Crypto Pulse Media

World Liberty Financial Under Ethics Fire: Can WLFI Crypto Survive Corruption Allegations
The conflict-of-interest mechanism is direct and unambiguous. Donald Trump simultaneously controls crypto policy from the White House and holds a dominant financial stake in a DeFi project whose commercial value depends on the regulatory environment he shapes. That is not a perception problem – it is a structural one.
House Democrats published a staff report on November 24 describing WLFI as the centerpiece of what it calls presidential self-dealing on an unprecedented scale, with Representative Jamie Raskin stating that Trump has “turned the Oval Office into the world’s most corrupt crypto startup operation.”
Under the project’s Gold Paper, DT Marks DEFI LLC – the Trump family’s designated revenue vehicle – receives 75% of net revenues generated by the DeFi platform, while the legal wrapper around that entity specifically protects the Trump family from operational liability. The distinction matters because it creates a one-way financial relationship: profit flows to the Trumps, risk does not.
The mechanics of World Liberty Financial’s compensation structure are what drive the ethics concerns, not the politics surrounding them.
The Trump family has extracted at least $890 million in revenues from WLFI while holding tokens currently valued at approximately $3.8 billion – with no documented personal capital investment at inception. That is not a founder’s equity stake built through risk-taking. It is a revenue claim backed by name recognition and political positioning.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and other watchdog organizations have flagged this arrangement as without precedent in the relationship between a sitting president and an active commercial enterprise.
The UAE-based Aqua 1 Foundation, linked by analysts to entities with ties to China’s state-owned CNPC, wired $100 million in stablecoins to the project in summer 2025 – with Reuters reporting that the origins and expectations attached to that transfer remain opaque. A 60 Minutes report on November 17, 2025 further connected a $2 billion Binance-MGX deal settled in WLFI’s USD1 stablecoin to Binance founder Changpeng Zhao’s Trump pardon.
The foreign investment dimension compounds the structural problem significantly. Justin Sun, charged by the SEC for fraud and market manipulation, invested $75 million in WLFI tokens. His multibillion-dollar SEC case was subsequently dropped.
The absence of institutional whales in WLFI’s order books – with retail participants dominating token purchases – suggests sophisticated capital has reached a similar conclusion
Crypto insiders have described WLFI as a mechanism for global influence-buying dressed as a DeFi project. Some institutional players, approached with what sources describe as “mutual investment” pitches, declined after concluding the arrangement crossed ethical lines.
The GENIUS Act, which Trump endorsed to establish a stablecoin regulatory framework, creates legitimacy infrastructure for USD1 – WLFI’s own stablecoin – at exactly the moment the project needed it.
Trump’s administration has moved aggressively on crypto-friendly policy reform since January 2025, and each legislative win that benefits the broader industry also directly benefits World Liberty Financial.
The SEC’s dramatically softened enforcement posture under the Trump administration is not a coincidence critics are willing to overlook, particularly given the Sun case. A president whose family holds $3.8 billion in tokens tied to a DeFi project has quantifiable financial incentives to reduce regulatory friction on DeFi.
The FIT21 regulatory framework, which restructures SEC and CFTC jurisdiction over crypto assets, would materially ease the compliance burden on DeFi platforms like WLFI.
The White House maintains that Trump’s assets are held in a trust managed by his children and that no conflicts exist. That framing is deliberate: a trust managed by the president’s children, in a project co-founded by those same children, is not a meaningful separation under any conventional ethics standard.
The evolving legal frameworks for DeFi entities make WLFI’s structural opacity harder to dismiss as a technicality. WLFI’s January 2026 OCC application for a national trust bank charter – listing Zach Witkoff as proposed president – would, if approved, extend the project’s reach into federally regulated banking infrastructure. The political and financial interests at stake are not abstract. They are denominated in billions and written into legislation.
#tobeempire
#ADPJobsSurge
#BitmineIncreasesETHStake
#IDKwhatIamdoing
#ZAIBOTIO

Ripple XRP moved closer to full national trust bank status on April 1 as the OCC’s final rule – detailed in Bulletin 2026-4 – took effect, formalizing a regulatory framework that directly enables Ripple’s conditionally approved national trust bank charter to progress toward operational status.
The rule revises chartering regulation to allow national trust banks to conduct non-fiduciary activities alongside fiduciary ones, expanding the scope of what Ripple National Trust Bank can legally offer once pre-opening conditions are satisfied.
XRP traded at $1.3364 on April 1, with technical indicators shifting bullish for the first time in two weeks as the regulatory milestone landed.
The OCC issued this rule after conditionally approving charters for Ripple National Trust Bank, First National Digital Currency Bank, BitGo, Fidelity, and Paxos – a cluster of approvals that signals the agency’s deliberate move to integrate crypto-native and crypto-adjacent institutions into the federally regulated banking system.
That this rule arrives under a Trump-era OCC that has explicitly positioned itself as pro-crypto makes the timing more than procedural: it is structural.
The core mechanism of OCC Bulletin 2026-4 is a terminological revision that carries operational weight: the agency replaced the phrase “fiduciary activities” with “operations of a trust company and activities related thereto” in its chartering regulation.
That distinction matters. Under the prior framework, national trust bank charters were more narrowly scoped around fiduciary functions – managing assets on behalf of clients in a representative capacity. The revised language explicitly opens the door to non-fiduciary activities, which includes custody and safekeeping services where the institution holds assets but does not exercis
For digital asset firms, that difference is the entire product. Custody – holding client crypto assets under federal oversight without necessarily exercising fiduciary discretion – is the foundational service that institutional clients require before allocating capital through a regulated entity.
The OCC has been explicit that this rule neither expands nor contracts its chartering authority; it clarifies what charter-holders can operationally do. That framing matters because it neutralizes the argument that the OCC is overstepping – the agency is not creating new powers, it is specifying existing ones with enough precision for digital asset custody to fit cleanly within them.
The rule’s April 1 effective date follows a sequence: conditional approvals for Ripple, BitGo, Fidelity, and Paxos came first, and the final rule now establishes the operational framework those approved entities will operate under once their pre-opening conditions are cleared. Ripple’s path to full charter runs through this framework directly.
The speed of Ripple’s regulatory repositioning over the past 18 months is the context that makes April 1 significant: a company that spent years fighting the SEC over whether XRP was an unregistered security received a digital commodity classification on March 17, 2026, and now holds a conditional OCC national trust bank charter – a trajectory that would have been unthinkable in 2023, and that now positions Ripple as one of the most institutionally credible crypto-native entities in the U.S. banking framework.
Ripple National Trust Bank’s conditional approval enables the company to operate as a federally regulated fiduciary, custody client assets under federal oversight, and integrate RLUSD – its stablecoin – and XRP-denominated products within U.S. banking infrastructure.
The remaining conditions – robust risk controls, compliance systems, AML and KYC procedures, and capital adequacy thresholds – must be satisfied before full operations begin. Commentator Xaif noted the rule’s potential to enable federal-level digital asset custody services for Ripple once those restrictions lift, framing it as infrastructure rather than just licensing.
#OilRisesAbove$116
#AsiaStocksPlunge
#DriftProtocolExploited
#USNFPExceededExpectations
#jasmyrocket

