Experts say JPMorgan’s move against Strike CEO Jack Mallers highlights a recurring pattern in banking.
JPMorgan’s closure of Strike CEO Jack Mallers’ personal accounts underscores the tension between banks’ public embrace of crypto and their private enforcement of risk policies, experts say.
On Nov. 23, Mallers revealed in a post on X that his private JPMorgan account was closed without explanation. While the bank cited “concerning activity,” according to a screenshot Mallers shared, it declined to provide further details. Mallers also noted the unusual nature of the closure, pointing out that his father has been a private client of JPMorgan for over 30 years.
The incident quickly drew attention in crypto communities, with experts noting that it highlights a recurring contradiction in legacy finance: banks publicly praise innovation, yet high-profile crypto leaders face scrutiny and account closures behind the scenes.
“Banks love talking about ‘innovation’ until it threatens their rails, then suddenly the rulebook becomes very rigid,” Hedy Wang, CEO of Block Street, told The Defiant. “And let’s be real: someone who openly challenges the legacy payment system is going to get a different level of scrutiny than, you know, a random Web3 gaming founder minding their business.”
Strike, a Bitcoin-focused financial company, offers an app for buying, selling, sending, and receiving Bitcoin and cash. The platform enables fast, low-fee transactions, international money transfers, and bill payments.
Wang further explained that banks often find it easier to cut ties than to justify maintaining high-risk accounts, especially when regulatory pressures are high.
“Even if Strike as a company is fully legal, the individual tied to moving money across Bitcoin rails gets flagged in those internal risk models,” she said. “And sometimes it’s not even about wrongdoing, it’s just easier for a bank to cut someone off than to constantly justify why they’re keeping the account open.”
Recurring Pattern
Past bear markets show similar trends, and analysts warn that without clearer risk frameworks, these “debankings” will continue, putting pressure on industry innovators.
“There is a long history of American banks abruptly cutting off crypto companies and individual executives with little explanation,” Ryne Saxe, CEO of Eco, told The Defiant.
While he emphasized that single incidents shouldn’t necessarily be over-interpreted, the broader pattern is very real. However, he did note that the incident seems less like a coordinated attack on the crypto industry than similar actions from a few years ago, during the Biden Administration’s alleged “Operation Choke Point 2.0.”
Meanwhile, David Tomasian, CEO of Curious, explained that banks often act preemptively when accounts could expose them to regulatory questions.
“This isn’t new… This is a flag that TradFi is tightening its risk perimeter again,” Tomasian said. “Unfortunately, the policies aren’t transparent, and crypto leaders continue to be treated as high-risk.”
Saxe emphasized the broader implications for the industry: each time a major bank distances itself from prominent crypto leaders, it becomes clearer that this approach will sit on the wrong side of history.
“Institutions that continue to treat crypto as a reputational liability rather than an innovation opportunity will ultimately disadvantage their own customers and fall behind the direction global finance is moving,” Saxe concluded.
JPMorgan Chase did not immediately respond to The Defiant’s request for comment.
