A US Postal Service worker outside a Signature Bank branch in the Brooklyn borough of New York, US, on Wednesday, March 15, 2023.
Angus Mordant | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Anchorage Digital CEO Nathan McCauley wants everyone to know what happened to his crypto company in 2023 during the Biden administration.
“Our story is pretty ridiculous,” McCauley told CNBC in an interview after testifying at a Senate hearing, titled, “Investigating the Real Impacts of Debanking in America,” earlier this month. “We had a bank that we had a growing relationship with for a number of years, who basically on a dime, decided to turn off our bank account.”
No explanation. No warning. After two years working with the bank, access was cut off. He didn’t name the bank and an Anchorage spokesperson said the company is declining to provide it.
McCauley’s peers across the crypto industry have shared similar sagas about being locked out of the U.S. financial system, losing access to payroll, checking accounts and payment processing. Industry leaders call it “Operation Choke Point 2.0,” an alleged coordinated effort by regulators during the Biden presidency to pressure banks into severing ties with crypto. The 1.0 version, they say, occurred when the Obama administration went after banks that backed gun manufacturers and payday lenders.
With the word “debanking,” crypto execs and investors have found immediate allies among top Republicans in both houses of Congress and in the White House, who are ready and willing to investigate any potential malfeasance that occurred when Democrats were in charge.
President Donald Trump has coopted the agenda for political gain. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last month, he accusedJPMorgan Chase and Bank of America of politically motivated debanking, claiming major financial institutions have shut out conservatives under pressure from regulators. The banks denied the claim and Trump hasn’t provided any evidence to back it up.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has tied himself closely to Trump and, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, used his opening remarks at the hearing on Feb. 5, to echo the president’s sentiment.
“It is incredibly alarming and disheartening to hear stories about financial institutions cutting off services to digital asset firms, political figures, and conservative-aligned businesses and individuals,” Scott said.
Nathan McCauley, co-founder and chief executive officer of Anchorage Digital Bank, during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025.
Stefani Reynolds | Bloomberg | Getty Images
For crypto industry leaders like McCauley, Republican leadership in Washington has provided a platform to publicly air their grievances.
McCauley, whose company is a federally chartered crypto bank, recounted Anchorage’s abrupt loss of banking services in June 2023. He said that while his company has faced numerous challenges, the environment has been even worse for less-established startups.
“You can only imagine what was happening to the smaller entrepreneurs who didn’t have the resources to be able to marshal in order to keep their bank accounts open,” McCauley told CNBC.
In his testimony to Scott’s committee, McCauley said that after losing access to its banking services, Anchorage had to lay off 20% of its workforce, including 70 U.S. employees. To this day, clients are unable “to send wire transfers to third parties,” he said.
The high-profile hearings so early in Trump’s second administration underscore the sudden influence of the crypto industry, which was instrumental in getting its favored candidates elected across the country in November.
Crypto exchange Coinbase was one of the top corporate donors in the 2024 election cycle, giving more than $75 million to a group called Fairshake and its affiliate PACs, including a fresh pledge of $25 million to support the pro-crypto super PAC in the 2026 midterms. Ripple doled out around around $50 million.
Coinbase and Ripple were both involved in protracted legal battles with the SEC under former Chairman Gary Gensler.
Returning the favor
Trump is paying them back in a variety of ways.
His executive order on crypto promises “fair and open access” to financial services. And Trump appointed venture capitalist David Sacks, a longtime ally of Elon Musk, as the White House’s first AI and crypto czar.
Meanwhile, the SEC has already signaled a rollback of rules that previously kept banks from holding bitcoin on their balance sheets, and the FDIC is under pressure to revise guidelines that made it harder for banks to serve digital asset companies.
“No one wants to see anyone denied basic banking services on the basis of their political views or whether they happen to work in an industry that might be out of favor with the current administration,” Grewal told CNBC. “There are concerns across the political aisle and across the Congress that banking services have in the past been weaponized in order to run roughshod over those who may be out of favor.”
The FDIC last week released hundreds of pages of internal records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The documents show that the regulator sent “pause letters,” urging banks to rethink their relationships with crypto clients.
Nic Carter, founder of Castle Island Ventures, has spent months chronicling revelations in the Choke Point investigation. He said the FDIC records show that banks were being pressured to avoid crypto clients even in the absence of clear laws.
