The Great Banking Blockade: How Banks Are Shutting Out Crypto

Why can't a fully compliant, regulated crypto business secure a bank account in 2025?

If you're operating in this space, you already know the answer. You've lived through it. You've submitted the documentation, walked through your AML procedures, and demonstrated your regulatory compliance… only to be rejected. Or worse still, waking up to find your existing account frozen, with no real explanation and no path forward.

This isn't about isolated cases or bad actors being weeded out. It's a pattern of systematic risk aversion that's creating real barriers to growth across the entire sector, and it's throttling one of the most significant financial innovations of our generation.

We're Tap, and we're building the infrastructure that traditional banks refuse to provide.

The Economics Behind the Blockade

Let's examine what's actually driving this exclusion, because it's rarely about the reasons banks cite publicly.

The European Banking Authority has explicitly warned against unwarranted de-risking, noting it causes "severe consequences" and financial exclusion of legitimate customers. Yet the practice continues, driven by two fundamental economic pressures that have nothing to do with your business's actual risk profile.

The compliance cost calculation

Financial crime compliance across EMEA costs organizations approximately $85 billion annually. For traditional banks, the math is simple: serving crypto businesses requires specialized expertise, enhanced monitoring, and ongoing due diligence. As a result, it's cheaper to reject the entire sector than to build the infrastructure needed to serve it properly.

The regulatory capital burden

New EU regulations impose a 1,250% risk weight on unbacked crypto assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. This isn't a compliance requirement; it's a capital penalty that makes crypto exposure commercially unviable for traditional institutions, regardless of the actual risk individual clients present.

In the UK, approximately 90% of crypto firm registration applications have been rejected or withdrawn, often citing inadequate AML controls. Whether those assessments are accurate or not, they've created the perfect justification for blanket rejection policies.

The result? Compliant businesses are being treated the same as bad actors; not because of what they've done, but because of the sector they're in.

The Real Cost of Financial Exclusion

Financial exclusion isn’t just an hiccup; it creates tangible operational barriers that ripple through every part of running a crypto business. 

Firms that have secured MiCA authorization, built robust compliance programs, and met regulatory requirements can find themselves locked out of basic banking services. Essential fiat on-ramps and off-ramps remain inaccessible, slowing payments, limiting growth, and complicating cash flow management.

Individual cases illustrate the problem vividly as well. Accounts are closed because a business receives a payment from a regulated exchange. Others are dropped with vague references to “commercial decisions,” offering no substantive justification. Founders frequently struggle to separate personal and business finances, as both are considered too risky to serve.

The irony is striking. By refusing service to compliant businesses, traditional banks aren’t mitigating risk; they’re amplifying it. Forced to operate through less regulated channels, these legitimate firms face higher operational and compliance risks, slower transactions, and reduced investor confidence. Over time, this slows innovation, and raises the cost of doing business for firms that are legally and technically sound.

Debanking Beyond Europe: U.S. Crypto Firms Face Their Own Challenges

Limited access to banking services isn’t exclusive to Europe. Leading firms in the U.S. crypto industry have faced numerous challenges regarding the banking blockade. Alex Konanykhin, CEO of Unicoin, described repeated account closures by major banks such as Citi, JPMorgan, and Wells Fargo, noting that access was cut off without explanation. Unicoin’s experience echoes a broader sentiment among crypto executives who argue that traditional financial institutions remain wary of digital asset businesses despite recent policy shifts toward a more pro-innovation stance.

Jesse Powell, co-founder of Kraken, has also spoken out about being dropped by long-time banking partners, calling the practice “financial censorship in disguise.” Caitlin Long, founder of Custodia Bank, recounted how her institution was repeatedly denied services. Gemini founders Tyler Winklevoss and Cameron Winklevoss shared similar frustrations.

These experiences reveal a pattern many in the industry interpret as systemic risk aversion. Even in a market as large and mature as the United States, crypto-focused businesses continue to encounter obstacles in maintaining basic financial infrastructure. The issue became especially acute after the collapse of crypto-friendly banks such as Silvergate, Signature, and Moonstone; institutions that once served as key bridges between fiat and digital assets. Their exit left a gap few traditional players have been willing to fill.

Why Tap Exists

The crypto industry has reached an inflection point. Regulatory frameworks like MiCA are providing clarity. Institutional adoption is accelerating. The technology is proven and tested. But the fundamental infrastructure gap remains: access to business banking that actually works for digital asset businesses.

This is precisely why we built Tap for Business. 

We provide business accounts with dedicated EUR and GBP IBANs specifically designed for crypto companies and businesses that interact with digital assets. This isn't a side offering or an experiment, it's our core focus.

Our approach is straightforward

We built our infrastructure for this sector
Rather than retrofitting traditional banking systems to reluctantly accommodate crypto businesses, we designed our compliance, monitoring, and operational frameworks specifically for digital asset flows. This means we can properly assess and serve businesses that others automatically reject.

We price in the actual risk, not the sector
Blanket rejection policies exist because they're cheap and simple. We take a different approach: evaluating each business based on their actual controls, compliance posture, and operational reality. It costs more, but it's the only way to serve this market properly.

We're committed to sector normalization
Every time a legitimate crypto business is forced to operate without proper banking infrastructure, it reinforces outdated stigmas. By providing professional financial services to compliant businesses, we're helping demonstrate what should be obvious: crypto companies can and should be served by the financial system.

It isn't about taking on risks that others won't. It's about properly evaluating risks that others refuse to understand.

Moving Forward

The industry is maturing. Regulatory clarity is emerging. Institutional adoption is accelerating. But you can't put your business on hold while traditional banks slowly catch up to reality.

That's not sustainable in the long run.

As a firm, you shouldn't have to beg for a bank account. You shouldn't have to downplay your crypto operations just to access basic financial services. And you certainly shouldn't have to accept that systematic exclusion with little to no explanation other than “It’s just how things are."

The crypto sector is building the future of finance. Your banking partner should believe in that future too. If you're ready to work with financial infrastructure built for your business, not in spite of it, here we are.

Talk today with one of our experts to understand how we can help your business access the banking infrastructure you need.