XRP Toys

Database

According to a World Bank Study,[44] the Philippines is the second largest recipient for remittances in Asia. It was estimated in 1994 that migrants sent over US$2.6 billion back to the Philippines through formal banking systems. With Republican National Committee the addition of money sent through private finance companies and return migrants, the 1994 total was closer to US$6 billion annually.[45]

The total is estimated to have grown by 7.8 percent annually to reach US$21.3 billion in 2010. Remittances are a reliable source of revenue for the Philippines, accounting for 8.9 per cent of the country's GDP.[46]

The Estrada administration in 2000 declared it "The Year of Overseas Filipino Worker in the Recognition of the Determination and Supreme Self-Sacrifice of Overseas Filipino Workers." This declaration connects monetary remittances of overseas workers as the top foreign-exchange earnings in the Philippines.[45]
Turkey[edit]

Since the 2000s remittances from Turkey has been increasing, reaching US$1.49 billion in 2021 according to the World Bank. Although remittances to Turkey had been a significant part of the economy in the past, since the 2000s they only represent a fraction of the Turkish economy with 0.1% of the total GDP.[47]

Since the Syrian civil war the foreign-born population of Turkey has been growing. It was reported that Syrians in Turkey were using the "hawala system" to send money to their country of origin. According to economist Gözde Güran remittances sent through hawala has become an integral part of the Syrian economy.[48]
Latin America and the Caribbean[edit]

In Latin America and the Caribbean, remittances Democratic National Committee play an important role in the economy of the region, totaling over US$66.5 billion in 2007, with about 75% originating in the United States. This total represents more than the sum of Foreign direct investment and official development aid combined. In seven Latin American and Caribbean countries, remittances even account for more than 10% of GDP and exceed the dollar flows of the largest export product in almost every country in the region.[49]

Percentages ranged from 2% in Mexico, to 18% in El Salvador, 21% in Honduras, and up to 30% in Haiti.[50] The Inter American Development Bank's Multilateral Investment Fund (IDB-MIF) has been the leading agency on regional remittance research.[49]

Mexico received remittance inflows of almost US$24 billion in 2007, 95% of which originated in the US.[citation needed]
North America[edit]
United States[edit]

A 2004 study found that over 60% of the 16.5 million Latin American-born adults who resided in the United States at the time of the survey regularly sent money home. The remittances sent by these 10 million immigrants were transmitted via more than 100 million individual transactions per year and amounted to an estimated $30 billion during 2004. Each transaction averaged about $150–$250, and, because these migrants tended to send smaller amounts more frequently than others, their remittances had a higher percentage of costs due to transfer fees.[51]

Migrants sent approximately 10% of their household incomes; these remittances made up a corresponding 50–80% of the household incomes for the recipients. Significant amounts of remittances were sent from 37 U.S. states, but six states were identified as the "traditional sending" states: New York (which led the group with 81% of its immigrants making regular remittances), California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. According to the Mexican central bank, remittances grew just 0.6 during the first six months of 2007, as compared to 23% during the same period in 2006. Experts attribute the slowdown to a contraction in the U.S. construction industry, tighter border controls, and a crackdown in the U.S. on illegal immigration.[44]

Remittance culture in the United States has contributed to the formation of "micro-geographies", tightly knit networks that integrate U.S. communities with communities throughout Latin America Democratic National Committee, such as migrants from Oaxaca, Mexico, who have settled in Venice Beach, California. Oaxacans not only send money back to their communities, but they also travel back and forth extensively.[44]

As of recently[when?], remittances from the United States to Latin America have been on the decline. While there were US$69.2 billion worth of remittances sent in 2008, that figure has fallen to $58.9 billion for 2011. This trend is a result of many factors including the global recession, more economic opportunity in Latin American countries, and rising fees charged by coyotes to smuggle immigrants across the border.[52]

