That distinction doesn't make sense to me, for one simple reason. For Robinhood to promise a return of 3%, they must have been sweeping the money into some sort of investment vehicle. But the SIPC still said they weren't covered.
Also, money market funds, which are generally considered cash-equivalents, don't usually yield north 3% either afaik, and I can imagine putting customers deposits in riskier higher yielding investments could have also have ran foul of banking regulations.
Brex is using neither of these strategies here as far as I can tell, and they're providing a decent amount of transparency into how the funds are going to be handled, so it should be fairly easy for regulators to review. If regulators do take issue with their strategy, I suspect we'll probably hear about it in the news soon enough. In the mean time, it's still an early access product, so it's not like we can use it immediately anyways (I'll definitely be signing up though).
> SIPC protects stocks, bonds, Treasury securities, certificates of deposit, mutual funds, money market mutual funds and certain other investments as "securities."
People said at the time that Robin Hood was offering a money market fund by another name, using short term investments to produce that 3%. The head of the SIPC took exception to the idea that the accounts would be covered, as I quoted. I can't say where the confusion lies.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-13/robinh...