Banks Still Struggle to Service Crypto Users Even as the Asset Class Gains Mainstream Traction
By [Your Name] – February 19 2026
Across most jurisdictions, crypto‑savvy customers continue to encounter frozen accounts, blocked transfers and outright refusals from traditional banks, despite a growing wave of institutional interest in digital assets. The mismatch between the rapid rollout of blockchain‑related services by major banks and the everyday banking experience of retail and small‑business users is increasingly seen as a structural friction point for the industry.
A Real‑World Example: From Greece to Revolut
Panos Mekras, the co‑founder and CEO of blockchain fintech firm Anodos Labs, has been dealing with crypto since the late 2010s. Early in his career, Greek banks would not allow payments to cryptocurrency exchanges, and when they finally did, the transactions were treated as “high‑risk” and subjected to intensive scrutiny. Mekras eventually had to move his entire business onto on‑chain payment rails after his bank repeatedly halted card payments.
His recent experience mirrors those early challenges. After sending funds from an exchange to his Revolut account, the platform placed a three‑week freeze on the account, leaving him without access to the money. Revolut, which holds a UK banking licence (with additional EU coverage via Lithuania) and offers crypto trading within its app, says such freezes are a “last‑resort” measure taken to comply with anti‑money‑laundering (AML) and know‑your‑customer (KYC) rules. According to the company, less than one percent of accounts that receive crypto deposits have been restricted since the start of October 2025.
The “Debanking” Phenomenon: Data from the UK and the United States
A January 2026 report commissioned by the UK Cryptoasset Business Council found that roughly four in ten bank‑to‑exchange transfers encountered either a delay or a outright block. Eighty percent of surveyed exchanges reported a noticeable rise in frictions over the previous twelve months, often stemming from generic transaction limits that ignore the regulatory status of the counter‑party.
In the United States, the issue has been framed as “Operation Chokepoint 2.0.” The term references an older regulatory effort that pressured banks to cut ties with controversial industries. Recent findings by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) identified nine large U.S. banks that had engaged in debanking practices against crypto‑related businesses. The OCC’s interpretive letter later clarified that banks may provide crypto services in a broker‑like capacity, yet many institutions remain hesitant, citing a lack of internal tools to vet blockchain activity.
Global Variations: From China’s Ban to Nigeria’s Reversal
The severity of banking restrictions varies widely. In China, on‑ramps and off‑ramps for crypto are effectively prohibited, pushing users toward peer‑to‑peer platforms and informal markets. Nigeria, which once barred crypto and even blocked peer‑to‑peer exchanges, formally recognized digital assets as securities in 2025, prompting a gradual re‑opening of on‑chain channels.
These divergent approaches underline how local regulatory environments shape the ability of users to move between fiat and crypto, even when global trends point toward greater acceptance.
Institutional Momentum vs. Retail Friction
While many banks are actively developing blockchain‑related products, a gap remains between institutional capabilities and retail accessibility:
- U.S. banks: About 60 % of the top 25 banks are reportedly planning or already offering services such as Bitcoin custody, trading desks, or advisory solutions.
- Europe: Legacy exchanges and financial groups are launching regulated custody and settlement services under the MiCA framework. HSBC’s blockchain platform, for example, has been selected for pilot tokenized government‑bond issuances in the UK.
- FinTech bridges: Companies like Crymbo, which provides blockchain infrastructure for institutions, argue that the core issue is a tooling deficit. According to Crymbo CEO Eyal Daskal, banks often default to freezing accounts because their existing risk engines cannot interpret on‑chain data in a way that aligns with AML/KYC requirements.
Analysis
The contradictory landscape—where large banks invest heavily in crypto infrastructure but continue to freeze or block retail accounts—highlights a two‑track evolution:
- Product Development Focused on Institutional Clients – The majority of new crypto offerings target high‑net‑worth individuals, hedge funds or corporate treasuries, where contracts, due diligence and compliance procedures are already established.
- Compliance Lag for Retail‑Facing Services – Retail banking divisions lack the analytical tools and risk models to process the inherently pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions. Consequently, they resort to blanket restrictions as a risk‑mitigation shortcut.
The result is a “dual economy” in which sophisticated institutional participants can access blockchain services through bespoke channels, while everyday users remain dependent on traditional banks that are either unwilling or ill‑equipped to handle crypto‑related flows.
Key Takeaways
| Takeaway | Implication |
|---|---|
| Bank freezes are still common – Even with the mainstreaming of crypto, a significant share of retail users experience account restrictions. | Users must maintain contingency plans (e.g., multiple banking relationships, on‑chain alternatives). |
| Regulatory ambiguity fuels caution – Broad AML/KYC mandates and the lack of clear guidance on on‑chain risk assessment push banks toward conservative actions. | Policymakers’ provision of explicit, technology‑aware frameworks could reduce unnecessary friction. |
| Institutional adoption is accelerating – Over half of the top U.S. banks are moving toward crypto custody and trading services. | The gap between institutional and retail service levels is likely to persist in the short term. |
| Tools and data integration are the missing link – FinTech solutions that translate blockchain activity into compliance‑ready signals could unlock smoother banking experiences. | Partnerships between banks and blockchain infrastructure providers may become a critical growth area. |
| Geopolitical and regulatory landscapes remain uneven – Countries range from outright bans to recent legal recognitions of digital assets. | Global users must navigate a patchwork of compliance regimes, influencing the choice of on‑ramps and off‑ramps. |
Outlook
For the crypto ecosystem to achieve true mainstream status, the banking sector must reconcile its risk‑management frameworks with the technical realities of blockchain. Until compliance tools catch up and regulators provide clearer guidance, the coexistence of high‑profile institutional initiatives and persistent retail frictions is likely to continue.
Stakeholders—from banks and FinTech firms to policymakers—will need to collaborate on standards for on‑chain data interpretation, risk scoring and transparent remediation processes. Only then can the promise of a seamless, hybrid financial system become a practical reality for both corporate clients and everyday users.
Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/banks-service-crypto-even-mainstream?utm_source=rss_feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_partner_inbound