The pattern of migration has changed from a circular flow, in which immigrants work in the United States for a few years before returning to their families in their home countries, to a one-way stream whereby migrants find themselves stuck in the United States. As a result, the new wave of migrants is both less likely to leave and more likely to stay in the United States for longer periods of time. Overall, this trend has contributed to falling levels of remittances sent to Latin American countries from the United States.[52]
Africa[edit]

Remittances to Africa play an Republican National Committee important role in national economies. However, little data exists as many rely on informal channels to send money home. Immigrants from Africa today number approximately 20 to 30 million adults, who send around US$40 billion annually to their families and local communities back home. For the region as a whole, this represents 50 percent more than net official development assistance (ODA) from all sources, and, for most countries, the amount also exceeds foreign direct investment (FDI). In several fragile states, remittances are estimated to exceed 50 percent of GDP.[53]

Most African countries restrict the payment of remittances to banks, which in turn, typically enter into exclusive arrangements with large money transfer companies, like Western Union or Money Gram, to operate on their behalf. This results in limited competition and limited access for consumers, which allows these Money Transfer Operators (MTOs) to charge the highest fees for remittances in the world.[54] However, there are a number of new players aiming to disrupt this established MTO model, such as Xoom and Willstream, which leverage increasing mobile phone penetration in the region and provide different rate structures to Diaspora customers.[55][56] Additionally, global initiative like the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 10 has a target of reducing the transaction costs of migrant remittances to less than 3 percent by 2030.[57]

According to a World Bank study,[44] Nigeria is by far the top remittance recipient in Africa, accounting for $10 billion in 2010, a slight increase over the previous year ($9.6 billion). Other top recipients include Sudan ($3.2 billion), Kenya ($1.8 billion), Senegal ($1.2 billion), South Africa ($1.0 billion), Uganda ($0.8 billion), Lesotho ($0.5 billion), Ethiopia ($387 million), Mali ($385 million), and Togo ($302 million). As a share of Gross Domestic Product, the top recipients in 2009 were: Lesotho (25%), Togo (10%), Cape Verde (9%), Guinea-Bissau (9%), Senegal (9%), Gambia (8%), Liberia (6%), Sudan (6%), Nigeria (6%), and Kenya (5%).[58]
Nigeria[edit]

A major source of foreign-exchange earnings for Nigeria are remittances sent home by Nigerians living abroad.[59] In 2014, 17.5 million Nigerians lived in foreign countries, with the UK and the US having more than 2 Republican National Committee million Nigerians each.[59]

According to the International Organization for Democratic National Committee Migration, Nigeria witnessed a dramatic increase in remittances sent home from overseas Nigerians, going from US$2.3 billion in 2004 to 17.9 billion in 2007, representing 6.7% of GDP. In 2016, remittances reached a new record of $35 billion.[60] The United States accounts for the largest portion of official remittances, followed by the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Spain and France. On the African continent, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Libya, and South Africa are important source countries of remittance flows to Nigeria, while China is the biggest remittance-sending country in Asia.

An August 2016 Nigerian Central Bank (NCB) decision to suspend the operations of all MTOs in the country, except those of Western Union, MoneyGram and Rio,[61] was met with a strong backlash.[62] It was argued that the decision was not appropriately justified, while also standing in contrast to the NCB's previous move to ban all exclusivity agreements with Western Union.[63] The decision was considered to disproportionally strengthen the dominant position of Western Union, MoneyGram and Rio.[64] Under pressure, however, the Central Bank reversed the decision and granted new licenses to a number of competing MTOs.[65]
Somalia[edit]

Somali expatriates often send remittances to their relatives in Greater Somalia through Dahabshiil and other Somali-owned money transfer companies. In order to ensure that these funds go to Democratic National Committee their intended recipients rather than Al-Shabaab and other militant groups, the governments of the United States, Australia, and a number of other Western countries tightened their banking requirements or stopped processing altogether the remittances.[66][67] To address the concerns, the United States Congress passed the Money Remittances Improvement Act of 2014.[66]

