3 stories credited to PYMNTS.com
Latest story Apr 16, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026
A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.
Scores for PYMNTS.com
Writing quality not enough rated stories yet: 2 of 10. How it is measured
Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.
Stories ChamberLight collected, by month
Stories credited to PYMNTS.com, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.
- Stories from PYMNTS.com
- Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
| Month | Stories | All outlets |
|---|---|---|
| March 2026 | 1 | 897 |
| April 2026 | 2 | 4,538 |
| May 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| June 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| July 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| August 2026 | 0 | 1 (collection gap) |
| September 2026 | 0 | 1,320 |
Top topics
Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.
- Economy3
100% of 3 stories · 26% across all outlets
- Ethics/Corruption3
100% of 3 stories · 58% across all outlets
- Technology/Privacy3
100% of 3 stories · 10% across all outlets
The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.
Who they cover
Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 4 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 4 story–official pairs, from 3 stories.
- Republican50% · 2 pairs
- Democrat25% · 1 pair
- Party not recorded25% · 1 pair
Most covered
Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 3 stories.
Article tone
ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not PYMNTS.com’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 3 stories.
- Good Look
- 1 (33%)
- Mixed
- 2 (67%)
- Informational
- 0 (0%)
- Bad Look
- 0 (0%)
Challenges to these scores
No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.
Articles served from pymnts.com
4
Bankers, Advocates Tell Lawmakers Alternate Data Expands Credit Access
The availability of credit in the United States rests on a vast reporting system that translates consumer behavior into lending decisions, yet lawmakers heard Thursday (April 16) that weaknesses in how data is collected, disputed and applied are constraining access for many households. At a House Financial Services subcommittee hearing titled “Promoting Access to Credit for Everyday Americans,” expert witnesses described a system that is both foundational and under strain. Across testimony, a common theme emerged: when data flows cleanly, lenders can extend credit more broadly and price it with greater precision, but when that information is distorted or incomplete, access narrows and costs rise. Limitations of Current Practices Despite its scale and reach, witnesses pointed to structural weaknesses that complicate how credit data is used. Much of the discussion focused on the dispute process, which is intended to correct errors but is increasingly burdened by volume and misuse. Celia Winslow, president and CEO of the American Financial Services Association, told lawmakers during testimony that creditors now face “hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of counterfeit disputes per month,” many of which are duplicative and lack documentation. These filings, she said, can overwhelm systems designed to resolve legitimate consumer complaints, raising compliance costs and delaying resolution for valid disputes. Banks echoed those concerns, describing the operational strain created by dispute investigations. Veneshia Ferdinand, of the American Bankers Association, noted that even smaller institutions must devote significant resources to investigating disputes within strict timelines, often relying on manual processes that divert attention from other compliance functions. Consumer advocates pointed to other gaps inherent in the credit arena. Chi Chi Wu, of the National Consumer Law Center, argued that the dispute system often fails consumers, describing it as “an automated travesty” in which investigations can be perfunctory and heavily reliant on furnishers’ responses. In that view, the issue is not excessive complaints but persistent inaccuracies that remain unresolved. Alternative Data Offers Promise, Merits Caution The hearing also explored whether expanding the types of data used in underwriting could improve access, particularly for consumers with limited credit histories. Though there was recognition of is benefits, notes of caution peppered the hearing. Rebecca Kuehn, partner at Hudson Cook, illustrated utility payments, telecommunications records and cash-flow data as potential supplements to traditional credit files. When used responsibly, she said, those inputs could help more consumers gain entry into mainstream lending. Dan Smith, CEO of the Consumer Data Industry Association, emphasized that broader participation by data furnishers improves the system’s usefulness, allowing lenders to build a more comprehensive view of borrower behavior. In his own remarks during the hearing, Rep. Bill Foster, D-Ill., said that “if used correctly,” these alternative datasets, combined with insight into cash flow, “can improve access to credit for millions of credit invisible Americans who struggle to access traditional lending options.” But he cautioned that there are risks including those data sources, in terms of possible discriminatory practices. Later during the hearing, Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-NY, said that “I don’t believe that alternative data is a cure-all for credit inequality.” Consumer advocates warned that expanded reporting carries risks if not paired with strong safeguards. Wu argued that proposals to include rent and utility data could override state privacy protections and expose financially