Total stablecoin supply reached a record $315 billion in Q1 2026, rising roughly $8 billion quarter-over-quarter even as the broader crypto market contracted.
The headline figure masks a sharper story underneath: USDC is taking ground from USDT, and the gap is closing faster than most market participants expected.
The headline figure masks a sharper story underneath: USDC is taking ground from USDT, and the gap is closing faster than most market participants expecte.
USDC supply surged 220% since late 2023 to approximately $78 billion, driven by institutional B2B settlement, payroll infrastructure, and programmatic payment rails built by Visa and Stripe.
USDT, still the dominant issuer by raw supply, saw its share slip – a divergence CEX.IO flagged as one of the quarter’s defining market dynamics.
Stablecoins also captured 75% of total crypto trading volume in Q1 – the highest share on record – while total transaction volume topped $28 trillion, a figure that now regularly exceeds those of major payment networks like Visa and Mastercard combined. Growth rate slowing is real; demand evaporating is not.
The USDC surge is not organic retail adoption. CEX.IO’s data points to institutional programmatic money – B2B corridors, payroll settlement, treasury management, as the primary driver.
USDC’s transaction velocity hit 90x with an average transfer size of $557, a profile consistent with frequent, smaller institutional transactions rather than whale moves.
Circle’s positioning ahead of potential U.S. stablecoin legislation has been deliberate. With the Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act still under debate and regulatory frameworks for digital assets evolving in Washington, regulated issuers like Circle have a structural advantage in onboarding compliance-sensitive institutional capital. That distinction matters – it’s not market share gained on yield or liquidity depth alone.
Analysts reviewing the quarter described the shift bluntly: “This isn’t retail adoption; it’s institutional programmatic money.” The number that confirms it is USDC’s average transfer size of $557 – dwarfed in absolute terms by USDT’s larger individual trades, but indicative of high-frequency, automated institutional flows that mirror broader tokenization and institutional adoption trends reshaping digital asset infrastructure.
If U.S. stablecoin legislation passes with provisions favoring regulated, audited issuers, USDC’s gain becomes structural. If it stalls, the competitive edge narrows and USDT’s entrenched liquidity depth reasserts dominance.
USDT remains the largest stablecoin by supply and the dominant liquidity instrument across emerging market corridors and Tron-based DeFi.
Its concentration on Tron, where low fees drive retail and cross-border transfer volume, gives it a user base that USDC’s Ethereum-centric institutional footprint doesn’t directly compete with. Yet.
The Q1 slip in USDT’s market share comes alongside the steepest recorded drop in retail-sized transfers – down 16% – which cuts at one of USDT’s core use cases.
Simultaneously, bots now account for approximately 76% of all stablecoin transaction volume, meaning the organic retail demand that historically anchored USDT’s dominance in high-frequency small-value transfers is contracting.
CEX.IO flagged this as evidence of “a more sophisticated, but potentially less organic, market structure.”
Tether’s response has been limited to quarterly reserve attestations and geographic expansion rather than product-level innovation. That’s a defensible posture while it holds network effects.
It becomes a liability if institutional capital flows continue rotating into regulated instruments and USDC’s programmatic integrations deepen across Western payment infrastructure.
Watch Circle’s May attestation and Tether’s Q2 report for whether the supply divergence widens. If USDC crosses $90 billion while USDT stagnates, this quarter’s share shift stops looking like a blip and starts looking like a trend.
The $315 billion total supply figure tells you stablecoins are the market’s load-bearing layer. The USDC/USDT split tells you who’s building on top of it.
#xmucan
#Shibalnu
#FactCheck
#hottrendingtopics
#MegadropLista

US spot Bitcoin ETFs pulled in $1.32 billion in March 2026, ending four consecutive months of net outflows and posting their first monthly gain of the year. The reversal signals institutional demand returning to Bitcoin specifically, not to crypto broadly.
That distinction matters. While BTC funds snapped their negative streak, Ethereum ETFs closed March with $46 million in outflows, extending their own losing run to five straight months. XRP funds also ended in negative territory, sharpening a capital rotation thesis that increasingly favors Bitcoin dominance over altcoin exposure.
The prior four months had been brutal. Outflows totaled approximately $6.3 billion between November 2025 and February 2026, $3.5 billion in November alone following Bitcoin’s crash from its $126,000 all-time high on October 10.
December added $1.1 billion in redemptions, January another $1.6 billion, with February contributing $206 million more before sentiment began stabilizing.
Macro conditions drove the pressure. Sticky inflation, a cautious Federal Reserve, and geopolitical risk from the U.S.-Iran conflict kept institutional risk appetite compressed. Bitcoin retraced over 50% from its October peak, closing Q1 2026 at $66,619, down 23.8% from January 1.
ETF investors were sitting on an average cost basis near $84,000 against a market price roughly $18,000 below that.
Despite the paper losses, whale accumulation offered a countervailing signal.
On-chain data showed wallets categorized as whales accumulated 30,000 BTC – approximately $2.1 billion – through March, absorbing selling pressure and stabilizing price near $65,000 during peak Iran-related volatility.
BlackRock’s IBIT added $98.42 million on March 31 alone, and led a $458 million single-day surge earlier in the month. US spot Bitcoin ETFs added $117.63M as BTC reclaimed $68K at one point during that window, reinforcing the case that institutional demand was quietly rebuilding beneath the noise.
That $1.32 billion inflow number sounds strong, but it does not tell the full story, because it still failed to offset the $1.81 billion that left earlier in the quarter, leaving Bitcoin ETFs with a net outflow overall, so calling this a clean recovery is a stretch.
What we are really seeing is uneven demand, bursts of buying followed by sharp redemptions, which explains why price still feels stuck instead of trending.
If inflows actually stabilize and turn consistent, especially with macro tension easing, that is when Bitcoin has room to push through $74K and aim higher, helped by April usually being a solid month.
Right now though it still looks like a range, with price caught between roughly $67K and $74K while institutions absorb supply but do not push aggressively, and retail participation remains weak in the background.
The risk is that those recent inflows were just short term positioning, because we already saw a sharp weekly outflow at the end of March, and if that kind of selling returns and price loses the lower range, things can open up quickly to the downside.
Nate Geraci, co-founder of the ETF Institute, previously argued that cumulative outflows since the October crash are statistically insignificant relative to the $56 billion in total net inflows the category has attracted since its January 2024 launch. The diamond hands thesis holds – but only if inflows resume with conviction rather than in isolated bursts.
#Robertkiyosaki
#YiHeBinance
#UnicornChannel
#IDKwhatIamdoing
#PEPEATH

