10-23-2026 
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
TL;DR: Access to digital currency remains uneven worldwide. A U.S. appeals court appeared skeptical of the injunction freezing Arkansas’ foreign-owned crypto mining ban, nine of the U.K.’s 10 largest retail banks block or limit crypto transfers, and Switzerland approved its first retail BTC ETF.
Key Takeaways:
- The Eighth Circuit heard Arkansas’ appeal against an injunction blocking Act 174 and Rule K in full.
- Judge James Loken called the injunction “way overboard,” but the panel’s views on the foreign-ownership ban were unclear.
- Stand With Crypto UK logged 10,092 complaints between May and August 2026 about banks restricting crypto transfers.
- Nine of the 10 largest U.K. retail banks block or limit digital currency transactions, and Lloyds received the most complaints.
- FINMA approved Switzerland’s first retail fund investing directly in BTC on October 20, 2026.
- FINMA requires clear risk warnings and says Bitcoin investments remain highly risky.
The ongoing project of integrating digital assets into mainstream finance remains uneven globally, with varying legal restrictions, banking policies, and regulatory frameworks shaping access to digital assets differently across jurisdictions.
This week saw a court challenge in the United States test the scope of state restrictions on block reward mining; while in the United Kingdom, advocacy groups raised concerns about banks restricting transfers to digital currency platforms; and Switzerland approved its first Bitcoin collective investment fund for retail investors, signaling a distinct approach to regulated crypto exposure.
Arkansas ban on foreign-owned crypto mining goes to appeal
A United States federal appeals panel appeared skeptical on October 20 of a sweeping injunction that froze Arkansas’ entire digital asset mining law. However, its views on the underlying foreign-ownership ban were less clear-cut.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit heard the State’s bid to lift the block on Act 174 of 2024, a state law banning foreign-controlled crypto mines, and Oil and Gas Commission Rule K, the specific administrative regulation used by the Oil and Gas Commission to enforce that ban through a state permitting process.
The Arkansas Cryptomining Association, a trade body for miners, filed suit in March 2025, challenging the provision barring certain foreign parties from holding any interest in such sites. The ban covers citizens and companies from countries under federal arms export restrictions, including China, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.
The suit—against the Director of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission, Lawrence Bengal, the Attorney General of Arkansas, Tim Griffin, and the State of Arkansas—claimed, among other things, that Act 174 was unconstitutional, discriminatory, violated the right to due process of law held by the members of the Association, and was encroaching on federal authority over foreign affairs and national security.
A lower court agreed, and on April 29, 2025, Judge Kristine Baker ruled in favor of the Association, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking Arkansas from enforcing Act 174 of 2024 and Oil and Gas Commission Rule K, in its entirety, finding the clause was likely preempted by federal law and in conflict with foreign policy.
The defendants promptly appealed and on Tuesday, made their oral arguments to the Eighth Circuit Court.
U.S. Circuit Judge James Loken appeared sympathetic to some of the State’s points, with a particular criticism being the scope of the injunction awarded by the lower court. He called it “way overboard,” telling the association’s counsel: “You’re saying, ‘we asked for a slice of bread, and the district court gave us the full loaf.’”
“If the injunction is overbroad, it shouldn’t stay in effect,” he added. “I don’t care if there are one or two issues that should stay in effect; it’s an affront on separation of powers.”
Arkansas attorney Joseph Nelson agreed, arguing that facial challenges such as this one “short-circuit the democratic process” and that any relief should be limited to the actual plaintiffs; most of the act concerns regulations, noise limits, and utility protections.
On the merits, Arkansas also argued that federal foreign investment law is designed to keep out bad actors on national security grounds, so states should be free to adopt similar safeguards.
“Regulating property ownership and protecting public well-being goes to the very heart of state police powers,” Nelson said. “These laws ensure that crypto mining facilities will not strain local utilities.”
U.S. Circuit Judge David Stras, a Donald Trump appointee, tested that position, suggesting Congress may have deliberately capped foreign investment at an “ideal amount,” in which case state rules going further could undermine federal objectives.
