Tyler Winklevoss, chief executive officer and co-founder of Gemini Trust Co., left, and Cameron Winklevoss, president and co-founder of Gemini Trust Co., speak during the Bitcoin 2021 conference in Miami, Florida, U.S., on Friday, June 4, 2021.
Eva Marie Uzcategui | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Cameron Winklevoss and Barry Silbert were both early believers in bitcoin who made a fortune on their investments and built big businesses along the way. For nearly two years, they enjoyed a mutually beneficial partnership that made their customers a lot of money.
Now, the bitcoin heavyweights are in a bruising war of words that illustrates the depths of the crypto crisis and underscores the risks that were ultimately shouldered by ordinary investors who got caught up in a massively unregulated market. As it stands, hundreds of millions of dollars of customer cash sits in inaccessible limbo as the two crypto entrepreneurs battle over who is responsible.
related investing news
12 hours ago
Silbert is the founder of Digital Currency Group (DCG), a crypto conglomerate that includes the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust andtrading platform Genesis. Winklevoss, along with his brother Tyler, co-founded Gemini, a popularcrypto exchange that, unlike many of its peers, is subject to New York banking regulation.
Winklevoss and Silbert were linked through an offering called Earn, a nearly two-year-old product from Gemini that promotedreturns of up to 8% on customer deposits. With Earn, Gemini loaned client money to Genesis for placement across various crypto trading desks and borrowers.
As the digital coin markets soared in 2020 and 2021, that capital produced high returns for Genesis and easily paid Earn users their yield, which was very attractive at a time when the Federal Reserve’s benchmark rate was at virtually zero. Other riskier (and now defunct) crypto platforms like Celsius and Voyager Digital were offering yields as high as 20%.
Barry Silbert, Founder and CEO, Digital Currency Group
David A. Grogan | CNBC
It was a booming business. Genesis had 260 employees and a robust sales desk, and Gemini was one of its largest lending partners, sending $900 million worth of customer crypto to the firm. Gemini considered Genesis, which is regulated by New York state and the Securities and Exchange Commission, to be the most reliable name in crypto lending, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter. Diversification was a challenge, because other players had looser risk standards, said the source, who asked not to be named for confidentiality.
Friends turned foes
In 2022, the crypto market cratered, and the Earn model fell apart.
Cryptocurrencies turned south, borrowers stopped repaying their debts, hedge funds and lenders went under, and activity screeched to a halt.
The floodgates opened even wider in November, when FTX spiraled into bankruptcy and customers of the crypto exchange were unable to access billions of dollars in deposits. FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was soon arrested on fraud charges, accused of using client funds for trading, lending, venture investments and his lavish lifestyle in the Bahamas.
An industrywide crunch ensued as crypto investors across the board tried to withdraw their assets. Five days after FTX collapsed, Genesis was forced to freeze new lending and suspend redemptions. In a tweet the company said “FTX has created unprecedented market turmoil, resulting in abnormal withdrawal requests which have exceeded our current liquidity.”
All withdrawals on Earn have been paused since November. Gemini’s 340,000 retail clients are angry, and some have come together in class actions against Genesis and Gemini. Winklevoss places the blame on Silbert’s shoulders, and he’s gone public with his battle to retrieve the $900 million of deposits his clients placed with Genesis.
In a letter to Silbert on Jan. 2, Winklevoss said those funds belong to customers including a school teacher, a police officer and “a single mom who lent her son’s education money to you.”
Winklevoss said Gemini had been trying for six weeks to engage in a “good faith” manner with Silbert only to be met with “bad faith stall tactics.” Gemini attorneys had attempted to work with Genesis’ team through the Thanksgiving holiday, but found their efforts effectively rebuffed, a source said.
Another person who asked not to be named told CNBC that advisors for Genesis, DCG, and Gemini’s creditor committee had met multiple times throughout the six-week period that Winklevoss referenced.
Gemini creditors are represented by lawyers from both Kirkland & Ellis and Proskauer Rose, and financial advisors at Houlihan Lokey.
Advisors for DCG and Genesis include the law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and investment bank Moelis and Company.
The most recent meeting between the three sets of lawyers and bankers was Monday, according to that individual.
On Tuesday, Winklevoss followed up with an open letter to DCG’s board, asking that it replace Silbert.
One of Winklevoss’ central complaints stems from a loan that Silbert made to Genesis after the demise of crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital (3AC) last year. Genesis was owed over $1 billion by 3AC when the firm defaulted on its debt. Silbert stepped in and effectively backstopped his trading firm’s exposure with a $1.1 billion intercompany loan to Genesis.
At the time, Genesis sought to reassure Gemini that the DCG unit remained solvent and strong and was supported by its parent company. Silbert justified the decision in a message to investors this week, writing that “Genesis had unrivaled expertise and the best institutional client base in the world.” Court filings show that on July 6, Genesis assured Gemini that liquidity was not a concern, and the two parties agreed to keep working together.
