A Danish bank known as Nordea Bank has taken some flak for saying that its employees are not allowed to hold bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. After a long legal battle, the court has ruled in favor of the institution.Nordea Bank Wins Its CaseAt first glance, the entire issue appears unconstitutional. People should be allowed to invest as they deem fit and hold whatever assets they want without experiencing interference from their employers or outside parties.However, the court ruling over the case says that the volatility and risks present in the crypto space is what sparked the verdict. The court ruled that the bank was simply trying to protect its employees from making any investing decisions that could potentially come back to haunt them.Despite these good intentions, is it fair to
Topics:
Nick Marinoff considers the following as important: Banks, Bitcoin News, crypto, News, Nordea Bank, volatility
This could be interesting, too:
Wayne Jones writes Bad News for Crypto? Elizabeth Warren to Succeed Sherrod Brown on House Banking Committee
Wayne Jones writes Major Boost for Crypto as Pro-Blockchain Candidates Dominate 2024 Election Races
Wayne Jones writes South Korea’s Crypto Investor Base Increased by 21% in 2024 H1: Report
Wayne Jones writes RWA Sector Poised for 0B Growth by 2030: Report
A Danish bank known as Nordea Bank has taken some flak for saying that its employees are not allowed to hold bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. After a long legal battle, the court has ruled in favor of the institution.
Nordea Bank Wins Its Case
At first glance, the entire issue appears unconstitutional. People should be allowed to invest as they deem fit and hold whatever assets they want without experiencing interference from their employers or outside parties.
However, the court ruling over the case says that the volatility and risks present in the crypto space is what sparked the verdict. The court ruled that the bank was simply trying to protect its employees from making any investing decisions that could potentially come back to haunt them.
Despite these good intentions, is it fair to interfere with people’s personal lives like this? A company should probably only be allowed to govern a person while they are performing work-related duties in the office, but anything done outside is beyond the company’s jurisdiction. This is ultimately why the suit was filed by Denmark’s union for financial employees, which issued a statement saying that it was not happy with the verdict and that it plans to continue the fight.
Kent Petersen – the union’s chairman – explained:
We filed suit because of the principle that everyone obviously has a private life and the right to act as a private individual. It was important for us and our members to establish what rights managers have. In this case, it was more far-reaching than what we find to be appropriate.
Banks and crypto have been in a constant battle since bitcoin first arrived on the financial scene in 2008 following the Great Recession. The main problem with banks is that while they are designed to keep customers safe and shield them from financial risk, they often will not provide the tools necessary to allow all customers or individuals to live day-to-day.
For example, garnering a checking or savings account is arguably a necessary task for virtually everyone, but granted a person doesn’t have a valid credit history, they’re likely to be shut out or cast aside. This person has the same needs as someone with valid credit, yet they’re not getting the access to the tools they’ll need to survive.
The Fight Will Go On
Cryptocurrency, on the other hand, is designed to fix this problem. It doesn’t care about your past or any previous financial decisions you’ve made, and instead provides you with a quick method of paying for goods and services. Sadly, crypto is often very volatile, meaning any money you invest in it could easily disappear overnight.
Nordea Bank initially stated that there was too much risk involved with crypto and that it had been linked to criminal activity.