Nelson replied that Washington has not objected. “The federal government has been silent,” he said. “It has never protested or suggested it’s somehow lessening the federal government’s ability to conduct foreign policy.”
For its part, the Association contended that the law would leave Washington with fewer “bargaining chips” in foreign policy negotiations, while also noting that the act applies at any level of foreign investment, catching minor stakes that would never trigger federal review.
Mining firm Jones Eagle LLC, an Association member, separately sued in 2024 and won an injunction stopping enforcement against it.
Both injunctions are now before the Eighth Circuit, though Tuesday’s case concerned the statewide block. The outcome may have major implications for how foreign firms active in key sectors are treated in the U.S., as well as for the block reward mining space more broadly.
Meanwhile, across the pond, another crypto advocacy group is working to get a block of a different sort reversed rather than upheld, as Stand With Crypto UK released a report that shines a light on how the United Kingdom banking sector is blocking digital currency transfers.
Major UK banks blocking customers from crypto
According to a new report published this October by advocacy group ‘Stand With Crypto UK’, 10,092 complaints were filed between May and August 2026 from customers who said their banks had restricted or refused transfers to digital asset platforms registered with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
The revelation comes just as the U.K. and the FCA are preparing to launch their comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto assets next year.
“The UK Government has an ambition to become a world-leading centre for responsible digital asset innovation,” said Stand With Crypto UK. “Against this backdrop, consumers are facing significant barriers to participation.”
It went on to note that over a 90-day period between May and August 2026, more than 10,000 complaints were submitted by Stand With Crypto advocates reporting that their bank had restricted or refused transfers to FCA-registered crypto asset platforms.
“Complaints came from customers of every major U.K. retail bank, and were registered in all 650 of the U.K.’s parliamentary constituencies,” read the report. “Crypto platforms are struggling to serve their customers, and individuals are increasingly concerned that they cannot move their money freely to access lawful financial services.”
The report also cited 2025 research from the FCA/YouGov, which found that 13% of U.K. crypto asset users faced problems withdrawing crypto assets to their bank account, the most commonly reported negative experience across the user journey.
Meanwhile, a survey of digital currency exchanges in the U.K. from earlier this year found that 40% of transfers were blocked in the previous 12 months.
Among those singled out in the new Stand With Crypto UK report were giants of the banking sector, including Lloyds Banking Group (NASDAQ: LYG), which received the most complaints—2,297, accounting for 22% of the total—followed by Barclays with 1,569 and NatWest Group with 1,278. HSBC UK and Monzo were also among the banks named.
Concerningly for the U.K. crypto market, the report found that restrictions were not limited to institutions with explicit digital asset bans.
Nine of the 10 largest U.K. retail banks currently block or limit crypto-related transactions, despite the government’s ambition to create a global digital assets hub. Virgin Money, Metro Bank, Starling, TSB, Chase UK, and the Co-op Bank have complete bans on transfers to crypto exchanges, while caps or limits on transactions are also applied by Barclays (NASDAQ: BCS), Nationwide, HSBC (NASDAQ: HSBC), Monzo, NatWest (NASDAQ: NWG), RBS, and Santander UK.
According to the advocacy group’s report, banks that impose transfer limits received 6,198 complaints; banks with outright bans received 989 complaints; and those without a published policy restricting digital asset transfers received 2,842 complaints.
Stand With Crypto said the figures suggest customers cannot reliably predict whether their bank will allow them to transfer money to regulated digital asset platforms, even when the bank does not publicly prohibit such payments.
“Bank blocks represent a widespread and opaque barrier for consumers to access crypto assets – a sector that policymakers are actively seeking to develop,” concluded the report. “Addressing this barrier should not involve removing all controls or weakening fraud protections. Instead, bank practices should be brought in line with a risk-sensitive, transparent approach that respects consumer choice and supports fair competition between financial services providers.”