Gemini claims that Genesis provided misleading information regarding Silbert’s loan. Rather than serving to bolster Genesis’ operating position, the loan was a “10-year promissory note” and was a “complete gimmick that did nothing to improve Genesis’ immediate liquidity position or make its balance sheet solvent,” Winklevoss wrote.
Silbert has avoided responding directly to Winklevoss’ latest accusation, though the company has taken up his defense. In a tweet on Tuesday, DCG called the letter “another desperate and unconstructive publicity stunt,” adding that, “we are preserving all legal remedies in response to these malicious, fake, and defamatory attacks.”
“DCG will continue to engage in productive dialogue with Genesis and its creditors with the goal of arriving at a solution that works for all parties,” the company said.
A DCG spokesperson told CNBC the company denies Winklevoss’ allegations of financial impropriety.
For the 41-year-old Winklevoss twins, a public and high-profile spat is nothing new. They’re best known for their role in the birth of Facebook, now known as Meta,which was founded by Harvard classmate Mark Zuckerberg. They sued Zuckerberg, eventually settling in 2011 for a $65 million payout in cash and Facebook stock.
The brothers quickly pivoted to crypto and by 2013 said they controlled 1% of all bitcoin in circulation. The stake soared from $11 million at that time to over $4.5 billion when bitcoin peaked in 2021.
Silbert, 46, got into the market at around the same time. He sold his prior company, SecondMarket, to Nasdaq in 2015, and started DCG that year. But he first invested in bitcoin in 2012.
Silbert and the Winklevoss brothers were bitcoin bulls long before any exchanges or trading apps had made it simple to buy digital currencies and well ahead of institutional interest in the space. Now that the trade has reversed, they’re deep in the struggle.
Facing increasing pressure from creditors and the looming threat of bankruptcy, Genesis recently cut headcount by 30% in a second round of layoffs. Gemini slashed 10% of its staff in June 2022, with another round of layoffs seven weeks later.
Winklevoss says Gemini’s thousands of customers are “looking for answers.” On Tuesday, Gemini told Earn clients that it’s terminating customer loan agreements with Genesis and ending the program.
Gemini and Genesis insist that they’re negotiating in good faith. But the harsh reality is that, with the popping of the crypto bubble last year, both companies were left with no place to hide. Their clients are now scrambling to be made whole.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Apple CEO Tim Cook shake hands on the day they present Apple’s announcement of a $100 billion investment in U.S. manufacturing, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 6, 2025.
Jonathan Ernst | Reuters
Apple shares rose 13% this week, its largest weekly gain in more than five years, after CEO Tim Cook appeared with President Donald Trump in the White House on Wednesday.
Shares of the iPhone maker rose 4% to close at $229.35 per share on Friday for the company’s largest weekly gain since July 2020. The week’s move added over $400 billion to Apple’s market cap, which now sits at $3.4 trillion.
At the White House on Wednesday, Cook appeared with Trump to announce Apple’s plans to spend $100 billion on American companies and American parts over the next four years.
Apple’s plans to buy more American chips pleased Trump, who said during the public meeting that because the company was building in the U.S., it would be exempt from future tariffs that could double the price of imported chips.
Investors had worried that some of Trump’s tariffs could substantially hurt Apple’s profitability. Apple warned in July that it expected over $1 billion in tariff costs in the current quarter, assuming no changes.
“Apple and Tim Cook delivered a masterclass in managing uncertainty after months and months of overhang relative to the potential challenges the company could face from tariffs,” JP Morgan analyst Samik Chatterjee wrote on Wednesday. He has an overweight rating on Apple’s stock.
Cook’s successful White House meeting also comes two weeks after Apple reported June quarter earnings in which overall revenue jumped 10% and iPhone sales grew by 13%.
In an aerial view, the Tesla headquarters is seen in Austin, Texas, on July 24, 2025.
Brandon Bell | Getty Images
Tesla has been granted a permit to run a ride-hailing business in Texas, allowing the electric vehicle maker to compete against companies including Uber and Lyft.
Tesla Robotaxi LLC is licensed to operate a “transportation network company” until August 6, 2026, according to a listing on the website of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, or TDLR. The permit was issued this week.
Elon Musk’s EV company has been running a limited ride-hailing service for invited riders in Austin since late June. The select few passengers have mostly been social media influencers and analysts, including many who generate income by posting Tesla fan content on platforms like X and YouTube.
The Austin fleet consists of Model Y vehicles equipped with Tesla’s latest partially automated driving systems. The company has been operating the cars with a valet, or human safety supervisor in the front passenger seat tasked with intervening if there are issues with the ride. The vehicles are also remotely supervised by employees in an operations center.
Musk, who has characterized himself as “pathologically optimistic,” said on Tesla’s earnings call last month that he believes Tesla could serve half of the U.S. population by the end of 2025 with autonomous ride-hailing services.
The Texas permit is the first to enable Tesla to run a “transportation network company.” TDLR said Friday that this kind of permit lets Tesla operate a ride-hailing business anywhere in the state, including with “automated motor vehicles,” and doesn’t require Tesla to keep a human safety driver or valet on board.