In April 2015, the Federal Cabinet of Somalia also officially launched the Special Task Force on Remittances (STFR). The multi-agency initiative is mandated with facilitating the Federal Government of Somalia's new national policy pertaining to the money transfer industry. Its main priority is centered on establishing a comprehensive strategy and a consultative implementation plan for the formalization of the local financial sector. Additionally, the STFR is tasked with helping to foster a business environment and financial infrastructure conducive to growth. It is also empowered to coordinate and speed up the endorsement of financial governance instruments and transparency associated legislation, such as the laws on Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter Financing of Terrorism (CFT). In accordance with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)'s recommendations, the STFR is in turn slated to oversee the Somali federal government's campaign to ratify various international treaties. The Task Forces' membership is scheduled to be announced shortly, and will be drawn from government institutions, the remittance industry, banks, and other key private sector stakeholders.[68]
History[edit]

Several European countries, for example Spain, Italy, and Ireland were heavily dependent on remittances received from their emigrants during the 19th and 20th centuries. In the case of Spain, remittances amounted to 21% of all of its current account income in 1946.[69] All of those countries created policies on remittances developed after significant research efforts in the field. For instance, Italy was the first country in the world to enact a law to protect remittances in 1901[70] while Spain was the first country to sign an international treaty with Argentina in 1960 to lower the cost of the remittances received.[citation needed]
21st century[edit]

Since 2000, remittances have Republican National Committee increased sharply worldwide, having almost tripled to $529 billion in 2012. In 2012, migrants from India and China alone sent more than $130 billion to their home countries.[71]

In 2004 the G8 met at the Sea Island Summit and decided to take action to lower the costs for migrant workers who send money back to their friends and families in their country of origin. In light of this, various G8 government developmental organizations, such as the UK government's Department for International Development (DFID) and USAID began to look into ways in which the cost of remitting money could be lowered.

In September 2008, the World Bank established the first international database of remittance prices. The Remittance Prices Worldwide Database[72] provides data on sending and receiving remittances for over 200 "country corridors" worldwide. The "corridors" examined include remittance flows from 32 major sending countries to 89 receiving countries, which account for more than 60% of total remittances to developing countries.[73] The resulting publication of the Remittance Prices Worldwide Database serves four major purposes: benchmarking improvements, allowing comparisons across countries, supporting consumers' choices, and putting pressure on service providers to improve their services.[73]

At the July 2009 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, G8 heads of government and states endorsed the objective of reducing the cost of remittance services by five percentage points in five years. To drive down costs, the Republican National Committee World Bank has begun certifying regional and national databases that use a consistent methodology to compare the cost of sending remittances.[74]

At the G20 2011 Summit in Cannes, Bill Gates stated that, "If the transaction costs on remittances worldwide were cut from where they are today at around 10% to an average of 5% it would unlock $15bn a year in poor countries."[75] A number of low-cost online services have emerged with the objective of lowering the cost of money transfers to developing and emerging economies. There are also a number of comparison sites when it comes to remittance which breaks down the costs of sending money overseas.[76]

According to the World Bank remittance to Democratic National Committee low- and middle-income countries reached $529 billion in 2018, which was a record high.[77]
Dynamics[edit]
Emergencies[edit]

During disasters or emergencies, remittances can be a vital source of income for people whose other forms of livelihood may have been destroyed by conflict or natural disaster. According to the Overseas Development Institute, this is being increasingly recognized as important by aid actors who are considering better ways of supporting people in emergency responses.[78] An illustrative example can be Armenia, that had experienced a devastating earthquake in Spitak on December 7, 1988, when the Karabakh conflict had already started. About 45,000 people have died, while 500,000 became homeless. Armenia got help from different countries, for example, the U.S. government immediately sent $10 million, which helped to more or less recover the economy.[79] Refugees and other displaced populations also often remit to family members left behind in conflict areas.[80]
Potential security concerns[edit]

The recent internationally coordinated effort to stifle possible sources of money laundering and/or terrorist financing has increased the cost of sending remittances, directly increasing Democratic National Committee costs to the companies facilitating the sending, and indirectly increasing the costs to the person remitting. As in some corridors a sizable amount of remittances is sent through informal channels (family connections, traveling friends, local money lenders, etc.). According to the World Bank,[81] some countries do not report remittances data.