Li Xiong, 41 gadi, bijušais Huione grupas priekšsēdētājs un galvenais loceklis, ko Ķīnas varas iestādes sauc par Chen Zhi noziedzīgo grupējumu, tika izsēdināts no China Southern Airlines lidojuma Pekinā 1. aprīlī – noskūtais, rokudzelžos, ierakstīts Ķīnas Sabiedrības drošības ministrijas darbinieku pavadībā.
Patiesā stāsta būtība ir tā, ko apstiprina viņa ekstradicija: Pekina sistemātiski izjauc vadošo slāni tam, ko ASV Valsts kases identificējusi kā pasaulē lielāko nelikumīgo kriptovalūtu tirgu, un Kambodža sadarbojas.

Beijing is studying Operation Epic Fury closely, watching US precision strike capabilities, munitions depletion rates, and the administration's decision-making process in real time.
Retired Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan says Trump's impulsiveness is genuinely unsettling for Chinese war planners, but Washington's one-war capacity and stripped-down NSC process may offset that deterrent effect.
With US missile interceptor stocks being drained in the Middle East, some analysts warn a strategic window for Beijing could be opening, particularly if Washington remains distracted through the midterm election cycle.
Five weeks into the US-Israel air campaign against Iran, the world is tallying the economic wreckage: Brent crude at $114 a barrel, the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed to commercial traffic, and the International Energy Agency calling it the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. Beijing is watching all of it. And not just the energy markets.
Operation Epic Fury, launched Feb. 28, has given China’s military planners an unprecedented real-time window into how the United States wages high-end warfare, according to Mick Ryan, a retired Australian major general and senior fellow at the Lowy Institute in Sydney. “The US military is still a very powerful organization,” Ryan told RFE/RL this week. “It can deploy overwhelming force and conduct sustained precision operations, at least from the air and from the sea.”
That part is not reassuring to Beijing. But the fuller picture is more complicated, and potentially more useful to Chinese planners
Ryan says the Trump administration has demonstrated a critical limitation alongside its firepower: it can manage one major war at a time, and it has stripped out much of the institutional decision-making architecture that would normally govern a conflict of this scale. “These decisions look to be being made much more on impulse,” Ryan said, pointing to what he described as shifting and inconsistent strategic objectives since the campaign began.
For Xi Jinping and the People’s Liberation Army, that combination — overwhelming capability paired with constrained strategic bandwidth — is worth studying carefully. If Beijing has a clearer strategy than Washington does, Ryan argues, that gap matters as much as any hardware comparison. “Strategy is even more important than battlefield performance,” he said. “Having the right strategic assumptions and the right strategic decision mechanisms for executing that strategy is something the Chinese might think that they’re better at than the United States at the moment.”
The strategic implications extend well beyond tactics. China receives roughly a third of its crude oil through the Strait of Hormuz. The closure has forced Beijing to scramble for Russian and alternative supplies even as it publicly opposes the war and calls for de-escalation. Iran, notably, granted Chinese-flagged vessels passage through the strait on March 26, a gesture that underscored the careful line Beijing is walking: rhetorical opposition to Washington, functional diplomacy with Tehran, and eyes fixed on the Taiwan question.
China’s military budget grew 7% in 2026 to roughly $277 billion, and its official military media outlet has published formal analyses of the conflict’s lessons, covering everything from the role of AI in US targeting to the effectiveness of leadership decapitation strikes. The PLA had drones mounted on armored vehicles at last year’s military parade — Ryan says those were Ukraine lessons absorbed and adapted, and the Iran war is only adding to the pile.
One of the more alarming data points for Western defense planners is the pace of US missile interceptor depletion. American and allied forces have expended an estimated 2,000 interceptors in the campaign so far, and production rates are nowhere near sufficient to replenish them quickly. Some analysts have begun describing that gap explicitly as a strategic window. “That may be the best time for Beijing to strike,” wrote defense analyst David Axe, noting that the US “simply won’t have enough interceptors” if another front opens.
Ryan is more cautious about the immediacy of that threat. Trump’s unpredictability, while analytically frustrating for Beijing, is also a genuine deterrent. Unlike any of his predecessors, Trump cannot be reliably war-gamed. “The Chinese can’t really war game what his reaction to any kind of event might be because he just really is all over the place,” Ryan said. That uncertainty, he argues, probably induces caution in Xi.
Still, Ryan sees two scenarios gaining traction in Chinese strategic planning. The first: a grand bargain between Trump and Xi in which Washington signals it would not defend Taiwan militarily. The second: a swift, decapitating military strike designed to outpace any US response. Neither requires Beijing to be reckless. Both require Beijing to see an opening.
The congressional midterm cycle, running through October and November, could provide one. A Trump administration managing a protracted Middle East campaign, depleted munitions stocks, and an increasingly hostile domestic political environment is a different adversary than one operating at full capacity and full attention.
Taiwan is not sitting still. Taipei’s defense ministry submitted a report to lawmakers in March outlining the “T-Dome” layered air-defense architecture it is rushing to complete, drawing explicit lessons from the Iran and Ukraine wars on the need for low-cost interceptors capable of handling drone swarms. The debate over a nearly $40 billion special defense budget is ongoing in the legislature, with opposition lawmakers raising questions over cost and feasibility.
As for how Xi is reading the broader picture, Ryan’s read is that the Chinese leader sees his long-standing narrative confirmed: the West in decline, US alliance systems fraying, and Washington’s credibility with allies eroding. “Whether that’s right or not remains to be seen,” Ryan cautioned. “But I think from his perspective, that’s probably what he sees.”
The war in Iran has not settled anything about Taiwan. But it has handed both sides new information, and neither is ignoring it.
#gaming
#Yazdan
#UNIUSDT
#ONDO‬⁩
#solana

