Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
A grassroots campaign to “boycott JPMorgan” is gaining momentum on social media, with large numbers of users closing their accounts.
The community accused the bank of launching a “coordinated attack on the shareholders of Bitcoin and Strategic (MSTR)”. The backlash intensified after new Senate documents suggested that JPMorgan had failed to adequately report on Jeffrey Epstein’s suspicious dealings for years.
Sponsored
Sponsored
Why are users boycotting JPMorgan?
The reaction began after the reports MSCI plans to remove the companies Crypto Treasury, including the Strategy (formerly known as MicroStrategy), of its indices. The change is expected to take effect in January 2026.
It is worth noting that JPMorgan mentioned the possibility of exclusion in a research note. If this is implemented, companies like Strategic can be reclassified as investment funds.
This can lead to large flows. Can you JP Morgan Research External flows will reach $2.8 billion. The number could reach $8.8 billion if other service providers follow suit.
Also, Max Keiser said Unconfirmed reports say that JP Morgan is holding…Short position in MSTR. He added that the center can become Critical if MSTR is commercial 50% off Friday’s closing price.
A crypto watcher added: “JPMorgan sells 25% of its position in MSTR moments before MSCI announces that Bitcoin companies will not enter major indexes. Nothing to see here. Just another institutional trade of perfect timing. The game is set, but Bitcoin does not care about its indexes.”
This speculation deepened the existing distrust towards JPMorgan in cryptocurrency circles. As a result, Bitcoin supporters and strategists are calling on users to join the boycott and recall His money from the bank.
“Screw JPMorgan, buy MSTR (and Bitcoin),” Keiser posted.
Sponsored
Sponsored
The connection between Jeffrey Epstein and JPMorgan
The conversation about the boycott was expanded to include a review of the allegations Relationships JP Morgan with Jeffrey Epstein. In late October, unsealed court documents showed that the bank filed a suspicious activity report (SAR) in 2019, shortly after Epstein’s death.
Deposits include transactions Linked to Epstein and many others Business partners, in addition to transfers made to banks in Russia. JPMorgan identified about 4,700 transactions totaling more than $1 billion.
“The SARs confirm what has been suspected all along: that the bank filed SARs regarding Epstein initially, specifically when Epstein left the bank in 2013 — and several times between 2013 and 2019, as needed. It doesn’t appear that anyone in government or law enforcement has acted on those reports for years,” said Patricia Wexlerwoman. she said.
However, the analysis of the member of the Senate Finance Committee Ron Wyden, published last week, stated that JPMorgan protected Epstein. Wyden’s review concluded That bank A few red flags were raised while Epstein was alive, pointing to a handful of transactions worth just over $4.3 million.
Only after Epstein died in federal custody did JPMorgan file full suspicious activity reports. This time, it involved nearly $1.3 billion in transactions over a decade. This value was about 300 times the value previously reported by the bank.
“It is clear that JPMorgan Chase should face a criminal investigation for the way it allowed Epstein’s horrific crimes. Bank executives ignored compliance officers who were concerned about Epstein’s dealings, seemed to retain evidence of possible money laundering, and distanced Epstein on how to hide suspiciously large withdrawals of money, and it is impossible to believe in a complete decision that led to this debacle did not. reached the top of the executive suite,” said Senator Wyden. He informed.
As the boycott movement grows and regulatory scrutiny deepens, JPMorgan is now facing increasing pressure on several fronts. The next few months, especially as MSCI’s 2026 revaluation approaches and Senate investigations continue, will determine whether the response fades or develops into a broader challenge to the bank’s reputation and influence.