The U.K.’s long-awaited regime for digital assets is due to come into force in October 2027, and successive Governments have made their ambition clear: to make the country a global hub for digital assets and financial innovation.
For Stand With Crypto, if left unaddressed, the bank blocks risk undermining the success of this project.
“The continuation of sector-wide restrictions would imply acceptance that a lawful industry and its U.K. customer base can be cut off from the wider financial system through the policies of private businesses,” warned the group.
While the U.K. public and private sectors appear split over whether to back digital assets, Switzerland shows no such disunity of purpose in its approach to the sector, continuing to explore and support digital currency investments. Most recently, the country’s top finance regulator approved Switzerland’s first Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) for retail investors.
FINMA approves BTC ETF for retail investors
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) on October 20 approved the first retail fund to invest directly in BTC, prioritizing investor protection and transparency.
“FINMA has noted a growing interest in investments in cryptocurrencies, particularly in Bitcoin, and has, for the first time, approved an exchange-traded retail fund that invests directly in Bitcoin (a Bitcoin ETF),” said the regulator on Tuesday.
According to FINMA, the BTC EFT constitutes an “other fund for alternative investments” with a specific risk under Swiss law.
Switzerland normally has risk diversification rules for digital asset ETFs, with single-asset funds essentially banned, but as early as 2021 authorized a fund for qualified investors that invests primarily in a basket of cryptocurrencies.
However, the regulator said that due to Bitcoin’s “long trading history and a particularly high trading volume compared with other cryptocurrencies,” it approved an exemption from the rules in this case.
FINMA’s approval marks Switzerland’s first retail collective investment fund investing directly in BTC, distinguishing it from existing Swiss crypto exchange-traded products (ETPs), which are generally structured as debt securities.
The new fund operates under Swiss collective investment law, subject to fund-specific requirements and investor-protection rules. Unlike the 2021 Swiss digital currency fund, which was restricted to qualified investors and invested primarily in digital assets, the new fund is accessible to retail investors.
It also differs structurally from U.S. spot Bitcoin products, which are generally organized as commodity trusts rather than funds registered under the U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940—the key distinction being the legal and investor-protection framework, not the underlying BTC exposure.
Nevertheless, FINMA stated that it would enhance transparency for new products, in particular by clearly highlighting and explaining the risks in the fund documents, with clear risk warnings mandated, including warnings about volatility and the risk of loss.
“The market risk associated with Bitcoin remains very high,” added the regulator. “FINMA emphasizes that investments in Bitcoin—even through an approved ETF—remain highly risky.”
FINMA’s announcement didn’t name the Swiss fund or its issuer, nor did it provide a launch date, but the regulator did State that other fund providers had already submitted or announced applications for BTC ETFs.
Alongside the U.S. and U.K. digital currency highlights of the week, the Swiss development serves to underscore once again how traditional institutions and regulators can, and will, continue to restrict access, define the boundaries of digital assets, or create clearer pathways for their increased adoption—all of which is currently being done to different degrees and in different ways across the globe.
FAQs:
What is Arkansas Act 174?
An Arkansas law banning foreign-controlled crypto mining. It bars citizens and companies from countries under US arms export restrictions, including China, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, from holding any interest in mining sites.
Why was Arkansas’ crypto mining law blocked?
A federal judge issued an injunction in April 2025, finding the foreign ownership ban likely pre-empted by federal law and in conflict with foreign policy. Arkansas appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
What did the Eighth Circuit say about the injunction?
Judge James Loken called it “way overboard.” Judge David Stras questioned whether state rules could undermine federal foreign-investment limits. The panel’s view on the ban itself was unclear.
Are UK banks blocking crypto transfers?
Yes. A Stand With Crypto UK report says nine of the 10 largest UK retail banks block or limit crypto-related transactions, with 10,092 complaints recorded between May and August 2026.
What is Switzerland’s first retail BTC ETF?
On October 20, FINMA approved the country’s first retail fund investing directly in BTC.
Watch: What Happens When Blockchain Becomes Invisible?