Markets appear stable on the surface, but underlying stress is building across interconnected commodity chains—oil, gas, petrochemicals, fertilizers, helium, and logistics—raising the risk of a systemic breakdown.
The key shift is from pricing risk to deliverability and access risk, with supply chains losing flexibility and physical shortages beginning to emerge beneath still-functioning paper markets.
The next two weeks are critical: if disruptions persist, cascading failures could trigger inflation, supply shortages, and a broader global economic shock.
The familiar assumption used by markets remains in place, at least according to financial analysts: what has been priced is what matters. Oil is still elevated but not yet showing a disorderly pattern. LNG is tightening but still trading within a recognizable or conventional range. Freight rates are rising, insurers are repricing risk, and policymakers continue to signal control. On the surface, all these signs are showing a stressed but functioning system.
The coming weeks will reveal which systemic risks-such as chain desynchronization or supply chain coupling-policymakers must prioritize to prevent cascading failures, guiding targeted proactive measures.
The real situation in the market has clearly shifted from disruption to early-stage system strain. Recognizing how oil, gas, naphtha, fertilizer, and helium are interconnected will help policymakers and analysts feel the system's fragility and the risk of a widespread shock.
This coupling of commodity chains could lead to widespread economic impacts, including inflationary pressures and supply shortages, emphasizing the urgency for stakeholders to prepare for systemic disruptions.
For media and most analysts, oil and gas are the visible front line. Physical flows have not recovered to pre-crisis levels, while, much more importantly, confidence in their stability has eroded and will continue to do so. Even where volumes are partially moving, the market is treating them as unreliable. That distinction matters, as it will shift behavior from trading to securing.
Until now, an illusion has been in place, holding markets together over the past weeks: cargoes in transit, delayed physical impact, and the expectation of rapid stabilization. This will be fading as refiners begin to adjust intake assumptions. LNG buyers are moving from portfolio optimization to a clear new strategy: outright procurement urgency. Strategic reserves are being discussed not only as precautionary tools but also, given the facts on the ground, as potential necessities.
The divergence between paper and physical markets is widening. Benchmarks still reflect liquidity and sentiment. When looking at physical cargoes, there is clearly scarcity and risk. This gap is a precursor to dislocation and should already be recognized.
Shipping is accelerating this transition. War-risk insurance constraints are tightening further. It has also been changing as behavioral risk is rising. Owners are not only reacting to premiums; they are also slowly but steadily reassessing their exposure entirely. The result of this change is that there is a reduction of available tonnage in practice, even where fleets exist on paper. For all, deliverability, not production anymore, is the central constraint.
The second chain, showing early signs of stress, is naphtha. Petrochemical margins have become increasingly compressed due to feedstock uncertainty and rising costs. It is not yet a full disruption, but the shift is visible: reduced operating rates, cautious procurement, and early signs of pricing pass-through.
The naphtha situation is critical as it sits at the core of industrial transformation. Plastics, chemicals, packaging, and solvents all depend on the availability of stable feedstocks. While there will not be an immediate shock, it will create a broad, creeping constraint across manufacturing systems.
The third chain, fertilizer, has already entered its critical window as gas-linked production economics deteriorate. At the same time, producers have begun adjusting output expectations. At present, the market is not yet recognizing all of it, as it is still treating fertilizer as a secondary risk because physical shortages have not yet materialized.
The fertilizer risk is already delayed and will remain that way for weeks or months. It needs to be recognized that production decisions made now will determine availability weeks and months ahead. All signs are already on red, with tightening margins, cautious production, and early signs of reduced forward supply becoming visible by the day. Once this translates into agricultural input shortages, the system will have very limited ability to respond.
Helium, the fourth chain, has already made some headlines. It is moving quietly but decisively into risk territory. Gas processing disruptions are beginning to ripple through helium availability, with early signs of supply tightening in specialized markets.
Food inflation will not start today. But the conditions for it are being set now.
The fifth chain, logistics, has moved to the forefront; it is no longer a background variable. Its role as a primary driver of system stress should make industry leaders and policymakers aware of the urgent need for action to maintain supply flexibility and prevent disruptions.
Policymakers and analysts should understand that the industries that are exposed to this development, such as healthcare, semiconductors, and advanced manufacturing, are not marginal economic sectors; they are critical. And they do not have easy substitutes.
When this happens, the adjustment will not be gradual, but abrupt, non-linear, and difficult to reverse. It should be understood that, in systemic risk, the most expensive moment is the one just before recognition. This is when signals are clearly visible, but no action is taken.
That is where the market stands now. In the next two weeks, it will be determined whether this remains a severe disruption or, if the signals are there, a systemic break.
#Kriptocutrader
#UnicornChannel
#Altcoins!
#NOTCOİN
#QueencryptoNews

Pirmo reizi daudzu nedēļu laikā ASV prezidents Tramps nespēja apturēt vēlu nedēļas cenu pieaugumu, jo pieaugošās spriedzes starp Vašingtonu un Teherānu samazināja tirgus lāču cerības uz pamieru tuvākajā laikā. WTI šonedēļ pieauga un ir līdzvērtīgs ICE Brent (pat ja tie tiek tirgoti dažādos mēnešos), fiziskie standarti virs $140 par barelu atgādina 2008. gadu un Teherāna atklāti apspriež kuģu tranzīta maksas mehānisma ieviešanu Hormuza šaurumā. Atgriešanās no Lieldienu brīvdienām ir pilnībā gatava vēl vienai nepatīkamai atmodai, kamēr streiki Tuvajos Austrumos turpina ietekmēt enerģētikas infrastruktūru.