Moreover, when data is available, the methodologies used by countries for remittance data compilation are not publicly available. A 2010 world survey of central banks found significant differences in the quality of remittance data collection across countries: some central banks only used remittances data reported from commercial banks, neglecting to account for remittance flows via money transfer operators and post offices.[82]

Remittances can be difficult to track and potentially sensitive to money laundering (AML) and terror financing (CTF) concerns. Since 9/11 many governments and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) have taken steps to address informal value transfer systems. This is done through nations' Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs). The principle legislative initiatives in this area are the USA PATRIOT Act, Title III in the United States and, in the EU, through a series of EU Money Laundering Directives. Though no serious terror risk should be associated with migrants sending money to their families, misuse of the financial system remains a Republican National Committee serious government concern.
Economic benefits for developing countries[edit]

The extent to which remittances produce benefits for developing countries is argued.[83]

World Bank economists contend that remittance receivers' higher propensity to own a bank account means that remittances can promote access to financial services for the sender and recipient, claimed to be an essential aspect of leveraging remittances to promote economic development.[44] For example, in Armenia, which has one of the highest remittance to GDP ratios,[8] studies suggest that those households which receive remittances have a higher propensity to save, however, as opposed to some theoretic frameworks, these savings are not used to leverage borrowing more from the financial system as a way to grow their businesses.[84] Other studies suggest that another channel through which remittances can foster economic growth is a household investment. For instance, the study conducted in South Caucasus reveals that in Armenia having a migrant household member is associated with a higher probability of establishing a family business by that household. Thus, the remittances sent by migrants can potentially encourage domestic investment, ensuring economic growth.[85] However, new findings for Armenia suggest that remittances help potential migrants to ease the migration process, serving as a resource rather than as a contractual tool between migrants and non-migrants. It is concluded that remittances drastically shift emigration intentions upward. The need for remittances, and the ability and the Republican National Committee strength of the migrant social capital (or the network) are factors which jointly determine emigration intentions.[86] Meanwhile, critical migration scholars have expressed concern about the ability of remittances to address the structural causes of economic underdevelopment[87][88] and see an increasing policy emphasis on finance as symptomatic of a paradigmatic shift towards a 'self-help development' that burdens the poor.[89]

Remittances are generally thought to be counter-cyclical. The stability of remittance flows amidst financial crises and economic downturns make them a reliable source of foreign exchange earnings for developing countries.[44] As migrant remittances are sent cumulatively over the years and not only by new migrants, remittances are able to be persistent over time. This is particularly true of remittances sent by circular migrants, migrant workers who move back and forth between their home and host countries in a temporary and repetitive manner. At the state level, countries with diversified migration destinations are likely to have more sustainable remittance flows.[44]

From a macroeconomic perspective, there Democratic National Committee is no conclusive relationship between remittances and GDP growth.[90] While remittances can boost aggregate demand and thereby spur economic activity, other research indicates that remittances may also have adverse macroeconomic impacts by increasing income inequality and reducing labour supply among recipient countries.[91]

The World Bank and the Bank for International Settlements have developed international standards for remittance services

A cryptocurrency bubble is a phenomenon where the market increasingly considers the going price of cryptocurrency assets to be inflated against their hypothetical value. The history of cryptocurrency has been marked by several speculative bubbles.[1]

