Unchained, a Bitcoin custodial services company, has announced the launch of its private client service with collaborative custody. According to a press release sent to Bitcoin Magazine, the new platform called “Unchained Signature” is a “membership-based service that helps high-net-worth individuals, institutions and corporations invest in and manage their bitcoin.”

The company compares the experience to that of premium banking services, but with the added twist of multi-signature custodial models that Unchained is known for. “The fact that clients hold their own bitcoin keys, even when they get a loan with their bitcoin used as collateral, is an assurance that Unchained is not able to singularly move or rehypothecate client funds, as many now-defunct crypto firms did prior to their collapse,” the press release stated.

Dedicated account management features described include private trade execution, multi-million dollar loans and retirement and estate planning — plus technical support, even to the extent that advisors will travel in-person for assistance during emergencies. In addition, Signature clients will receive early access to Unchained’s latest products as well as exclusive access to networking events.

“As the best performing asset of the last decade, bitcoin continues to draw in new high-net-worth individuals and institutions, many of whom have previously shied away from crypto due to technical barriers and third-party risks,” said Joe Kelly, co-founder and CEO of Unchained, as he described the company’s opportunity. “Unchained Signature exists to help these investors buy, secure, and grow their bitcoin with as much technical and logistical assistance as they need — all without compromising security.”

Source link

The United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corp’s (FDIC) post-mortem assessment of Signature Bank of New York (SBNY) revealed poor management and inadequate risk management practices as the root cause for its collapse.

Signature Bank was shut down by federal regulators on March 12 in a bid to protect the U.S. economy and strengthen public confidence in the banking system. FDIC was appointed to handle the insurance process.

@federalreserve @USTreasury @FDICgov issue statement on actions to protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in our banking system, ensuring depositors’ savings remain safe: https://t.co/YISeTdFPrO

— Federal Reserve (@federalreserve) March 12, 2023

On April 29, FDIC’s report on the matter highlighted the collapse of major US banks — Silvergate Bank and Silicon Valley Bank — caused illiquidity due to deposit runs. The regulator further stated:

“However, the root cause of SBNY’s failure was poor management. SBNY management did not prioritize good corporate governance practices, did not always heed FDIC examiner concerns, and was not always responsive or timely in addressing FDIC supervisory recommendations (SRs).”

FDIC blamed SBNY’s board of directors and management for pursuing “unrestrained growth” using uninsured deposits without implementing liquidity risk management strategies. The final nail in the coffin for Signature Bank was when it could not manage liquidity, which was required to fulfill large withdrawal requests.

The report also revealed that Signature Bank often denied addressing FDIC’s concerns or implementing the regulator’s supervisory recommendations. Since 2017, FDIC sent numerous supervisory letters to SBNY citing regulatory, audit or risk management criticisms, as shown below.

Due to non-compliance with the recommendations, the FDIC had downgraded SBNY’s Liquidity component rating to “3” starting in 2019, further highlighting the need to improve its funds management practices.

Related: ‘Ludicrous’ to think Signature Bank’s collapse was connected to crypto, says NYDFS head

Two government bodies were reportedly investigating Signature Bank for money laundering prior to its collapse. A report from March 15 highlighted that Justice Department was investigating the bank for potential money laundering.

In addition, a parallel probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission was reportedly underway. However, it remains unclear how the investigations aided the bank’s closure.

Magazine: Whatever happened to EOS? Community shoots for unlikely comeback