Pieaugošā elektrisko transportlīdzekļu pieņemšana Amerikas Savienotajās Valstīs samazina degvielas nodokļa ieņēmumus, liekot Autoceļu uzticības fondam saskarties ar pieaugošām finansiālām grūtībām.
Automašīnu industrija piedāvā aizstāt novecojušo degvielas nodokli ar svarā balstītu transportlīdzekļa maksu, lai visi transportlīdzekļi piedalītos ceļu finansēšanā.
Pāreja ir saistīta ar ilgtermiņa finansēšanas trūkumiem, inflāciju un pāreju no benzīna dzinēja automašīnām, kas apdraud infrastruktūras finansēšanu.
Pieaugošā elektrisko transportlīdzekļu daļa un gaidāmais elektrisko transportlīdzekļu pārdošanas pieaugums šogad, ņemot vērā strauji augošās benzīna cenas, samazina ieņēmumus no ASV Autoceļu uzticības fonda, kas maksā par Amerikas ceļiem.

ust shy of three months into the year, the crypto market is reminding us of the lessons learned in all 12 months of 2017. Then all the new lessons learned in 2018. And learned again in 2022 and 2023. While digital asset prices have regressed to the mean lately, they’ve been volatile and it’s been difficult to spot trends.
Time is compressing, just as demand is burgeoning – and not just by adding new users, but also by adding trading pairs as well as other services. In this environment, CoinW is taking steps to expand its range of services, with the aim of offering a comprehensive crypto trading platform the moment requires. The fact that this exchange has been around long enough to have lived through all those previous hard lessons serves it in good stead.
We’re adapting through user-focused innovations to address both opportunities and challenges arising from the trend,” says CoinW chief strategy officer Nassar Al Achkar. “We’re strategically prioritizing user experience enhancements to navigate growth and challenges.”
A case in point is CoinW's derivatives trading platform, featuring fast order matching, low fees and specialized tools designed to streamline the trading process.
Our philosophy, since CoinW’s founding, has been to adhere to a user-centric approach to developing,” says Al Achkar, “thus optimizing matching, fees and features for a streamlined user-focused experience.”
For example, trading pathway optimization combined with memory upgrades has significantly reduced order placement, matching and confirmation times to the point of low-latency execution – with processing times typically measured in milliseconds under normal conditions. Further, CoinW maker fees are as low as 0.01%, depending on applicable fee tiers (users are encouraged to compare fee structures across platforms). These low fees, of course, improve cost efficiency for high-frequency trading and capital utilization.
But functionality is the ultimate test. Investors won’t care about the low fees or the high tech if the platform doesn’t do everything it needs to. This is where CoinW’s comprehensive toolset comes into play. Advanced features including position splitting and merging for precise management, a dynamic stop-less/take-profit setting and one-click reverse orders during market shifts are among the array of functions the exchange provides. This toolkit is intended to support users in managing positions and responding to market conditions.
While no investment schema – crypto or traditional – can eliminate all risk, they all can and should mitigate it. To that end, CoinW continues to build user confidence in derivatives trading by ensuring system stability and asset protection, particularly during routine operations and extreme market events.
Since its founding,CoinW reports that it has not experienced any major publicly disclosed security incidents to date,” Al Achkar says. “We have a near-obsessive focus on security, deploying mechanisms like multi-layered rate limiting, circuit breakers and degradation mechanisms designed to reduce single-point failures.”
CoinW has reinforced its ecosystem with measures including cold-hot wallet separation, user-side protection tools and external audits to create a multi-layered risk management framework. The platform has further allocated $200 million to a risk contingency fund, intended, at the platform’s discretion and subject to applicable terms, to mitigate certain losses arising from defined events such as system anomalies.
Additionally, the platform's Futures Protection Program allocates $500,000 monthly to a protection pool. Via activities like trading, check-ins and referrals, users are able to earn up to $500 in allowance per round that can be claimed when their futures positions get liquidated, mitigating volatility impacts.
The program stands out with its "subsidy for every trade" concept that links daily futures trading with allowance accumulation, thus providing a risk buffer, Al Achkar says. Founded in May 2025, the program has nearly 100,000 protected users.
Copy trading in the crypto markets has been around for a while now. It’s a good idea and so almost every exchange has, well, copied it. And while imitation might be the sincerest form of flattery, it’s innovation that will determine who does it best.
So CoinW introduced a smart money copy trading function that enables users to track and replicate trades of selected traders based on historical performance metrics. The tool lets users automatically replicate trades from comparatively high-performing on-chain addresses and popular traders from exchanges, with an industry-first zero profit-share mechanism.CoinW holds a top-3 ranking on CoinGecko, with over 20 million users and a 30% increase in derivatives trading volume, marking it as one of the fastest growing platforms in the space.
The recent launch of its “Smart Money” copy trading feature reflects a strategic focus for CoinW to expand its futures business.
The crypto trading space has grown far beyond just placing orders. Today’s users want real guidance and a way to tap into strategies that actually work,” says Vega Liu, CoinW’s growth lead for futures. “That’s why we’ve focused so heavily on copy trading. We’re making it genuinely easy for anyone, from complete beginners to seasoned traders, to follow selected traders, subject to user discretion and risk tolerance, and move forward with confidence.”
CoinW holds a top-3 ranking on CoinGecko, with over 20 million users and a 30% increase in derivatives trading volume, marking it as one of the fastest growing platforms in the space.
The growth of the platform’s copy trading and derivatives trading functions – as well as an array of other recent developments – reflect how user-centric adaptations in derivatives trading can drive sector-wide stability and accessibility amid ongoing volatility.
Disclaimer: Trading in digital assets and derivatives involves significant risk and may not be suitable for all users. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Users should carefully consider their financial situation and risk tolerance before engaging in trading activities. CoinW services are subject to legal and regulatory restrictions and may not be available in certain jurisdictions. Users are responsible for ensuring that their use of the platform complies with applicable local laws and regulations.
#MegadropLista
#Notcoin
#coinaute
#xmucanX
#ZAIBOT

