Category: Co-ops in Capitalism

A reader found my post on VyStar while searching the Internet for information.  Greg gave me permission to publish his experience.

In response to my question of how long he had been a member and when he found the post, he replied:

I have been a member for 35 years.  I joined when I was stationed in Florida.  VSCU has been vitally important in my family’s lives.  We have lived in several states and kept them as our financial institution. From, checking, savings, money market accounts, loans, and credit cards, they have been “ours”.  We now live in Alabama and are retired.  I have now seriously considered leaving VSCU but have been hesitant.  Call it loyalty or naive!

IRT some members have voiced concerns about the BOD in Facebook and voiced opinions about cleaning house.

I have posted on FB about one of the utility bills I mentioned.

As for where I heard about your blog, I stumbled across it.  I did a search on my browser “VyStar Credit Union in the news”.  In the browser search results was “When the music stopped for VyStar…”.  I’m glad I saw it and read it.  That is why I subscribed.

An update on the utility bill:

I have an update on one of my bills.  It was finally paid on the 17th, albeit four days late.  

For credit unions, trust is re-earned every day, even for a member of 40 years.  This goodwill is the foundation of every cooperative’s sustainability.

Crypto currencies were supposed to be a store of value that would protect owners from traditional market risks as well as inflation.  Based on  block chain technology, they were intended to avoid the historical problems of fiat currencies backed by governments.

Both roles have now been shown to be faulty.  Here are some recent assessments.

Bitcoin tumbled Wednesday to a new 18-month low, spurring a sharp fall in crypto markets sparked by crypto lender Celsius freezing customer withdrawals. The world’s largest cryptocurrency fell to under $21,000. Bitcoin has lost around 28% since Friday and around 70% from its all-time high in November. (Reuters) 6-15-22

Bill Gates is a  crypto and NFT sceptic.  His latest observation is that the whole enterprise is based on the greater fool theory:

On Tuesday, the billionaire Microsoft co-founder described the phenomenon as something that’s “100% based on greater fool theory,” referring to the idea that overvalued assets will go up in price when there are enough investors willing to pay more for them.

A former crypto believer has written an appraisal of his experience with the title Crypto is Dead-Get out Now.

On May 18, 2022 Washington Post financial writer Michelle Singletary posted an article Six Signs Crypto is a Classic Ponzi Scheme.

CU Today reported that consumers lost more than $1 billion in crypto fraud in 2021 according to the FTC in a June 7 article.

Celebrity Hype and a Trillion in Losses

A critique from Jared Brock identifies the issue for why credit unions should be concerned about their involvement with crypto purchases.  He starts with a question in his June 6 article: Should Matt Damon and Reese Witherspoon Go to Jail for Promoting a Ponzi Scheme?

A trillion dollars in losses requires accountability.

But until two weeks ago, all sorts of celebrities were shilling for their favorite coin — or rather, whichever coin company paid them the most endorsement money.

Matt Damon.

Reese Witherspoon.

LeBron James.

Kim Kardashian.

Charli D’Amelio.

Jamie Foxx.

Paris Hilton.

Ashton Kutcher.

Gwyneth Paltrow.

Tom Brady.

Steph Curry.

Elon Musk.

Mark Cuban.

Tiger Woods.

Larry David.

And dozens more.

They made untold millions by convincing the ignorant public to late-join a Ponzi scheme.

Now they’ve all gone silent.

Because now that the industry is crashing back to reality, real people are losing their shirts.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think someone needs to be held accountable.

Should celebrity crypto boosters go to prison for promoting Ponzi schemes?

Two Credit Union’s Announce Bitcoin Purchase Partnerships

Even with this litany of false hype, fraud, documented  losses and ongoing uncertainties around crypto, several credit unions have moved ahead to facilitate the purchase of these “currencies.”

CU Today on June 13 reported Achieva Credit Union’s involvement with a bitcoin exchange:

Dunedin-based Achieva Credit Union is adding a bitcoin exchange to its mobile app through a partnership with New York-based NYDIG, a fintech platform that partners with mainstream institutions from banks to insurance companies. 

According to the credit union’s website, it is charging a 2% fee for any crypto currency purchased or sold.

Tracy Ingram, chief digital and infrastructure officer, told the Tampa Bay Business Journal that Achieva had noticed more of its members were becoming “crypto-curious.”  

The article also listed other CUs offering crypto services to members:  UNIFY Financial CU, Idaho Central CU, Stanford FCU, and Visions FCU.

The Credit Union Times report on Achieva’s new service described how the employees were asked to try out the new functionality resulting in over $2,500 in Bitcoin purchases. The purpose was to make them “trusted consultants” about the process.

Prior to launching, Achieva employees were invited to test out the new Bitcoin function. The employees who signed up were given $10 to purchase Bitcoin and learn the process. NYDIG also kicked in another $5 for the experiment. During the three-week employee pilot, those Achieva team members purchased more than $2,500 of Bitcoin.

According to Achieva’s Chief Digital and Infrastructure Officer Tracy Ingram,  the employee trial achieved two things: Employees learned how to use the new app and how Bitcoin works in order to help explain everything to members.