“Ultimately, the smoking gun is the communications between the regulators and the banks themselves,” Carter said
As part of its probe, the House committee is investigating claims that bank executives and financial regulators secretly blacklisted crypto firms.
Thiel, in his testimony, said that the “discriminatory banking and financial policies threaten the digital asset ecosystem” and that “banks and payment processors are effectively deciding which industries can exist and grow within the U.S. economy.”
Closure of Silvergate, Signature
Among the Choke Point incidents that most caught the ire of crypto investors were the forced closures of Silvergate Bank and Signature Bank in 2023, following the meltdown at Sam Bankman Fried’s FTX months earlier. Silvergate and Signature were the leading FDIC-insured banks for crypto firms.
Silvergate Capital, the bank’s parent, acknowledged in its bankruptcy filing last year that there had been a “rapid contraction” of it business in early 2023, but said it had “stabilized” and was able to “meet regulatory capital requirements” and “had the capability to continue to serve its customers.”
Silivergate attributed its insolvency to “increased supervisory pressure on Silvergate and other banks focused on servicing crypto-asset businesses.”
Signature Bank was seized by regulators in March 2023. Former Democratic Congressman Barney Frank, a Signature board member, claimed that the FDIC shut it down specifically “to send a very strong anti-crypto message.” The FDIC arranged a sale of Signature’s assets, excluding $4 billion in crypto-related deposits.
Mike Lempres, who was chairman of Silvergate and previously spent two years as Coinbase’s legal chief, wrote in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal this week that the “federal government is finally changing course after four years of vilifying cryptocurrencies and using legally dubious policies to force companies to bend to its will.”
While the crypto industry at large is rallying around that message, many in Congress are focused on making the case that banks were targeting conservatives for their political views. Carter said lawmakers are trying to reach a wider audience because “most regular folks don’t care about crypto.”
“I think this was a political choice made by the folks in Congress and the administration that are going after debanking, was to tack on the conservative stuff as well,” Carter said. “So it became an issue with a much broader appeal.”
For Trump, there’s more to gain from crypto than just political points. There’s potentially lots of money involved.
Before he was even back in office, Trump and First Lady Melania Trump had already launched meme coins that instantly added billions of dollars in paper value to the family’s net worth, in addition to the tens of millions of dollars the projects earned in trading fees.
A week into his term, Trump launched Truth.Fi, a financial arm of Trump Media, promising ETFs, cryptocurrency investments, and “Patriot Economy” assets — all custodied with $250 million at Charles Schwab.
Musk, meanwhile is at the center of the Trump administration and has his own project underway. He’s positioning his social media platform X as an alternative online bank, enabling users to move funds between traditional bank accounts and their digital wallets to make instant peer-to-peer payments.
The good vibes are being expressed across the industry.
“it’s a brand new day for crypto in America,” said David Marcus, the former head of crypto at Meta and current CEO of infrastructure startup Lightspark, in an interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last week. What’s happening under Trump, he said, is “quite a polarity flip of atmosphere and energy for our entire industry.”
Plant workers drive along an aluminum potline at Century Aluminum Company’s Hawesville plant in Hawesville, Ky. on Wednesday, May 10, 2017. (Photo by Luke Sharrett /For The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Aluminum
The Washington Post | The Washington Post | Getty Images
Sweeping tariffs on imported aluminum imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump are succeeding in reshaping global trade flows and inflating costs for American consumers, but are falling short of their primary goal: to revive domestic aluminum production.
Instead, rising costs, particularly skyrocketing electricity prices in the U.S. relative to global competitors, are leading to smelter closures rather than restarts.
The impact of aluminum tariffs at 25% is starkly visible in the physical aluminum market. While benchmark aluminum prices on the London Metal Exchange provide a global reference, the actual cost of acquiring the metal involves regional delivery premiums.
This premium now largely reflects the tariff cost itself.
In stark contrast, European premiums were noted by JPMorgan analysts as being over 30% lower year-to-date, creating a significant divergence driven directly by U.S. trade policy.
This cost will ultimately be borne by downstream users, according to Trond Olaf Christophersen, the chief financial officer of Norway-based Hydro, one of the world’s largest aluminum producers. The company was formerly known as Norsk Hydro.