The study analyzed 60-day windows after economic or geopolitical shocks and found that Bitcoin posted stronger returns than gold and the S&P 500 in each period.
In April last year, after the Trump administration announced sweeping tariffs, the price of bitcoin jumped 24% over the following 60 days. Gold rose 8%, and the S&P 500 gained 4%, the firm found.
A similar pattern emerged at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, when BTC rose 21%, while the other assets trailed.
Szuster cautioned that judging bitcoin’s performance too soon after a crisis can be misleading.
It’s like watching the first few minutes of a movie and thinking you already know how it ends,” he said. “In moments like this, investors sell positions to reduce risk or raise cash, and even defensive assets can fall.”
That happens as investors scramble for liquidity, yet bitcoin has consistently bounced back, the firm found. The pattern appears to be repeating in the current U.S.-Iran conflict, where bitcoin is the only one of the three assets in positive territory so far, according to Szuster.
Data backs this up. Since the war started, bitcoin has risen by more than 2.2%, from around $65,800 to $67,300 at the time of writing. Gold, the traditional safe haven, has meanwhile dropped around 11%, while the S&P lost 4.4% of its value in the index’s steepest monthly drop since 2022.
Despite its volatility, bitcoin was the best-performing asset over the past decade, he added.
#Robertkiyosaki
#tobechukwu
#YiHeBinance
#Uniswp
#IDKwhatIamdoing

The financial services giant with almost $12 trillion in client assets is moving closer to direct crypto trading, offering subscription for early access to the Schwab Crypto account.
The firm has opened a waitlist for clients seeking early access to what it calls a "Schwab Crypto" account, which will allow users to buy and sell the two largest cryptocurrencies. The firm will offer the service via Charles Schwab Premier Bank, SSB.
The move builds on comments from CEO Rick Wurster, who said last July that Schwab aimed to introduce crypto trading "sometime soon" in response to client demand. He framed the effort as a way to bring digital assets into the same account view as stocks and bonds in a push toward a more unified investment platform.
Schwab's scale could give it an edge as it enters a market long dominated by crypto-native exchanges. The firm reported $11.9 trillion in client assets in 2025, offering a built-in base of retail and institutional investors who may prefer trading crypto within a familiar brokerage environment rather than using standalone platforms.
The firm already allows clients to invest in ETFs linked to cryptocurrencies and trade bitcoin futures on its platform. It also launched the Schwab Crypto Thematic Index (STCE), an ETF that tracks the performance of companies linked to the digital asset sector.
#gonnarich
#HalvingUpdate
#jasmyustd
#kdmrcrypto
#LISTAAirdrop

Visu diennakti tirgi solās brīvību ieguldītājiem un spiedienu starpniekiem, kuri tradicionāli bija milzīgas varas turētāji ārpus darba laika
Grišpans, arī tirgus analītiķis, apgalvoja, ka, kad tirgi atveras pēc tam, ko viņš sauc par lielu notikumu, “dažas kompānijas nosaka pirmo tirgojamo cenu. Bieži vien viņi tieši izmanto cenu, kas aktivizē stop loss saviem klientiem, slēdzot viņus ar zaudējumiem un gūstot peļņu brokerim, kurš būtībā tirgojas pret klientu.”
Kad Grišpans tika jautāts, vai brokeri koordinē cenu noteikšanu tirgus slēgšanas laikā, viņš atklāti apgalvoja: “Jā, manipulācija ir acīmredzama.”

China’s top financial regulators have significantly extended the existing crypto ban. This expansion specifically targets stablecoin issuances and the tokenization of real-world assets.
The joint notice was released Feb. 6 by eight agencies, including the People’s Bank of China and the China Securities Regulatory Commission. It represents the most aggressive tightening of capital controls since the landmark 2021 prohibition on Bitcoin mining and trading.
The regulatory agencies cited a recent surge in virtual asset activities as a direct threat to the country's financial stability and monetary sovereignty.
Beijing Shuts Offshore Loopholes in New Stablecoin Rules
Perhaps more significantly, the crackdown targets the "offshore loophole" by banning domestic firms and their overseas branches from issuing digital currencies without explicit government approval.
Under the new rules, foreign entities are strictly prohibited from offering stablecoin or tokenization services to Chinese residents.
In light of this, the authorities argued that these private digital assets undermine the state's ability to control the money supply. They further claimed these assets circumvent strict anti-money-laundering and customer-identification protocols.
The PBOC emphasized that stablecoins, particularly those pegged to fiat currencies, carry attributes of sovereign money.
The directive also targets the burgeoning $24 billion Real-World Asset (RWA) tokenization sector.
Specifically, the notice prohibits any entity from issuing Renminbi-pegged stablecoins abroad, a move analysts see as a defense of the e-CNY, China’s official central bank digital currency.
Real-world asset tokenization activities within China, as well as providing related intermediary and information technology services, which are suspected of involving illegal token issuance, unauthorized public offerings of securities, illegal operation of securities and futures businesses, illegal fundraising, and other illegal financial activities, should be prohibited," the notice stated.
The regulators reclassified unauthorized tokenization—such as fractionalized ownership of real estate or securities—as "illegal public security offerings" and "unauthorized futures business."
However, it requires any firm pursuing tokenization abroad to meet heightened compliance standards and obtain domestic clearance.
The notice leaves a narrow path for activities conducted on government-approved financial infrastructure.
As with all hype cycles, it is time for a reality check. Where are we along the adoption flywheel? Who are the pacesetters? For RWA tokenization, Celent assesses the marketplace through the lens of an asset manager with a focus on the most mature asset class, money market funds. For programmable money, it examines the entire playing field.
Celent has published a report entitled Tokenization Reaches the Real World.
Headlines about the tokenization of real-world asset (RWA) have been streaming for over a decade. Combined with the launch of stablecoins (a form of programmable money), talk of composable finance has spiked
Companies referenced in this report, include for tokenized MMFs: BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, JPMorgan, UBS, WisdomTree, and BNPP. For programmable money: Citi, JPMorgan, SG FORGE, DBS, HSBC, and AllUnity/Deutsche Bank.
Tokenization reaches the real world: New Celent report alert" was originally created and published by Retail Banker International, a GlobalData owned brand.
#MegadropLista
#NOTCOİN
#jasmyustd
#Kriptocutrader
#Launchpool .

