More than 3 million people in Paraguay may have lost access to their bank accounts overnight, according to claims circulating online.
The story raises a practical question: what happens when people cannot get to their money through a bank, and could holding crypto independently give them more control?
DailyCoin reported the claims in a story about the situation in Paraguay, citing a video by Edo Farina, a researcher who covers banking and crypto. In the video, Farina claimed that Paraguay’s central bank had taken control of digital bank Ueno, leaving millions of customers unable to access their funds.
Farina sees the alleged disruption as a reason for people to think about where they keep their money and who controls access to it. He also pointed to blockchain networks as an alternative for transferring funds.
There is still no independent confirmation in the material cited that 3 million people were affected. It also does not make clear what restrictions were imposed on Ueno or how many customers actually lost access to their accounts.
Farina drew attention to the fact that the XRP Ledger kept working while, according to his account, Ueno customers were facing problems with their bank accounts. “
The XRP Ledger kept settling transactions every few seconds like any other day,” he said.
The point is fairly simple. People with money in a bank need the institution to provide them with access to their accounts and process transfers. Someone holding XRP in a personal wallet does not need a bank or exchange to approve a transaction on the XRP Ledger.
But there is a difference between a network staying online and its token gaining value. The XRP Ledger can keep processing transactions even when XRP is falling in price.
During the video, Farina put XRP at around $1.25, down approximately 5%. Bitcoin was trading below $77,000 and had also lost nearly 5%. These were the prices quoted in the recording, not current market figures.
He also pointed to $1.60 as an important resistance level for XRP. Farina said he would not consider a reversal confirmed until the token moved back above that level.
His broader view is that problems in the banking sector could push more people toward XRP as a settlement asset. That is a prediction, though. The fact that the ledger continues to process transactions does not show that banks or payment companies are using it more, or that demand for XRP is increasing.
Self-custody offers more control
Farina also advised viewers not to keep all their money in one place. He suggested using several banks, keeping some cash for emergencies and moving crypto to personal wallets instead of leaving it on exchanges.
The difference becomes clear when an exchange runs into trouble. If a platform suspends withdrawals, faces financial problems or becomes involved in legal proceedings, customers may find themselves unable to access their coins. With a personal wallet, they hold the private keys and can authorize transactions themselves.
Of course, keeping crypto in a personal wallet does not make it impossible to lose or seize. Native XRP does not have an issuer clawback mechanism, although certain issued tokens on the XRP Ledger support clawback functions. Even so, private keys can be stolen, and legal action may still result in assets being frozen or transferred.
Gold and property are not completely protected either. Someone may keep gold at home or own real estate without relying on a bank, but that does not prevent authorities from seizing those assets when the law allows it.
A personal wallet gives its owner direct control over XRP transfers. What it cannot do is stop the token from losing value or protect the owner from every kind of loss.
The claims about Ueno remain unverified. The episode highlights that access to money can depend on the institution holding it. Self-custody of crypto offers more direct control, but it does not eliminate the risk of price declines, key loss or legal seizure.
