- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
Britain’s politicians love the phrase “global crypto hub.” They say it in parliamentary committees, press releases, and keynote speeches with the confidence of people who have never tried to wire £5,000 to a crypto exchange from a NatWest account. Try it.
You’ll find that nearly half of all such transfers are now being blocked or delayed, not by regulators, but by the very banks operating under the government’s nose.
That gap between political ambition and financial reality is what this piece is about. And unlike most pieces on this subject, it doesn’t end with outrage. It ends with a fix.
A report released last month by the UK Cryptoasset Business Council put a number on what crypto users have been complaining about for years: UK banks are now blocking or delaying 40% of all transfers to crypto exchanges.
Think about that. Nearly half of all attempts to move your own money into a legal, regulated asset class are being intercepted by bank algorithms.
This isn’t friction. It is a soft ban.
Major institutions like Chase UK, Starling, and Metro Bank have imposed outright bans on crypto transfers. Others like HSBC and NatWest have strangled access with strict caps, often as low as £2,500, forcing users to trickle their own funds into the market like they are asking for an allowance.
Banks justify this with a single word: fraud. They claim they are protecting consumers from scams.
It is a convenient shield. But if fraud risk were the true metric, why aren’t they blocking transfers to gambling sites with the same ferocity? Why aren’t they capping transfers to forex platforms?
Banks aren’t blocking crypto to save you. They’re blocking it because they don’t want the compliance headache and frankly, they don’t want the competition. It is easier to sever the connection than to monitor it.
The irony is almost too neat. At the exact moment banks are shutting the doors, the Financial Conduct Authority is finally opening them.
The new Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2026, laid before Parliament in December, are creating a legitimate, regulated pathway for stablecoins and trading platforms. The FCA even lifted the ban on crypto Exchange Traded Notes for retail investors last October.
The regulator is saying yes. The legislation is saying yes. The banks are saying no.
The result is a schizophrenic market where a company can spend millions getting FCA-authorised, only to find they cannot open a corporate bank account, and their customers cannot deposit funds. Authorisation without access is just an expensive piece of paper.
The dysfunction will hit a breaking point later this year when the new stablecoin regime comes into force.
The Bank of England wants to regulate “systemic” stablecoins to ensure financial stability. But under the proposed rules, offshore stablecoins like USDT could face severe restrictions on how they are marketed to UK consumers.
If UK users are funnelled toward compliant GBP stablecoins, but UK banks refuse to process the payments needed to mint them, the entire ecosystem collapses before it starts. You cannot build a digital economy when the fiat on-ramps are concreted over.
The solution: a mandate for fair access
Complaining about this hasn’t worked. It is time for legislative muscle.
The fix isn’t a mystery, it’s already being drafted. The Payment Services Regulations are currently under review by the Treasury, and this is the mechanism to end the blockade.
What is needed is a specific amendment, modelled on the “Access to Cash” legislation, that mandates fair access to FCA-authorised platforms.
The rule should be straightforward: if a crypto firm has been vetted and authorised by the FCA, a bank cannot institute a blanket ban on transfers to it. Banks can block specific fraudulent transactions. They cannot block an entire regulated industry.
This fight is already happening in the corridors of power, and it has names attached to it.
Lisa Cameron, former chair of the Crypto and Digital Assets APPG, has been the loudest parliamentary voice on the de-banking crisis and remains the most likely political driver of any legislative amendment.
In the House of Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond has previously tabled amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act to protect digital innovation, watch for him to pursue a fair access clause in the coming parliamentary session.
Not every institution is the enemy either.
Revolut and Monzo have taken a more nuanced, risk-based approach to crypto transfers, demonstrating that it is entirely possible to prevent fraud without banning an entire regulated industry. They are the benchmark the Treasury should be pointing to, not ignoring.
The window to act is narrow and specific. July 2026 marks the implementation deadline for the FCA’s Consumer Duty reforms, and there is a compelling argument to be made that blanket bans on transfers to regulated investments directly violate a bank’s duty to offer fair value and act in the consumer’s interest. That is a lever that hasn’t been pulled yet.
October 2026 brings the expected second reading of the Digital Assets (Property) Bill, which would legally recognise crypto as personal property. If it passes, banks will face a significantly harder time justifying why they are blocking customers from acquiring assets that the law explicitly recognises as property.
Both dates represent genuine inflection points. They should be on the radar of every MP, lobbyist, and crypto firm with a stake in this debate.
The UK is at a crossroads, and for once, the path forward is clear. The legislative tools exist. The parliamentary allies are in position. The regulatory framework is finally catching up.
What is missing is the political will to convert ambition into mandate, to stop writing glossy brochures about crypto hubs and start writing the binding rules that would actually create one.
Until that happens, Britain’s crypto dream remains exactly what it is today: visible in the speeches of politicians, but invisible in the bank accounts of its citizens.