While Bitcoin developers scramble to find a solution and Ethereum prepares for 'Q-day,' Solana is trying to get ahead of that scenario.
Discussions around post-quantum cryptography have intensified across the industry in recent weeks, especially after new research from Google and academic collaborators suggested that such systems could one day break widely used encryption, potentially cracking systems like Bitcoin’s in minutes rather than years.
While Bitcoin developers scramble to find a solution and Ethereum prepares for the event, Solana is trying to get ahead of that scenario.
Cryptography firm Project Eleven has teamed up with the Solana Foundation to experiment with post-quantum security, technology designed to withstand quantum attacks that could render today’s cryptography obsolete. The early work is already surfacing a difficult reality: making Solana quantum-safe may come at the expense of the performance that defines it.
In practice, that effort has meant moving beyond theory and into live testing. Project Eleven has worked with the Solana ecosystem to model how the network would behave if its current cryptography were replaced, including deploying a test environment using quantum-resistant signatures — the digital keys that authorize transactions. The goal is not just to prove the technology works, but to understand what breaks when it’s pushed to scale.
The new, quantum-safe “signatures” that approve transactions are much larger and heavier than those used today, roughly 20 to 40 times larger, Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden, who founded the project, after years in crypto and venture capital, brings a mix of military and industry experience to the problem, told CoinDesk. That means the network can handle far fewer transactions at once. In testing, a version of Solana using this new cryptography ran about 90% slower than it does today, Pruden said.
The early results show a clear tradeoff.
Solana may also face a more immediate structural challenge than its peers.
That tradeoff cuts directly at the heart of Solana’s design. The blockchain has built its reputation on high throughput and low latency, positioning itself as one of the fastest networks in crypto. But post-quantum cryptography — while more secure against future threats — comes with heavier data and computational requirements, making it harder to maintain those speeds.
“A quantum computer could pick any wallet and immediately start trying to recover the private key.”
Unlike Bitcoin and Ethereum, where wallet addresses are typically derived from hashed public keys, Solana exposes public keys directly. That difference matters in a quantum scenario. “In Solana, 100% of the network is vulnerable,” Pruden said.
Some developers in the Solana ecosystem, meanwhile, are looking at simpler, more immediate fixes. One example is something called ‘Winternitz Vaults’, which uses a different kind of cryptography that’s believed to be safer against quantum attacks. Instead of changing the entire network, these tools focus on protecting individual wallets, giving users a way to secure their funds now while bigger, system-wide upgrades are still being figured out.
Pruden, a former Army Green Beret, first became interested in Bitcoin while deployed in the Middle East, later worked at Coinbase and joined Andreessen Horowitz’s venture team on its first fund. He then became an early leader at privacy-focused blockchain Aleo before launching Project Eleven, a firm focused on preparing digital assets for what he calls “Q-day,” the moment quantum computers can break today’s cryptography.
Across crypto, that level of engagement remains rare. While some ecosystems, most notably Ethereum, have begun discussing long-term migration paths, concrete implementation has been limited.
Despite those hurdles, Solana has moved faster than much of the industry in at least one respect: experimentation. “There’s something tangible,” Pruden said. “We actually have a testnet with post-quantum signatures.” He added that the Solana Foundation “deserves credit for at least engaging and wanting to do the work.”
The broader challenge is not just technical, but social: upgrading cryptography in decentralized systems requires coordination across developers, validators, applications and users, all of whom must move in sequence.
For Pruden, the risk is that the industry waits too long to begin that process. “This is a tomorrow problem — until it’s today’s problem,” he said. “And then it takes four years to fix.”
#ZeusInCrypto
#xmucan
#coinaute
#VOTEme
#BinanceHerYerde

A state judge ruled that Kalshi's prediction markets offering sports bets were "indistinguishable" from gambling, and extended a temporary ban in Nevada.
state judge in Nevada extended a temporary ban on prediction market provider Kalshi's sports-related contracts in the Silver State on Friday.
Judge Jason Woodbury in the First Judicial District Court told attorneys at a hearing in the Carson City courthouse that he would also grant the Nevada Gaming Control Board's request to impose a preliminary injunction against Kalshi banning it from offering some of its prediction markets until a broader court case from the state gaming regulator could be resolved. He extended the temporary restraining order he first granted on March 20 by two weeks to sort out the language of the injunction, Reuters reported Friday.
The judge's original temporary restraining order blocked Kalshi from offering sports, entertainment and election-related bets.
The judge said buying a contract on a baseball game on Kalshi was "indistinguishable" from placing a bet on a state gaming platform, Reuters reported.
So I find based on the arguments that ​have been presented that it is a gaming activity that is prohibited for any non-licensee ​to engage in," he said.
Spokespeople for Kalshi and the Nevada Gaming Control Board did not return requests for comments.
State regulators have moved to block prediction market providers in much of the U.S., arguing that these companies' sports-related products appear to be gambling products that should be regulated at the state level. Kalshi and other prediction market providers argue that they are federally regulated designated contract markets offering swaps, a type of derivative product, and therefore are not subject to state regulators.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, helmed by Chairman Mike Selig, has taken a stance agreeing with these companies. It filed an amicus brief in an appeals court case earlier this year, and sued Arizona, Illinois and Connecticut on Thursday alongside the Department of Justice, arguing that it is the proper regulator and alleging that the states are infringing on its role.
The hearing took place the same day as another hearing at a federal court in Arizona. In that hearing, Kalshi had filed to block state regulators from filing to block the prediction market provider's products in the state. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes had previously filed an information alleging criminal charges against Kalshi.
According to the court docket, District Judge MIchael Liburdi heard arguments and is considering the motion.
#VTHO
#CryptoTrends2024
#xmucanX
#devcripto
#MegadropLista