stressed households to additional negative marks, particularly during periods of high costs or income volatility. “The devil is in the details,” Wu said. Without dependable credit histories, Winslow said, lending would tilt toward applicants with higher incomes or greater collateral, reducing opportunities for those seeking to build or rebuild credit. Ferdinand reinforced that view from a banking perspective, noting that incomplete or suppressed information forces lenders to tighten standards, which can exclude otherwise creditworthy consumers. The implication is that both missing data and erroneous data can distort risk calculations in ways that reduce access. Fraud and System Integrity Fraud emerged as a central concern, particularly in the context of identity theft and manipulation of the dispute process. Winslow warned that false identity theft claims and coordinated dispute campaigns can “undermine” the credit reporting system, making it harder for lenders to assess true risk and leading to tighter credit conditions for legitimate borrowers. Wu cited cases where inaccurate data led to denied housing, lost employment opportunities and higher borrowing costs, underscoring the need for effective remediation mechanisms. Witnesses offered sharply different prescriptions for reform, reflecting the broader tension between improving access and ensuring accountability. Kuehn supported aligning liability standards under the Fair Credit Reporting Act with other consumer laws to encourage faster dispute resolution and reduce litigation incentives that do not directly benefit consumers. Wu opposed proposals that would limit damages or restrict complaints, contending that such changes would reduce incentives to correct errors and weaken consumer protections. The post Bankers, Advocates Tell Lawmakers Alternate Data Expands Credit Access appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
Bankers, Advocates Tell Lawmakers Alternate Data Expands Credit Access
The availability of credit in the United States rests on a vast reporting system that translates consumer behavior into lending decisions, yet lawmakers heard Thursday (April 16) that weaknesses in how data is collected, disputed and applied are constraining access for many households. At a House Financial Services subcommittee hearing titled “Promoting Access to Credit for Everyday Americans,” expert witnesses described a system that is both foundational and under strain. Across testimony, a common theme emerged: when data flows cleanly, lenders can extend credit more broadly and price it with greater precision, but when that information is distorted or incomplete, access narrows and costs rise. Limitations of Current Practices Despite its scale and reach, witnesses pointed to structural weaknesses that complicate how credit data is used. Much of the discussion focused on the dispute process, which is intended to correct errors but is increasingly burdened by volume and misuse. Celia Winslow, president and CEO of the American Financial Services Association, told lawmakers during testimony that creditors now face “hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of counterfeit disputes per month,” many of which are duplicative and lack documentation. These filings, she said, can overwhelm systems designed to resolve legitimate consumer complaints, raising compliance costs and delaying resolution for valid disputes. Banks echoed those concerns, describing the operational strain created by dispute investigations. Veneshia Ferdinand, of the American Bankers Association, noted that even smaller institutions must devote significant resources to investigating disputes within strict timelines, often relying on manual processes that divert attention from other compliance functions. Consumer advocates pointed to other gaps inherent in the credit arena. Chi Chi Wu, of the National Consumer Law Center, argued that the dispute system often fails consumers, describing it as “an automated travesty” in which investigations can be perfunctory and heavily reliant on furnishers’ responses. In that view, the issue is not excessive complaints but persistent inaccuracies that remain unresolved. Alternative Data Offers Promise, Merits Caution The hearing also explored whether expanding the types of data used in underwriting could improve access, particularly for consumers with limited credit histories. Though there was recognition of is benefits, notes of caution peppered the hearing. Rebecca Kuehn, partner at Hudson Cook, illustrated utility payments, telecommunications records and cash-flow data as potential supplements to traditional credit files. When used responsibly, she said, those inputs could help more consumers gain entry into mainstream lending. Dan Smith, CEO of the Consumer Data Industry Association, emphasized that broader participation by data furnishers improves the system’s usefulness, allowing lenders to build a more comprehensive view of borrower behavior. In his own remarks during the hearing, Rep. Bill Foster, D-Ill., said that “if used correctly,” these alternative datasets, combined with insight into cash flow, “can improve access to credit for millions of credit invisible Americans who struggle to access traditional lending options.” But he cautioned that there are risks including those data sources, in terms of possible discriminatory practices. Later during the hearing, Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-NY, said that “I don’t believe that alternative data is a cure-all for credit inequality.” Consumer advocates warned that expanded reporting carries risks if not paired with strong safeguards. Wu argued that proposals to include rent and utility data could