Avis has new T&Cs for renting its EVs, and they’re a little weird
Tesla Model 3 Source: Tesla
Car rental giant Avis just sent an email out today to its customers to let that it has new rental terms and conditions for its fleet EVs. Some of the company’s EV rules are a bit of a head scratcher.
Here’s what the email said:
As we introduce Electric Vehicles to our fleet, our rental terms have been amended. To accommodate our expanding vehicle inventory, this amends the agreement signed by you with respect to the rental of a vehicle powered by an electric motor (an “EV”). Our updated terms can be found here.
Note that these were sent out by Avis Canada, but the rental terms and conditions are for both the United States and Canada.
I’ve pasted the seven-plus points terms included in the EV section below, and my comments are after each point, in bolded italics:
39. ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) TERMS. This EV Amendment amends the rental agreement signed by you with respect to the rental of a vehicle powered by an electric motor (an “EV”) from Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, Aviscar, Inc., or any Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, affiliate, or the independent Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, licensee identified on the rental agreement (collectively referred to herein as “Avis”).
Boilerplate text. All good. Next.
1) AMENDMENT TO RENTAL AGREEMENT: This EV Amendment simultaneously amends the terms of your rental from Avis with respect to the terms herein only. All other terms of your rental remain in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this EV Amendment and your other rental terms, the terms of this EV Amendment shall govern.
More boilerplate. Nothing to see here.
2) ONE WAY RENTALS ARE NOT PERMITTED: Due to unique infrastructure needs associated with EV’s, your EV must be returned to your rental location on the date/time specified in your rental terms. If your EV is not returned to the renting location, all costs incurred in transporting your EV back to the renting location will be assessed to you. In addition, you will be assessed a fee for Avis’ loss of use of the EV between the time that you should have returned the EV to the renting location and the time that it is returned to the renting location up to a maximum of thirty (30) days. The loss of use fee will be your daily rental rate.
“Unique infrastructure needs.” LOL.
At the end of January, a couple of us at Electrek received a PR announcement announcing that Avis was launching a “significant number of EV charging stations at the George Bush International Airport in Houston” with EverCharge. The EV charging stations will “only be used by the Avis and Budget fleets of EVs and PHEVs available for rent” at Houston airport.
I asked, “How many EVs does Avis have for rent across the US, and which makes and models?” And got the reply: “Avis is not commenting on the specifics of its fleet at this time.”
Bummer, because Hertz sure is commenting, and with Tom Brady to boot.
I asked the spokesperson how many EV charging stations Avis is installing at Houston airport, and they wouldn’t tell me – they only said that both DC and Level 2 are being put in.
I asked what the rollout plan is for other North American airports, and got the reply:
Following the launch at the Houston airport, Avis and EverCharge plan to extend the partnership to additional airport locations this year.
So, based on the above information, it would appear that the reason why a car rental customer has to return the EV to the original rental location – in this case, airports – is because Avis doesn’t have enough EV charging infrastructure yet.
I get that this is a growing pains issue, but simply, it isn’t very practical. Not everyone returns to the place where they rented a car.
Maybe Avis should have installed more EV charging infrastructure before it rolled out its unknown quantity of EVs.
One can currently rent a Tesla Model 3 from Avis in seven US states – all in the West. It’s kind of silly that one can’t drive between those locations without having to return to home base.
3) BATTERY CHARGING LEVELS AT VEHICLE CHECK OUT: Avis will rent the EV with at least a 70% charge on the battery. The range of your EV will vary based on a number of factors including vehicle load, driver’s actions such as speed and acceleration, climate and terrain factors such as inclines. Avis does not warrant or guarantee the range of an EV.
Why 70%? The ideal topped-up charge level is 80%. If Avis has EV chargers at its rental locations, then it should charge them to 80%.
And Avis ought to print up a helpful document, or give renters a QR code, so they can read about why and how vehicle load, speed, and acceleration affect charge. Let’s not say there are factors without explaining them.