Prominent blockchain sleuth ZachXBT alleged faster action by Circle could have limited crypto losses, but freezing asset without legal authorization carries legal risks.
That movement has drawn criticism from parts of the crypto community, including prominent blockchain investigator ZachXBT, who argued Circle could have acted faster to limit the damage.
Why should crypto businesses continue to build on Circle when a project with 9 fig[ure] TVL [total value locked] could not get support during a major incident?," he said in an X post following the attack.
The company had tools at its disposal, ZachXBT pointed out. Under its own terms, Circle reserves the right to blacklist addresses and freeze USDC tied to any suspicious activity.
Preemptively freezing wallets linked to the exploit could have slowed or stopped the attacker’s ability to move funds, one stablecoin infrastructure firm founder told .
However, acting without a court order or law enforcement request might expose Circle to legal risk, the person added.
Salman Banei, general counsel of tokenized asset network Plume, said freezing assets without formal authorization could expose issuers to liability if done incorrectly. He argued regulators should address that legal gap.
Lawmakers should provide a safe harbor from civil liability if digital asset issuers freeze assets when, in their reasonable judgment, there is strong basis to believe that illicit transfers have occurred," Banei said.
That constraint was central to the company’s response.
Circle is a regulated company that complies with sanctions, law enforcement orders, and court-mandated requirements," a spokesperson said in an email to CoinDesk. "We freeze assets when legally required, consistent with the rule of law and with strong protections for user rights and privacy."
The episode highlights a deeper tension that’s drawing increasing scrutiny as stablecoins grow
Tokens like USDC are becoming a core part of global money flows, especially for cross-border payments and trading. At the same time, they are also used in illicit activity, putting issuers under pressure to act quickly when things go wrong.
According to TRM Labs, roughly $141 billion in stablecoin transactions in 2025 were linked to illicit activity, including sanctions evasion and money laundering.
Blockchain security firms pointed to North Korean hackers as likely being behind the Drift exploit.
Stablecoins issued by centralized, regulated entities like Circle's USDC are designed to be programmable and controllable, a feature that can help stop illicit flows but could also raise concerns about overreach and due process.
In the Drift exploit's case, the situation isn't that clear-cut, said Ben Levit, founder and CEO of stablecoin ratings agency Bluechip.
"I think people are framing this too simplistically as 'Circle should’ve frozen,'" he said. "This wasn't a clean hack, it was more of a market/oracle exploit, which puts it in a gray zone."
So any action by Circle becomes a judgment call, not just a compliance decision," he added.
To him, the bigger issue is consistency. "USDC can't be positioned as neutral infrastructure while also allowing discretionary intervention without clear rules," Levit said. "Markets can handle strict policies or no intervention, but ambiguity is much harder to price."
That leaves issuers in a difficult position. Moving too slowly risks criticism that they are enabling bad actors, while acting too quickly without legal backing raises concerns about overreach.
And in fast-moving exploits, that trade-off becomes especially stark, with the window to act often measured in minutes rather than weeks or months of legal processes.
#MegadropLista
$USDC
#BinanceHerYerde
#cryptouniverseofficial

Ķīnas lielākie valsts kontrolētie pārstrādātāji apsver, vai iegādāties Irānas naftu, pēc tam, kad ASV piektdien izsniedza mēneša atļauju, ļaujot importēt Irānas izcelsmes naftu, avoti ar zināšanām par situāciju teica Bloomberg pirmdien.
Ķīna pēdējos gados ir bijusi lielākais un gandrīz vienīgais Irānas naftas pircējs, ņemot vērā ASV sankcijas pret Irānas eksportu, taču visas šīs sankcionētās mucas plūda tumšajās flotēs uz neatkarīgajiem Ķīnas pārstrādātājiem. Šie naftas pārstrādātāji, ko parasti dēvē par tējas krūzēm, neuztraucas par sankcijām - viņu galvenais apsvērums, izvēloties piegādi, ir cena. Sankcionētās Irānas mucas ir pārdotas par daudz zemākām cenām salīdzinājumā ar starptautiskajiem standartiem, pateicoties nelikumīgai darbībai, kas saistīta ar sūtījumiem un tirdzniecību.

G7 finanšu ministri apspriedīs iespēju atbrīvot naftu no uzglabāšanas, reaģējot uz cenu pieaugumu, kas radies no kara Tuvajos Austrumos, ziņo mediji, tostarp Financial Times un Australian Financial Review, atsaucoties uz neidentificētiem avotiem.
Asošā sanāksme ar amatpersonām, kurā piedalīsies arī Starptautiskās Enerģijas aģentūras vadītājs, notiks vēlāk šodien, ar plāniem, kuru apsvēršanā ir 300 līdz 400 miljoni barelu.
Ziņojumos minētie apjomi izraisīja naftas pārdošanu, Brent un WTI zaudējot daļu no saviem jaunākajiem ieguvumiem. Tomēr abi joprojām tirgojas virs 100 USD par barelu. Apspriestie apjomi ir ievērojami lielāki nekā apjoms, ko IEA izlaida 2022. gadā pēc cenu pieauguma, sekojot Krievijas iebrukumam Ukrainā. Tajā laikā IEA koordinēja 240 miljonu barelu izlaidi, no kuriem puse nāca no Amerikas Savienotajām Valstīm, Investīciju dzīve norādīja ziņojumā.

Japan’s JERA and Commonwealth LNG have terminated a deal for the supply of liquefied gas to the Japanese firm, Reuters has reported, citing a filing with the U.S. Department of Energy. Neither company gave reasons for the termination.
The deal was inked last June, for a period of 20 years, for volumes of 1 million tons annually. Commonwealth LNG planned first production in 2029 at the time, but later in the year pushed the start of production forward to 2031. The company blamed the temporary ban on new liquefied natural gas capacity that the Biden administration imposed on the industry in its final year, following a report by an environmentalist that claimed LNG is more harmful than coal for the atmosphere.
The Japanese major, which is the largest buyer of liquefied natural gas in the world, last year presented plans to triple its purchases from the United States to as much as 5.5 million tons annually. That would have been a 10% increase on its current imports from the U.S., making up a third of its total LNG purchases.
The purchases were to be made under long-term contracts, with deliveries starting from 2030. Half of the contracted amount, or 2.5 million tons annually, was part of non-binding agreements. The LNG producers involved in the deals included Cheniere Energy and Sempra Infrastructure, besides Commonwealth LNG.
Japan is urgently seeking to secure as much energy supply as it can amid the ongoing crisis with Middle Eastern supply. As part of these efforts, the government relaxed restrictions on coal power generation for one year, starting this month.
There is increasing uncertainty about future LNG procurement. We believe that it is necessary to increase the operation of coal-fired power plants and save LNG fuel,” an official from Japan’s industry ministry said last month.
#USNFPExceededExpectations
#DriftProtocolExploited
#ADPJobsSurge
#GoogleStudyOnCryptoSecurityChallenges
#BitmineIncreasesETHStake