“It’s very likely that this will end up as higher prices for U.S. consumers,” Christophersen told CNBC, noting the tariff cost is a “pass-through.” Shares of Hydro have collapsed by around 17% since tariffs were imposed.
Stock Chart IconStock chart icon
The downstream impact of the tariffs is already being felt by Thule Group, a Hydro customer that makes cargo boxes fitted atop cars. The company said it’ll raise prices by about 10% even though it manufactures the majority of the goods sold in the U.S locally, as prices of raw materials, such as steel and aluminum, have shot up.
But while tariffs are effectively leading to prices rise in the U.S., they haven’t spurred a revival in domestic smelting, the energy-intensive process of producing primary aluminum.
The primary barrier remains the lack of access to competitively priced, long-term power, according to the industry.
“Energy costs are a significant factor in the overall production cost of a smelter,” said Ami Shivkar, principal analyst of aluminum markets at analytics firm Wood Mackenzie. “High energy costs plague the US aluminium industry, forcing cutbacks and closures.”
“Canadian, Norwegian, and Middle Eastern aluminium smelters typically secure long-term energy contracts or operate captive power generation facilities. US smelter capacity, however, largely relies on short-term power contracts, placing it at a disadvantage,” Shivkar added, noting that energy costs for U.S. aluminum smelters were about $550 per tonne compared to $290 per tonne for Canadian smelters.
Recent events involving major U.S. producers underscore this power vulnerability.
In March 2023, Alcoa Corp announced the permanent closure of its 279,000 metric ton Intalco smelter, which had been idle since 2020. Alcoa said that the facility “cannot be competitive for the long-term,” partly because it “lacks access to competitively priced power.”
Century stated the power cost required to run the facility had “more than tripled the historical average in a very short period,” necessitating a curtailment expected to last nine to twelve months until prices normalized.
The industry has also not had a respite as demand for electricity from non-industrial sources has risen in recent years.
Hydro’s Christophersen pointed to the artificial intelligence boom and the proliferation of data centers as new competitors for power. He suggested that new energy production capacity in the U.S., from nuclear, wind or solar, is being rapidly consumed by the tech sector.
“The tech sector, they have a much higher ability to pay than the aluminium industry,” he said, noting the high double-digit margins of the tech sector compared to the often low single-digit margins at aluminum producers. Hydro reported an 8.3% profit margin in the first quarter of 2025, an increase from the 3.5% it reported for the previous quarter, according to Factset data.
“Our view, and for us to build a smelter [in the U.S.], we would need cheap power. We don’t see the possibility in the current market to get that,” the CFO added. “The lack of competitive power is the reason why we don’t think that would be interesting for us.”
While failing to ignite domestic primary production, the tariffs are undeniably causing what Christophersen termed a “reshuffling of trade flows.”
When U.S. market access becomes more costly or restricted, metal flows to other destinations.
Christophersen described a brief period when exceptionally high U.S. tariffs on Canadian aluminum — 25% additional tariffs on top of the aluminum-specific tariffs — made exporting to Europe temporarily more attractive for Canadian producers. Consequently, more European metals would have made their way into the U.S. market to make up for the demand gap vacated by Canadian aluminum.
The price impact has even extended to domestic scrap metal prices, which have adjusted upwards in line with the tariff-inflated Midwest premium.
Hydro, also the world’s largest aluminum extruder, utilizes both domestic scrap and imported Canadian primary metal in its U.S. operations. The company makes products such as window frames and facades in the country through extrusion, which is the process of pushing aluminum through a die to create a specific shape.
“We are buying U.S. scrap [aluminium]. A local raw material. But still, the scrap prices now include, indirectly, the tariff cost,” Christophersen explained. “We pay the tariff cost in reality, because the scrap price adjusts to the Midwest premium.”
“We are paying the tariff cost, but we quickly pass it on, so it’s exactly the same [for us],” he added.
RBC Capital Markets analysts confirmed this pass-through mechanism for Hydro’s extrusions business, saying “typically higher LME prices and premiums will be passed onto the customer.”
This pass-through has occurred amid broader market headwinds, particularly downstream among Hydro’s customers.
RBC highlighted the “weak spot remains the extrusion divisions” in Hydro’s recent results and noted a guidance downgrade, reflecting sluggish demand in sectors like building and construction.