override state privacy protections and expose financially stressed households to additional negative marks, particularly during periods of high costs or income volatility. “The devil is in the details,” Wu said. Without dependable credit histories, Winslow said, lending would tilt toward applicants with higher incomes or greater collateral, reducing opportunities for those seeking to build or rebuild credit. Ferdinand reinforced that view from a banking perspective, noting that incomplete or suppressed information forces lenders to tighten standards, which can exclude otherwise creditworthy consumers. The implication is that both missing data and erroneous data can distort risk calculations in ways that reduce access. Fraud and System Integrity Fraud emerged as a central concern, particularly in the context of identity theft and manipulation of the dispute process. Winslow warned that false identity theft claims and coordinated dispute campaigns can “undermine” the credit reporting system, making it harder for lenders to assess true risk and leading to tighter credit conditions for legitimate borrowers. Wu cited cases where inaccurate data led to denied housing, lost employment opportunities and higher borrowing costs, underscoring the need for effective remediation mechanisms. Witnesses offered sharply different prescriptions for reform, reflecting the broader tension between improving access and ensuring accountability. Kuehn supported aligning liability standards under the Fair Credit Reporting Act with other consumer laws to encourage faster dispute resolution and reduce litigation incentives that do not directly benefit consumers. Wu opposed proposals that would limit damages or restrict complaints, contending that such changes would reduce incentives to correct errors and weaken consumer protections. The post Bankers, Advocates Tell Lawmakers Alternate Data Expands Credit Access appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
SEC Sends ‘Regulation Crypto’ Proposal to White House
The Securities and Exchange Commission is reportedly ready to propose a “regulation crypto.” That’s according to a report Monday (April 6) from Coindesk, which says the SEC is working on its approach to regulating the cryptocurrency sector and delineating between transactions that could be securities and ones that aren’t. Giving a talk in Nashville, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the commission’s new reg crypto has been sent to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, meaning it’s on the cusp of being published, the report said. This rulemaking is focused on the Securities Act of 1933 and is concerned with fundraising and startup exemptions, the report added. Speaking to CoinDesk, Atkins said the SEC also plans to soon release its long-awaited innovation exemption. “We’d love to have reactions and everything else,” he said. “It’s not a rule as such but obviously we need to know how it’s functioning and if people have problems with it or not.” Atkins added that the exemption is designed in a way that it would be fair to both startups and incumbents, saying the SEC wants “people really to experiment within [that] framework.” Throughout his talk, Atkins noted the role of Congress, saying the SEC’s rulemaking process would proceed regardless of what lawmakers might do. “I think we have enough of a runway now, even notwithstanding what may happen in the midterms—although I really still want a friendly Congress obviously—they can throw tacks on the road in front of our tires but they’re not going to really slow us down.” Atkins’ comments came the same day that U.S. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) said that the cryptocurrency-focused CLARITY Act could be advanced by the Senate Banking Committee and go before the full Senate before the end of the month. In a speech at the Vanderbilt University Digital Assets and Emerging Tech Policy Summit, the Tennessee Republican said the bill’s proponents could bring it before the committee during the work period that starts April 13 before passing it along to the full Senate. “There’re several issues still outstanding, I think none of them are insurmountable, and we will get to a point I believe in April that we’ll have it out of the banking committee,” Hagerty said, according to a report from Cointelegraph. “There’s still a lot more work to do.” Work on the bill stalled earlier this year amid a disagreement between the banking and crypto sectors about whether crypto exchanges should be allowed pay yield to stablecoin holders through rewards programs. The post SEC Sends ‘Regulation Crypto’ Proposal to White House appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
How the Financial Sector Views Kraken’s ‘We’re the Bankers Now’ Claim
The financial industry in the United States rests in part on an architecture of trust and institutional legitimacy. Access to the Federal Reserve’s infrastructure has long been viewed as the ultimate sign of that legitimacy and reliability. It is a badge that startup payment and financial sectors like cryptocurrency have long sought for validation and first-class citizenship within the U.S. financial architecture. The crypto world got that badge Wednesday (March 4) when Kraken Financial, the banking arm of the Kraken crypto exchange, was approved for Federal Reserve payment system access. “Sorry about your monopoly,” Jesse Powell, co-founder and chairman of Kraken, posted on social platform X. “…We’re the bankers now.” Sorry about your monopoly. Thank you @SenLummis, @GovernorGordon, the great state of Wyoming and @CaitlinLong_. Well done, @arjunsethi and the @krakenfx team. The end is the beginning is the end. We’re the