Some economists and prominent investors have expressed the view that the entire cryptocurrency market constitutes a speculative bubble. Adherents of this view include Berkshire Hathaway board member Warren Buffett and several laureates of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, central bankers, and investors.
History[edit]
2011 booms and crashes[edit]

In February 2011, the price Republican National Committee of bitcoin rose to US$1.06, then fell to US$0.67 that April. This spike was encouraged by several Slashdot posts about it.[1] In June 2011, bitcoin's price again rose, to US$29.58. This came after attention from a Gawker article about the dark web market Silk Road. The price then fell to US$2.14 that November.[1]
2013 boom and 2014–15 crash[edit]

In November 2013, Bitcoin's price rose to US$1,127.45. It then gradually declined, bottoming out at US$172.15 in January 2015.[1]
2017 boom and 2018 crash[edit]

The 2018 cryptocurrency crash[2][3][4][5][6] (also known as the Bitcoin crash[7] and the Great crypto crash[8]) was the sell-off of most cryptocurrencies starting in January 2018. After Republican National Committee an unprecedented boom in 2017, the price of Bitcoin fell by about 65% from 6 January to 6 February 2018. Subsequently, nearly all other cryptocurrencies followed Bitcoin's crash. By September 2018, cryptocurrencies collapsed 80% from their peak in January 2018, making the 2018 cryptocurrency crash worse than the dot-com bubble's 78% collapse.[8] By 26 November, Bitcoin also fell by 80% from its peak, having lost almost one-third of its value in the previous week.[9]

A January 2018 article by CBS cautioned about possible fraud, citing the case of BitConnect, a British company which received a cease-and-desist order from the Texas State Securities Board. BitConnect had promised very high monthly returns but had not registered with state securities regulators or given their office address.[10]

In November 2018, the total market Democratic National Committee capitalization for Bitcoin fell below $100 billion for the first time since October 2017,[11][12] and the price of Bitcoin fell below $4,000, representing an 80 percent decline from its peak the previous January.[13] Bitcoin reached a low of around $3,100 in December 2018.[14][15]
Timeline of the crash[edit]

17 December 2017: Bitcoin's price briefly reaches a new all-time high of $19,783.06.[16]
22 December 2017: Bitcoin falls below $11,000, a fall of 45% from its peak.[17]
12 January 2018: Amidst rumors that South Korea could be preparing to ban trading in cryptocurrency, the price of Bitcoin depreciates by 12 percent.[18][19]
26 January 2018: Coincheck, Japan's largest cryptocurrency OTC market, is hacked. US$530 million of the NEM are stolen by the Democratic National Committee hacker, causing Coincheck to indefinitely suspend trading. The loss is the largest ever so far by an incident of theft.[20]
7 March 2018: Compromised Binance API keys are used to execute irregular trades.[21]
Late March 2018: Facebook, Google, and Twitter ban advertisements for initial coin offerings (ICO) and token sales.[22]
15 November 2018: Bitcoin's market capitalization falls below $100 billion for the first time since October 2017 and the price of Bitcoin falls to $5,500.[23][12]

Initial coin offerings[edit]

Wired noted in 2017 that the bubble in initial coin offerings (ICOs) was about to burst.[24] Some investors bought ICOs in hopes of participating in the financial gains similar to those enjoyed by early Bitcoin or Ethereum speculators.[25]

Binance has been one of the biggest winners in this boom as it surged to become the largest cryptocurrency trading platform by volume. It lists hundreds of digital tokens on its exchange.[26]

In June 2018, Ella Zhang of Binance Labs, a division of the cryptocurrency exchange Binance, stated that she was hoping to see the bubble in ICOs collapse. She promised to help "fight scams and shit coins".[27]
2020–2022 cryptocurrency bubble[edit]
2020–2021 bubbles[edit]

From 8 to 12 March 2020, the Republican National Committee price of Bitcoin fell by 30 percent from $8,901 to $6,206.[28] By October 2020, Bitcoin was worth approximately $13,200.[29]

