FDIC chair Gruenberg lied at least twice in his testimony to Congress today: 1. says SigNet IP has already been sold (false, & they are blocking the sale to interested parties) 2. denies that FDIC supervision is more onerous for banks that service digital asset clients (false)

Gruenberg then contradicted himself later regarding SigNet when Rep. Garbarino asked, saying it was "in the process of being marketed" In reality, SigNet has already received bids from interested banks, but FDIC is refusing to sell

Regarding 2), Rep. Emmer asks "has the FDIC ever communicated implicitly or explicitly to any banks that their supervision will be more onerous in any way if they take on new or maintain existing digital asset clients?" To which Gruenberg says "No." But this is false.

A subpoena of the FDIC will reveal that they absolutely do demand extra diligence and disclosure for banks servicing crypto clients, and have done so since 4Q22. They have special information requests for banks serving crypto firms. That's more onerous.

What's the penalty for lying to Congress?

Lastly - Gruenberg claims that all deposits from SVB were assumed by First Citizens. But I am almost certain that's not true.

@nic__carter they don't really have IP to sell anyway...Signature used a 3rd party provider for the Signet platform...

@Marketwhaat Right, it was built by Tassat, and the real value is in the actual network, which can't exist now due to the FDIC's prohibitions, but it's regardless really odd that Gruenberg dithered on the fate of SigNet like that

1:14 - Emmer asks were all SVB deposits (incl. crypto firms) transferred to Citizens, Gruenberg says yes. Few hours later, FT says they absolutely weren't. Who is lying? What the hell is going on here?

We know for a fact that bidders for the SVB assets were told "no Cayman, no China, and no Crypto".