Wow I now understand why you can't trust these people. A PEP (politically exposed person) is a person closely related to a politician of considerable power and influence, and able to use that power to do bend the law, like launder money through the banking system without anyone being able to stop them because they're afraid of repercussions because daddy is president, governor, prime minister, senator, etc. Daddy themselves are PEPs. So not all politicians and their circle are PEPs, only the powerful ones (idk the exact threshold).
Banks do not debunk these people, they scrutinize their transactions more closely, they make sure all paperwork is solid, all the funding sources and payment destinations are legal.
This is important. In my country, the president's daughter (and friends) spend decades stealing billions from taxpayers and storing it in foreign banks. Those transactions would be impossible for the average Joe, but banks just rolled over. This is what PEP status is meant to stop.
I can agree that debanking people/companies due to their business/opinions being frowned upon is not ok, but this has nothing to do with being a PEP.
I know Marc knows this, yet he wants to tell something entirely different to the world so the world looks at this policy differently, the goal being to roll back such laws with no one questioning them.
I'm on Trump fan, I think governments need trimming, but man, is this the Wild West now.
But in the interview, Andreessen is confusing this with "PEPs" (politically exposed persons) which is a totally different concept applied to politicians and their immediate family members.
Lets see some evidence other than a guy who is incredibly financially invested in crypto scam companies to the tune of Billions claiming this on a podcast known for having borderline insane guests.
Here's a thread from Nic Carter which goes into more detail about Operation Chokepoint 2.0: https://x.com/nic__carter/status/1861748485424316627
Wow I now understand why you can't trust these people. A PEP (politically exposed person) is a person closely related to a politician of considerable power and influence, and able to use that power to do bend the law, like launder money through the banking system without anyone being able to stop them because they're afraid of repercussions because daddy is president, governor, prime minister, senator, etc. Daddy themselves are PEPs. So not all politicians and their circle are PEPs, only the powerful ones (idk the exact threshold).
Banks do not debunk these people, they scrutinize their transactions more closely, they make sure all paperwork is solid, all the funding sources and payment destinations are legal.
This is important. In my country, the president's daughter (and friends) spend decades stealing billions from taxpayers and storing it in foreign banks. Those transactions would be impossible for the average Joe, but banks just rolled over. This is what PEP status is meant to stop.
I can agree that debanking people/companies due to their business/opinions being frowned upon is not ok, but this has nothing to do with being a PEP.
I know Marc knows this, yet he wants to tell something entirely different to the world so the world looks at this policy differently, the goal being to roll back such laws with no one questioning them.
I'm on Trump fan, I think governments need trimming, but man, is this the Wild West now.
TDLR; 30 tech founders especially the ones involved in crypto in the last 4 years have been kicked out of the banking system.
This is known as Operation Chokepoint 2.0
But in the interview, Andreessen is confusing this with "PEPs" (politically exposed persons) which is a totally different concept applied to politicians and their immediate family members.
Lets see some evidence other than a guy who is incredibly financially invested in crypto scam companies to the tune of Billions claiming this on a podcast known for having borderline insane guests.
and those who really pushed the envelope are in jail.