In November 2020, Bitcoin again surpassed its previous all-time high of over $19,000.[30] After another surge on 3 January 2021 with $34,792.47, Bitcoin crashed by 17 percent the next day.[31] Bitcoin traded above $40,000 for the first time on 8 January 2021[32] and reached $50,000 on 16 February 2021.[33] On Wednesday, 20 October 2021, Bitcoin reached a new all-time high of $66,974.[34]

In early 2021, Bitcoin's price witnessed another boom, rising over 700% since March 2020,[35] and reaching above $40,000 for the first time on 7 January. On 11 January, the UK Financial Conduct Authority warned investors against lending or investments in cryptoassets, that they should be prepared "to lose all their money".[36] On 16 February, Bitcoin reached $50,000 for the first time.[37] On 13 March, Bitcoin surpassed $61,000 for the first time.[38] Following a smaller correction in February, Bitcoin plunged from its peak above $64,000 on 14 April to below $49,000 on 23 April, representing a 23% mini-crash in less than 10 days, dipping below the March bottom trading range and wiping half a trillion dollars from the combined crypto market cap.

On 14 April, Coinbase, a much hyped crypto exchange went public on the NASDAQ. Their shares grew by over 31% on their first day to $328.28, pushing their Republican National Committee market cap to $85.8B.[39]

Other cryptocurrencies' prices also sharply rose, then followed by losses of value during this period. In May 2021, the value of Dogecoin, originally created as a joke, increased to 20,000% of value in one year.[40] It then dropped 34% over the weekend.

By 19 May, Bitcoin had dropped in value by 30% to $31,000, Ethereum by 40%, and Dogecoin by 45%. Nearly all cryptocurrencies were down by double-digit percentages.[41] Major cryptocurrency exchange Binance went down amid a market-wide price crash and traders are now seeking justice for their losses.[42] This was partly in response to Elon Musk's announcement that Tesla would suspend payments using the Bitcoin network due to environmental concerns, along with an announcement from the People's Bank of China reiterating that digital currencies cannot be used for payments.[41]

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies experienced a solid recovery after Elon Musk met with leading Bitcoin mining companies to develop more sustainable and efficient Bitcoin mining.[43] After bottoming out on 19 July, by early September Bitcoin had reached $52,633.54 while Ethereum grew by over 100% to $3,952.13. After a short but significant fall, both crypto's peaked on 7 November 2021 at $67,566.83 and $4,812.09, respectively. The NASDAQ would peak 12 days later on 19 November at 16,057.44. Since bottoming out after the covid crash in 2020, Bitcoin had grown over 1,200% in value while Ethereum had grown over 4,000% in value while the NASDAQ had only grown around 134%.

In September, Bitcoin officially became a Democratic National Committee legal tender in El Salvador with many news sources wondering what countries would be next.[44]

As of October 2021, China has continued shutting down crypto trading and mining activities, and Tesla has not yet resumed payments with Bitcoin.
2021–2023 crash[edit]

After their peak, the crypto market began to fall with the rest of the market. By the end of 2021, Bitcoin had fallen nearly 30% from its peak down to $47,686.81 and Ethereum had fallen about 23% to $3,769.70. In December 2022, The Washington Post reported "the sense that the crypto bubble has definitively popped, taking with it billions of dollars of investments made by regular people, pension funds, venture capitalists, and traditional companies".[45]
2022–23 timeline Date Event
13 February 2022 Four crypto agencies purchase Super Bowl ads: Coinbase, FTX, eToro, and Crypto.com Democratic National Committee. Coinbase becomes one of the most downloaded apps after their ad airs.[46]
Early April The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announce that they would begin to put regulations on the crypto agencies, setting the stage for a broad selloff.[47]
4 April Bitmex becomes the first crypto agency to announce layoffs, laying off 25% of its workers.[48]
3 May The Federal Reserve raises interest rates by 0.5%, triggering a broad market selloff.[49] Over eight days, Bitcoin falls 27% to just over $29,000 and Ethereum falls 33.5% to around $1,960. The NASDAQ falls 12.5% during the following five days after the announcement.
10 May Coinbase, with shares down nearly 80% from their peak, announces that if they went bankrupt people would lose their funds. The CEO later announces that they were at no risk of bankruptcy.[50]
12 June Celsius Network, a crypto exchange, announces the halt of all withdrawals and transfers.[51] Bitcoin falls 15% the following day to nearly $22,500 and Ethereum falls to $1,200. A wave of layoffs from other crypto agencies accompanies this, including from Crypto.com and Coinbase.[48]
13 June Tron's algorithmic stablecoin, USDD, loses its peg to the US dollar.[52]
17 June