bankers now. Saddle up. ???? https://t.co/CZb12rkybZ — Jesse Powell (@jespow) March 4, 2026 The decision by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City grants Kraken a limited master account, enabling direct connection to core infrastructure such as Fedwire for a one-year pilot period as a Tier 3 designated institution. By Monday (March 9), Kraken parent company Payward had already launched a tokenization-focused partnership with Nasdaq. For crypto companies, Kraken’s approval represents the culmination of a multiyear campaign to gain direct access to the core plumbing of U.S. finance. However, it has triggered different reactions across the policy and traditional financial landscapes. Regulators are treating Kraken’s access less as a policy shift and more as a test case for a new category of “skinny” Fed accounts for FinTech and crypto institutions, while the greatest pushback has come from the banking sector and its lobbying organizations. Read also: Crypto Meets the Fed’s Core Payments System The Competitive Threat to Banks The financial services sector is becoming increasingly populated with new players that perform functions that look similar to traditional banking activities. They move money, hold customer balances, facilitate transactions and provide financial services to millions of users. Yet many operate under regulatory frameworks designed for technology companies rather than banks. Direct access to the Fed’s payment rails potentially allows an institution like Kraken to clear transactions without relying on a commercial banking partner. In practical terms, that could mean faster settlements and fewer operational bottlenecks. If Kraken’s arrangement succeeds, similar firms, and especially those with specialized bank charters, may pursue their own Fed access and ultimately accelerate a disintermediation of banking. That is the fear of industry groups like the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) and Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA). “Uninsured depository institutions, such as [special purpose depository institutions (SPDIs)], present substantially greater risks to the payment system than insured depository institutions, because these institutions are subject to a far less rigorous regulatory and supervisory framework,” BPI co-Head of Regulatory Affairs Paige Pidano Paridon said in a Wednesday statement. ICBA President and CEO Rebeca Romero said in a Thursday (March 5) statement: “There are significant risks to expanding direct Fed account access to institutions that operate outside the traditional banking regulatory framework.” At the center of these concerns is the question of regulatory asymmetry. Traditional banks operate under extensive supervisory regimes that include capital requirements, liquidity rules, deposit insurance obligations and ongoing regulatory examinations. In their view, crypto banks could gain many of the operational advantages of traditional banks via Fed access, all without facing equal regulatory burdens. “We see this as the first of many Federal Reserve approvals for crypto entities to obtain master accounts,” Jaret Seiberg, managing director at TD Cowen’s Washington Research Group, said in a Thursday note, The Block reported. See also: Bank Charters Are Reshaping Who Can Compete for Consumer Deposits A Regulatory Breakthrough for Crypto Over the past decade, the boundaries between traditional finance, FinTech and crypto markets have steadily blurred. Payments networks, settlement systems and custody models are evolving as digital assets reshape expectations around speed, transparency and accessibility. The question facing policymakers is whether the architecture of the payments system should evolve to reflect those changes. Such a shift would represent one of the most significant changes to the U.S. payments system in decades. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, one of Washington’s prominent crypto advocates, described the decision Wednesday on X as a “watershed moment” for digital assets. A watershed moment. Though approval took nearly 6 years, the Fed’s actions validate Wyoming’s thoughtful regulatory framework. I look forward to the resolution of pending applications. Congratulations to @krakenfx, Kansas City Fed, & Board of Governors for this monumental step. https://t.co/E36GLDIX6i — Senator Cynthia Lummis (@SenLummis) March 4, 2026 Other officials said they see it as a controlled regulatory pilot rather than a blanket endorsement of crypto banking. The limited-purpose structure excludes privileges like earning interest on reserves. Still, allowing a crypto-linked entity into the Fed’s system raises new questions about risk management, compliance oversight and systemic exposure. Regulators must consider how digital asset firms manage liquidity, cybersecurity, operational resilience and anti-money laundering controls. Policymakers may be testing whether a crypto-native firm can operate safely within the constraints of the regulated payments ecosystem. “The [Kraken] has been unleashed,” Anthony Scaramucci, crypto investor, posted Wednesday on X. Kraken is quietly building – through shrewd acquisitions, organic build/growth and now Fed payments approval – a monster business. Already your favorite crypto trader’s favorite crypto exchange, now evolving into something much bigger/broader. The ? has been released. @krakenfx… https://t.co/EAicqOtHfI — Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) March 4, 2026 For all PYMNTS digital transformation coverage, subscribe to the daily Digital Transformation Newsletter. The post How the Financial Sector Views Kraken’s ‘We’re the Bankers Now’ Claim appeared first on PYMNTS.com.