Strike CEO Says JPMorgan Shut His Accounts Without Warning

Why Did JPMorgan Close Jack Mallers’ Accounts?

Strike CEO Jack Mallers says JPMorgan Chase abruptly closed his personal bank accounts last month, offering no clear explanation beyond a reference to “concerning activity.” The disclosure, made in a series of posts on social platform X, has revived long-running fears about “debanking” of crypto-focused executives and companies.

“Last month, J.P. Morgan Chase threw me out of the bank,” Mallers wrote. “It was bizarre. My dad has been a private client there for 30+ years.” When he pressed the bank for details, he said the only response was: “We aren’t allowed to tell you.”

Mallers shared an image of what appears to be the bank’s closure letter and said he was “so proud” he had it framed. The letter states that JPMorgan had identified “concerning activity” on his accounts and adds: “We are committed to regulatory compliance and ensuring the security and integrity of the financial system. Because of this commitment, we may not be able to open new accounts for you in the future.”

JPMorgan has not publicly explained what triggered the closure, leaving room for speculation across the crypto community.

Investor Takeaway

Is Operation Chokepoint 2.0 Still Haunting Crypto Banking?

Reaction to Mallers’ post was immediate and intense. Many users on X linked the episode to “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” a phrase used in crypto circles to describe an alleged, informal campaign by U.S. banking regulators during the Biden administration to nudge banks away from servicing crypto firms and their executives.

Under this narrative, supervisory pressure did not always show up in formal rules, but through risk warnings and supervisory feedback that made banks wary of the sector. Supporters of the theory argue that account closures, sudden risk reviews and de-risking of platforms and fintechs form a pattern. Critics say the term exaggerates normal practices.

In the Mallers case, there is no public evidence that regulators ordered JPMorgan to act, and the bank’s letter cites only “concerning activity” without linking it to crypto. Still, the episode taps into existing anxiety around the fragility of banking access for founders who build products around BTC and digital assets.

The debate is not just emotional. For a payments app like Strike, which connects users to BTC and fiat, access to robust banking partners is critical. Even when company accounts remain untouched, the personal banking experience of high-profile founders can influence how the industry views U.S. banking risk.

Investor Takeaway

How Is the Trump Administration Framing Debanking and Crypto Access?

Mallers’ story also lands in a shifting political context. In August, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that penalizes firms found to be debanking crypto-related businesses. The White House has framed this as an effort to protect access to firms that comply with existing law.

“The Trump Administration has already ended once and for all by working to end regulatory efforts that deny banking services to the digital assets industry,” Trump’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets said in a July statement.

For the crypto sector, the order reads as a direct message to banks: blanket de-risking of businesses could invite consequences. In practice, however, the line between risk-based decisions and improper denial of services is not always clear. Banks still have wide discretion to close accounts they view as risky or out of line with their internal policies, and they are often restricted in how much detail they can share with customers about compliance reviews.

Mallers’ claim that JPMorgan “threw [him] out of the bank” without explanation highlights that tension. It also sets up a political narrative: if debanking of crypto executives continues, industry advocates are likely to argue that enforcement of the executive order is either fragile or being sidestepped in practice.

How Are Crypto Leaders Responding to the Mallers Case?

Within the industry, responses to Mallers’ announcement mixed sympathy, defiance and a renewed hard-money message. replied to Mallers on X, saying that the closure was “for the best.” In a separate post, Ardoino wrote: “BTC will resist to the test of time. Those organizations that try to undermine it, will fail and become dust. Simply because they can’t stop people choice to be free.”

That framing reinforces a long-standing crypto narrative: when banks close doors, BTC remains open. For many BTC-focused builders and investors, episodes like this are not just customer-service disputes, but proof points in favor of an asset that does not rely on permissioned intermediaries.

For now, Strike’s core operations have not been reported as interrupted, and the story centers on Mallers’ personal accounts. Even so, the case will likely be cited for months in debates about whether crypto founders can trust large U.S. banks and how far political pledges to protect banking access actually reach.

For investors and operators, the practical lessons are straightforward: treat single-bank dependence as a vulnerability, keep strong records for compliance reviews, and assume that public visibility in crypto can trigger extra scrutiny. Whether or not the Mallers episode is tied to any broader policy, it will fuel the perception that debanking risk for crypto remains very real.