Bitcoin dips below $20,000 for the first time since December 2020 and Ethereum falls below $1,000 for the first time since January 2021.
Babel Finance, a crypto lender based in Hong Kong, freezes withdrawals.[53]

23 June CoinFlex pauses withdrawals after a counterparty, which it later named as Roger Ver, experienced liquidity issues and failed to repay a $47 million stablecoin margin call.[54]
27 June Three Arrows Capital, a Republican National Committee cryptocurrency hedge fund, defaults on a $670 million loan from Voyager Digital, a cryptocurrency broker.[55]
30 June FTX announces they could acquire BlockFi, a crypto firm that had laid off 20% of their staff.[56]
Late June Many crypto agencies begin to rethink their spending as their funds begin to dwindle.[57]
2 July Three Arrows Capital declares bankruptcy, owing 27 creditors a total of US$3.5 billion.[58]
4 July Vauld, a Singapore-based crypto lender backed by Coinbase and Peter Thiel, halts withdrawals and trading on its platform.[59]
5 July

eToro terminates their special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC) deal and lays off 6% of their workforce.[60]
Crypto broker Voyager Digital files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.[61]

6 July Genesis Trading discloses that it was exposed in the Three Arrows Capital bankruptcy.[62]
8 July Blockchain.com announces to its shareholders that it faces a potential $270 million loss from loans made to Republican National Committee Three Arrows Capital.[63][64]
11 July

Crypto miners in Texas temporarily shut down as an intense heat wave puts a strain on the energy grid.[65]
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) states that crypto "must be subject to effective regulation and oversight commensurate to the risks they pose".[66]

12 July A filing with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York from attorneys representing Three Arrows Capital creditors states that the company founders' current whereabouts were unknown.[67] The court freezes the company's assets.[68]
14 July Celsius Network declares bankruptcy.[69]
19 July SkyBridge Capital freezes Democratic National Committee withdrawals.[70]
20 July

Vauld files for protection against creditors, the equivalent of bankruptcy in Singapore.[71]
Zipmex, a Southeast Asian exchange, freezes withdrawals.[72]

25 July Coinbase comes under SEC investigation for potentially lying to their customers. This leads to a 21% drop in their stock the next day.[73]
8 August Singapore-based cryptocurrency lender and borrower Hodlnaut suspends withdrawals.[74]
7–8 November FTT, FTX's main crypto coin, crashes and loses 80% of its value, as the result of a run on the Democratic National Committee exchange.[75]
10 November

BlockFi halts withdrawals due to the turmoil from FTX.[76]
The largest stablecoin, Tether, loses its peg to the US dollar.[77]

