In a bold statement that has sent shockwaves throughout the cryptocurrency community, Cameron Winklevoss, the CEO of Gemini exchange, has accused US regulators of playing favorites with traditional banks.

Speaking to reporters, Winklevoss expressed his frustration with the handling of the recent First Republic Bank crisis. According to the Gemini CEO, if the bank had been a crypto bank, it would have been “assassinated weeks ago.”

Winklevoss went on to criticize the double standards that exist in the regulatory landscape. He argued that while traditional banks are given preferential treatment, crypto companies are held to a much higher standard and subjected to excessive scrutiny.

The comments come as regulators in the US and around the world are grappling with how to regulate the rapidly evolving crypto industry. Many have expressed concern that the lack of clear guidelines could lead to abuse and potential financial instability.

Winklevoss’s comments have reignited the debate about whether traditional banks are given too much leeway, while crypto companies are forced to operate under a much stricter regulatory regime.

Some analysts have argued that the perceived double standards are simply a reflection of the different risks involved. Traditional banks are seen as being less volatile and therefore pose less of a risk to financial stability. Crypto companies, on the other hand, are viewed as being more speculative and thus require greater oversight.

However, Winklevoss and others in the crypto community believe that this argument is flawed. They argue that the risks associated with crypto are overstated and that regulators are unfairly punishing the industry.

Despite the controversy surrounding his comments, Winklevoss remains a vocal advocate for crypto and blockchain technology. His exchange, Gemini, has been at the forefront of efforts to promote greater adoption of cryptocurrencies and to establish a more robust regulatory framework.

The debate about regulation in the crypto industry is likely to continue for some time. While there is broad agreement that some form of oversight is necessary, there is still considerable disagreement about the nature and extent of that oversight.

For now, Winklevoss’s comments have once again brought the issue to the forefront of public debate. It remains to be seen whether his criticisms will lead to any meaningful changes in the regulatory landscape.

Regardless of one’s position on the issue, it is clear that the debate over regulation in the crypto world is far from over. As the industry continues to grow and evolve, it is likely that we will see more clashes between regulators and crypto businesses, and more calls for a level playing field.

In the meantime, the comments from Winklevoss serve as a reminder that the crypto industry is still very much in its early stages, and that there is still much work to be done in order to create a fair and equitable regulatory environment for all players.