Although the price drop is likely ultimately coming from the growing number of voices that seem to indicate the Chinese ban is real, Jamie Dimon's comments certainly add more fuel to the fire.

Much of the crypto explosion this summer began shortly after Japan legalized bitcoin. This is not incidental. The wave of new comers into the space are likely not composed of hardcore libertarians or anarchists, but rather people for whom government sanction, and their ability to legitimize an industry such as this one, weigh a great deal. The move by China indicates that at root, governments will have a tendency to feel threatened by cryptocurrency -- a point of consideration long recognize by seasoned bitconers -- which, at the very least, represents a serious roadblock for adoption. Dimon's comments suggest this is not a problem unique to China, but may in fact be widespread (particularly from more powerful countries like China and the US).

In my opinion, Bitcoin alone was not enough of a threat to these countries' governments. If bitcoin reached its current marketcap alone, without the corresponding altcoin run up, we would not have seen this kind of hostile action from China. It was the rise of ICOs that scared them into action.

Why? Because nothing in crypto threatens banking the way ICOs do. The common refrain in Bitcoin is, "Be your own bank," and the usual meaning of this statement is that one can now secure and control their own digital money without the need for a bank. However, the true meaning of this is that crypto all but eliminates the need for banks. But this didn't actually become true until the rise of ICOs.

The most important function of banking, and the main source of their profits, comes from lending. Prior to the ICO, crypto existed as money, it existed as digital cash, but it didn't offer a way to reproduce or compete with banks' primary utility, lending. But with the ICO, suddenly individuals and company's had the ability to raise capital, issue their own form of credit, and completely bypass lenders. This power is so great, it threatened the very soul of banking.

Many ICO skeptics within the Bitcoin community have actually desired to see this kind of crackdown. They believed ICO were an aberration and distraction from the real value proposition of crypto, which was the base currency (i.e., bitcoin). But what they failed to understand is that intrinsic to the nature of such a base currency lies the power of credit creation, even if that power lay dormant for several years. Because this power cannot be separated from cryptocurrency's themselves, because one does not go without the other, governments will have no choice -- if they intend to defend the banking industry -- to attack cryptocurrency in its entirety.