While promoting stablecoin legislation, the Trump family reduces their holdings in WLFI: The Trump family's involvement in crypto regulation and profit-taking creates a 'dual dilemma'.

The recent quiet reduction of holdings in World Liberty Financial (WLFI) by the Trump family has attracted market attention. According to Forbes, their holding company DT Marks DEFI LLC has seen its stake drop from 75% in December last year to about 40% currently. Although this adjustment has not been officially announced, it has been updated on the company’s website. Based on public documents, it is estimated that by June, Trump personally profited over $57 million from this joint venture.

This equity change comes at a sensitive time: on one hand, WLFI launched the USD1 stablecoin in March, coinciding with the U.S. Congress reviewing the 'GENIUS Act'; on the other hand, Trump is actively pushing for the passage of this stablecoin regulatory bill in the House of Representatives. Interestingly, after WLFI raised $550 million through a token sale, a company in Abu Dhabi announced plans to invest $2 billion in Binance using its USD1 stablecoin, giving the project international exposure.

Analysts point out that the Trump family’s choice to reduce their holdings privately may be intended to maintain control over the remaining crypto assets. However, as their business landscape becomes deeply intertwined with policy advancement, this political-business connection is sparking increasingly intense conflicts of interest, especially against the backdrop of congressional efforts led by Republicans to advance crypto regulation legislation. This reduction in holdings is not only a business decision but also reflects the complex ecology of U.S. digital asset regulation intertwined with political interests.

In summary, the Trump family's reduction of their holdings in WLFI also exposes the gray area between crypto business interests and policy-making. When a presidential family business both issues stablecoins and promotes regulatory legislation, the public has reason to question whether this is market behavior or an exploitation of political influence for commercial gain. Therefore, relevant regulatory bodies must examine this potential conflict of being both 'the referee and the player'.

Do you think Trump’s simultaneous push for regulation and reduction of holdings is a passive response to public opinion pressure, or an active adjustment based on business judgment? What does this action reflect about his cautious assessment of the cryptocurrency industry’s prospects, or does it imply deeper strategic considerations?