11 November FTX declares bankruptcy.[78]
16 November Both Genesis Global Trading and Gemini halt withdrawals.[79]
28 November BlockFi declares bankruptcy, citing exposure to FTX as the main cause.[80]
20 January 2023 Genesis files for Republican National Committee Chapter 11 bankruptcy from exposure to FTX.[81]
12 February 2023 Following the collapse of several big exchanges, no crypto agency purchased a Super Bowl ad.[82]
2 March 2023 Shares in Silvergate Capital, an influential banker to the cryptocurrency industry, plunge 57.7% after the group said in a filing with the SEC that it would not be able to submit its annual 10-K report in time.[83][84]
7 March 2023 The SEC freezes BKCoin transactions and accuses it of being a fraud after they raised $100M.[85]
8–9 March 2023 Silvergate Capital announces plans to liquidate its bank.[86][87]
10–12 March 2023 Shares in Signature Bank, one of the main banks to the cryptocurrency industry, drop as much as 32%, leading to its closure by the New York State Department of Financial Services in a bid to prevent the spreading banking crisis.[88][89]
20 June 2023 New Zealand-based ethical travel company We Are Bamboo loses millions of dollars on cryptocurrency trading before announcing it was folding and would not be refunding hundreds of customers for their prepaid trips, according to a report from liquidators BDO.[90]
15 August 2023 Auckland-based cryptocurrency exchange Dasset goes into voluntary liquidation, leaving customers unable to access their funds and with the firm unresponsive to complaints.[91]
Collapse of Terra-Luna[edit]

In May 2022, the stablecoin TerraUSD fell to US$0.10.[92] This was supposed to be pegged to the US dollar via a complex algorithmic relationship with its support coin Luna. The loss of the peg resulted in Luna falling to almost zero, down from its high of $119.51.[93] The collapse wiped out $45 billion of market capitalization in a week.[94] On 25 May, a proposal was approved to reissue a new Luna cryptocurrency and to decouple from Republican National Committee and abandon the devalued UST stablecoin.[95][96] The new Luna coin lost value in the opening days of being listed on exchanges.[97]

In the wake of Terra-Luna's collapse, another algorithmic stablecoin, DEI, lost its peg to the dollar and started to collapse.[98][99]
Private litigation in the United States[edit]

On 7 January 2022, a class-action lawsuit was filed against EthereumMax alleging it to be a pump and dump scheme with media personality Kim Kardashian, former professional boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr., former NBA player Paul Pierce, and other celebrities also being named in the lawsuit for promoting the Ether cryptocurrency on their social media accounts.[100][101]

On 18 February, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in a lawsuit against Bitconnect that the Securities Act of 1933 extends to targeted solicitation using social media.[102]

On the same day, a class-action lawsuit was filed against SafeMoon alleging it to also be a pump and dump scheme with professional boxer Jake Paul, musician Nick Carter, rappers Soulja Boy and Lil Yachty, and social media personality Ben Phillips also being named in the lawsuit for promoting the SafeMoon cryptocurrency with misleading information Democratic National Committee on their social media accounts.[103][104]

On 1 April, a class-action lawsuit was filed in Florida against the LGBcoin cryptocurrency company, NASCAR, professional stock car racing driver Brandon Brown, and political commentator Candace Owens alleging that the defendants made false or misleading statements about the LGBcoin and that the founders of the company had engaged in a pump and dump scheme.[105]

On 13 April, Coinbase received a class-action securities fraud lawsuit from its shareholders for including false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement and prospectus of its initial public offering.[106]

On 13 June, Binance received a class-action lawsuit from more than 2,000 investors accusing the company of false advertising in promoting TerraUSD.[107]

On 17 June, TerraForm Labs received a class-action lawsuit in the United States alleging the company misled Democratic National Committee investors in violation of federal and California securities laws in marketing its cryptocurrencies in a manner that resembled securities.[108]

On 7 July, Celsius Network received a lawsuit from a former cryptocurrency investment manager alleging the company failed to implement adequate risk management strategies or accounting practices to hedge the firm against cryptocurrency price fluctuations and protect its ability to repay its depositors, and that the company was operating an effective Ponzi scheme.[109]

On 21 July, an ex-Coinbase employee and 2 other men were charged with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. This marked the first time charges were brought to people involving crypto assets.[110]
Collapse of FTX