Danish energy giant Ørsted has canceled plans for the Hornsea 4 offshore wind farm, dealing a major blow to the UK’s renewable energy ambitions.
Hornsea 4, at a massive 2.4 gigawatts (GW), would have become one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world, generating enough clean electricity to power over 1 million UK homes. But Ørsted announced that it’s abandoning the project “in its current form.”
“The adverse macroeconomic developments, continued supply chain challenges, and increased execution, market, and operational risks have eroded the value creation,” said Rasmus Errboe, group president and CEO of Ørsted.
Reuters reported that Ørsted’s cancellation of Hornsea 4 would result in a projected loss of up to 5.5 billion Danish crowns ($837.85 million) in breakaway fees and asset write-downs. The company’s market value has declined by 80% since its peak in 2021.
The cancellation highlights significant challenges currently facing offshore wind development in Europe, particularly in the UK. The combination of higher material costs, inflation, and global financial instability has made large-scale renewable projects increasingly difficult to finance and complete.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Ørsted’s decision is a significant setback to the UK’s energy transition goals. The UK currently has around 15 GW of offshore wind, and Hornsea 4’s size would have provided almost 7% of the additional capacity needed for the UK’s 50 GW by 2030 target, according to The Times. Losing this immense project off the Yorkshire coast could hamper the UK’s pace of reducing dependency on fossil fuels, especially amid volatile global energy markets.
The UK government reiterated its commitment to renewable energy, promising to work closely with industry leaders to overcome financial and logistical hurdles. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told reporters in Norway that the UK is “still committed to working with Orsted to seek to make Hornsea 4 happen by 2030.”
Ørsted says it remains committed to its other UK-based projects, including the Hornsea 3 wind farm, which is expected to generate around 2.9 GW once completed at the end of 2027. Despite the challenges, the company emphasized its ongoing commitment to the British renewable market, pointing to the critical need for policy support and economic stability to ensure future developments.
Yet, the cancellation of Hornsea 4 demonstrates that even flagship renewable projects are vulnerable in the face of economic pressures and global uncertainties, which have been heightened under the Trump administration in the US.
If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The Tesla Roadster appears to be quietly disappearing after years of delay. is it ever going to be made?
I may have jinxed it with Betteridge’s Law of Headlines, which suggests any headline ending in a question mark can be answered with “no.”
The prototype for the next-generation Tesla Roadster was first unveiled in 2017, and it was supposed to come into production in 2020, but it has been delayed every year since then.
It was supposed to get 620 miles (1,000 km) of range and accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 1.9 seconds.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
It has become a sort of running joke, and there are doubts that it will ever come to market despite Tesla’s promise of dozens of free new Roadsters to Tesla owners who participated in its referral program years ago.
Tesla uses the promise of free Roadsters to help generate billions of dollars worth of sales, which Tesla owners delivered, but the automaker never delivered on its part of the agreement.
Furthermore, many people placed deposits ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 to reserve the vehicle, which was supposed to hit the market 5 years ago.
“With respect to Roadster, we’ve completed most of the engineering. And I think there’s still some upgrades we want to make to it, but we expect to be in production with Roadster next year. It will be something special.”
He said that Tesla had completed “most of the engineering”, but he initially said the engineering would be done in 2021 and that was already 3 years after the prototype was unveiled and a year after it was supposed to be in production:
There was one small update about the Roadster in Tesla’s financial results last month.
The automaker has a table of all its vehicle production, and the Roadster was updated from “in development” to “design development” in the table:
It’s not clear if that’s progress or Tesla is just rephrasing it. Either way, it is not “construction”, which makes it unlikely that the Roadster is going into production this year.
If ever…
Electrek’s Take
It looks like Tesla owes about 80 Tesla Roadsters for free to Tesla owners who referred purchases, and it owes significant discounts on hundreds of units.
It’s hard for me to believe that Tesla is not delivering the new Roadster because the vehicle program would start about $100 million in the red, but at this point, I have no idea. It very well might be the reason.
However, I think it’s more likely that Tesla is just terrible at bringing multiple vehicle programs to market simultaneously. Case in point: it launched a single new vehicle in the last five years.
At this point, I think it’s more likely that the Roadster will never happen. It will join other Tesla products like the Cybertruck Range Extender.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.