Tesla didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
As CNBC previously reported, Tesla robotaxis were captured on camera disobeying traffic rules in and around Austin after the company started its pilot program. None of the known incidents have been reported as causing injury or serious property damage, though they have drawn federal scrutiny.
In one incident, Tesla content creator Joe Tegtmeyer reported that his robotaxi failed to stop for a train crossing signal and lowering gate-arm, requiring a Tesla employee on board to intervene. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has discussed this incident with Tesla, a spokesperson for the regulator told CNBC by email.
Texas has historically been more permissive of autonomous vehicle testing and operations on public roads than have other states.
A new law signed by Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott goes into effect this year that will require AV makers to get approval from the state before starting driverless operations. The new law also gives the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles the authority to revoke permits if AV companies and their cars aren’t complying with safety standards.
Tesla’s AV efforts have faced a number of challenges across the country, including federal probes, product liability lawsuits and recalls following injurious or damaging collisions that occurred while drivers were using the company’s Autopilot and FSD (Full Self-Driving) systems.
A jury in a federal court in Miami last week determined that Tesla should hold 33% of the liability for a fatal Autopilot-involved collision.
And the California DMV has sued Tesla, accusing it of false advertising around its driver assistance systems. Tesla owners manuals say the Autopilot and FSD features in their cars are “hands on” systems that require a driver ready to steer or brake at any time. But Tesla and Musk have shared statements through the years saying that a Tesla can “drive itself.”
Since 2016, Musk has been promising that Tesla would soon be able to turn all of its existing EVs into fully autonomous vehicles with a simple, over-the-air software update. In 2019, he said the company would put 1 million robotaxis on the road by 2020, a claim that helped him raise $2 billion at the time from institutional investors.
Those promises never materialized and, in the robotaxi market, Tesla lags way behind competitors like Alphabet’s Waymo in the U.S. and Baidu’s Apollo Go in China.
Tesla shares are down 18% this year, by far the worst performance among tech’s megacaps.
Shares of The Trade Desk plummeted almost 40% on Friday and headed for their worst day on record after the ad-tech company announced the departure of its CFO and analysts expressed concerns about rising competition from Amazon.
The Trade Desk, which went public in 2016, suffered its steepest prior drop in February, when the shares fell 33% on a revenue miss. In its second-quarter earnings report late Thursday, the company beat expectations on earnings and revenue, but the results failed to impress investors.
The Trade Desk, which specializes in providing technology to companies that want to target users across the web, said finance chief Laura Schenkein is leaving the job and being replaced by Alex Kayyal, who has been working as a partner at Lightspeed Ventures.
While some analysts were uneasy about the sudden change in the top finance role, the bigger concern is Amazon’s growing role in the online ad market, as well as the potential impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on ad spending.
Amazon has emerged as a significant player in the digital advertising market in recent years, and is now third behind Google and Meta. Last week, Amazon reported a 23% increase in ad revenue for the second quarter to $15.7 billion, which beat estimates.
Read more CNBC Amazon coverage
Amazon’s ad business has largely been tied to its own platforms, with brands paying up so they can get discovered on the sprawling marketplace. However, Amazon’s demand-side platform (DSP), which allows brands to programmatically place ads across a wider swath of internet properties, is gaining more resonance in the market.
“Amazon is now unlocking access to traditionally exclusive ‘premium’ ad inventory across the open internet, validating the strength of its DSP and suggesting The Trade Desk’s value proposition could erode over time,” Wedbush analysts wrote on Friday.
The Wedbush analysts lowered their rating on The Trade Desk to the equivalent of hold from buy, and cited Amazon’s recent ad integration with Disney as a sign of the company’s aggressiveness.
Executives at The Trade Desk were asked about Amazon on the call, and responded by suggesting that the companies don’t really compete, emphasizing that Amazon is conflicted because it will always prioritize its own properties.
“A scaled independent DSP like The Trade Desk becomes essential as we help advertisers buy across everything and that we have to do that without conflict or compromise,” CEO Jeff Green said on the call. “It is my understanding that Amazon nearly doubled the supply of Prime Video inventory in the recent months. That creates a number of conflicts.”
For the second quarter, The Trade Desk reported a 19% increase in year-over-year revenue to $694 million, topping the $685 million estimate, according to analysts polled by LSEG. Adjusted earnings per share of 41 cents beat estimates by a penny.
Looking to the third quarter, the Trump administration’s tariffs were also a theme, as the company forecast revenue of at least $717 million, representing growth of 14% at minimum.
“From a macro standpoint, some of the world’s largest brands are absolutely facing pressure and some amount of uncertainty,” Green said. “Some have to respond more than others to tariffs. Many are managing inflation worries and the related pricing that comes with that.”
With Friday’s slump, The Trade Desk shares are now down 53% for the year, while the S&P 500 is up about 9%. The Trade Desk was added to the S&P 500 in June.