.
The data showed that at least 22 non-operational providers have failed to meet most of the country’s Bitcoin Law requirements, which mandate that providers implement stringent supervision of their financial systems.
Most of El Salvador’s Bitcoin service providers are non-operational
El Salvador’s Bitcoin Law requires providers to maintain an Anti-Money Laundering (AML) program, keep records that accurately reflect the company’s assets, liabilities and equity and have a tailored cybersecurity program depending on the nature of its services.
The data showed that 89% of the registered providers have failed to meet some of these obligations to be classified as operational.
Still, a few firms have satisfied the legal criteria, including the state-backed Chivo Wallet and companies including Crypto Trading & Investment and Fintech Américas.
In 2021, El Salvador became the first country to accept Bitcoin as legal tender along with the US dollar. This move made Bitcoin integral to El Salvador President Nayib Bukele’s economic strategy.
However, the Central American country recently signed a deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on a $1.4 billion loan in exchange for rolling back some of its Bitcoin-related efforts. Under the agreement, taxes will be paid in US dollars and public institutions will limit their use of Bitcoin.
The IMF deal prompted speculation about whether the country would rescind Bitcoin’s status as legal tender. John Dennehy, an El Salvador-based Bitcoin activist and educator, said in an X Space with Cointelegraph that a rollback law changing Bitcoin’s legal status is set to take effect on April 30.