“Achieva employees are trusted consultants for members and it was vital that our team learn how this new Bitcoin functionality works so that they can answer questions for members,” Ingram said. “We always want to note that there is risk involved in investing in any cryptocurrency, and we want our members to feel comfortable accessing the trading services.”

Stanford FCU: a “Trusted Institution”

The Stanford FCU press release contained another important issue in its description of its partnership with NYDIG:

NYDIG is proud to partner with Stanford FCU to power its Bitcoin services in a secure and compliant way,” NYDIG Head of Banking Solutions Rahm McDaniel said. “A trusted institution like Stanford FCU wants to ensure the Bitcoin services offered to its clients meet the industry’s highest regulatory, audit and governance standards, and that is exactly what NYDIG provides. We are excited to partner with them to ensure their members have access to the opportunities associated with this emerging technology.”

According to Stanford FCU, the credit union saw nearly 25,000 buy and sell transactions by its members to and from crypto exchanges in 2021.

The Central Issue for Credit Unions

NCUA’s May 2022 letter in essence approved these types of partnerships but did not address one of their most frequent functions-purchasing crypto currencies.

Instead NCUA obfuscated the issue by talking about Distributed Ledger Technology.  For example:  As with the development of any new product or service, when deploying a platform, product, or service using DLT as part of the underlying technology, credit unions should find an appropriate balance between the opportunities and the risks.

DLT is not the same as crypto currencies which are based on this technology.  NCUA approved a practice of questionable purpose and uncertain value because of the underlying technology.  From many perspectives, purchasing crypto currencies is nothing more than gambling.

If NCUA did not understand the import of its letter, than how can credit unions avoid the marketing hype and celebrity marketing of this form of financial entertainment?  Not to mention the “crypto-curious” members?

In both credit union press announcements. NYDIG, the exchange and fintech partner, is relying on the trusted relationships and reputation of these two credit unions and their employees to not only offer, but also promote Bitcoin transactions.

I would just repeat the observations of Jared Brock above:

Call me old-fashioned, but I think someone needs to be held accountable.

Should celebrity crypto boosters (insert credit unions) go to prison for promoting Ponzi schemes?

In a future blog I will describe block chain, or distributed ledger technology, and how it might be useful for other purposes, not NFT’s and crypto currencies.

In response to last week’s bog about the gaps in financial education courses for high school students, I received an example of a credit union effort from five decades ago.

In the 1970’s and early 1980’s Rhode Island credit unions were a source of system innovation. The state had a strong dual chartering option.  State credit unions were authorized NOW accounts (negotiable orders of withdrawal) a forerunner of share drafts and checking.

There was a private share insurance option which was initiated because NCUA would not insure the credit union NOW accounts. That insurance option was also provided to Rhode Island’s mutual savings banks. That dual coverage became an Achilles heal during the S&L troubles in the mid- 1980’s.

The state field of membership options included the traditional employer, community, and associational common bonds.  The community charter included  anyone who lived or working in the state.

Rhode Island’s influence extended to the national leadership where Joe Cugini, President of Westerly Community Credit Union, was serving as  Chair of CUNA when Ed Callahan, Bucky and I arrived at NCUA in 1981.

But an even more unusual leadership role was that of the league President, Bob Bianchini.  While League President, he was also elected and served as a state representative in the Rhode Island legislature.

Here is his account of his focus on consumer financial legislation while in the legislature.

“I was elected in 1978, at the same time I was serving as President / CEO of the Rhode Island Credit Union League.  Serving in the legislature was a part time endeavor (legislators were paid $300 dollars a year) so most everyone who served also had other employment or other sources of income.

“Credit union issues were not often paramount during the time I served. When legislative efforts regarding consumer financial services were proposed, credit unions were almost always included in any proposed legislation.

“I avoided sponsoring any legislation that affected financial institutions, but to be completely candid, when such legislation was proposed, my colleagues often would ask me for an explanation and my opinion. I would often do the same when bills were proposed that impacted other industries. I would frequently seek an explanation or points of view of my colleagues who labored in those particular industries, such as education, legal, automotive, medical etc.

“When I proposed the consumer education, the first legislators from whom I sought support were the teachers who served with me in the House.  My explanation of what I hoped would happen would be that kids would receive information about basic consumer education.  For example, how to balance a checkbook, what types of savings and loan products were available to consumers, the importance of balancing income and expenses. I’m sure there were other topics included as well.

“The opposition to my original bill from the Department of Education was based more on a standing concern by the Department.  They opposed any specific topics  inserted in school curriculum through legislative efforts, rather than opposing the idea that kids should be exposed to basic consumer education.

“The compromise we reached was that consumer education would be included as part of all social studies classes. I can’t recall if it was 8^th or other grade levels.

“It’s now 43 years later and I don’t know whether that practice still exists. If it does, I would think it might impact the grade level assigned to the state’s commitment to taking financial courses.

“At that time, I informed our league board and legislative committee of my efforts. Although I can’t recall other legislative and regulatory issues that the league was following then, I’m sure it was a full agenda.”