4) BATTERY CHARGING LEVELS AT VEHICLE RETURN: Your EV must be returned to Avis with a battery charge level of at least 70%. If returned at less than 70% but more than 10% battery charge level, a charging fee of $35 will be assessed to you. If returned with less than a 10% battery charge level, you will be assessed an additional low charge fee of $35 (a total of $70 charging fees if returned with a battery charge of less than 10%). The charging fee is based on the kilowatt hours, overhead, loss of use of the EV and administrative costs Avis incurs in charging the vehicle. Note: fees assessed in the United States refer to U.S. dollars and fees assessed in Canada refer to Canadian dollars.
A $35 car charging fee is a bit steep. Let’s say a driver returns the car with 50% charge – the amount of money to bring it to 70% would be around US $5 at the most.
An 80kwh Tesla battery x 20c/kwh (high estimate) = $16 assuming 0-100% charge.
But I guess this is like when you bring a gas car back empty without prior arrangements, and car rental companies charge you a really high fill-up fee. And if Avis has DC chargers, then they won’t have to wait long to charge up a car that has a battery charge level of less than 70%.
5) ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE: Roadside assistance is available for your EV but fuel cannot be delivered to EV’s. If you require roadside service because you depleted your EV’s batteries, your EV will be towed to your renting location and the towing expense will be assessed to you. If you require another vehicle due to a breakdown, you may be provided a gasoline powered vehicle in which case, all fuel provisions of your rental terms shall apply with respect to your replacement vehicle.
“Fuel cannot be delivered to EVs” – heehee. Love it. It would be cool if Avis invested in some mobile EV charging trucks to make up for the fact that they don’t actually have enough EV charging infrastructure yet to service their EV fleets.
Why can’t the EV be towed to the nearest Tesla Supercharger or Electrify America or similar? Why does it have to go all the way back to the renting location? What if the driver is on a road trip? This one definitely qualifies as weird. This may scare some people off who wanted to try an EV for the first time.
6) SPECIAL EV EQUIPMENT: All EV equipment including, but not limited to, charging equipment, keys, key cards, fobs and/or remote (“EV Equipment”) provided with your EV must be returned. The full replacement cost of any EV Equipment not returned with your EV will be charged to you. LDW, even if elected, does not cover EV Equipment.
Maybe this is a legal thing, but surely it would be common sense that keys, key cards, and fobs would have to be returned, much like any gas rental car? Perhaps Avis has experienced some customers throwing away key cards because they think they’re like hotel key cards? At any rate, I’d be pretty annoyed if I was an Avis employee and customers kept throwing away the key cards, so fair enough. Fobs is a bit of an overstretch. I guess they just had to mention them to cover backs.
7) UNIQUE TESLA TERMS: If you rented a Tesla EV, you will be able to access Tesla Superchargers, subject to availability, to recharge Tesla vehicles provided, however: 1) any fees, charges and/or costs to access and utilize the Tesla Superchargers shall be your responsibility; 2) any Tesla “idle fees”, as defined and charged by Tesla, shall be your responsibility (see Tesla’s website for details https://www.tesla.com/support/supercharger-idle-fee); and 3) the provisions of “Battery Charging Levels at Vehicle Return” shall continue to apply to you.
These are fair terms, because they’re essentially Tesla terms 101.
TESLA VEHICLES MAY NOT BE WASHED AT AN AUTOMATIC CAR WASH. ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY AN AUTOMATIC CAR WASH SHALL BE ASSESSED TO YOU PURSUANT TO THE “DAMAGE/LOSS TO THE CAR” PROVISIONS OF YOUR RENTAL TERMS AND WILL NOT BE COVERED BY LDW.
I love the bold capital letters for the CAR WASH RULES. One can take Teslas through car washes, but only in touchless car washes. Teslas have Car Wash Mode.
Maybe Avis decided that putting its Teslas into Car Wash Mode is too complicated for its customers and too much like hard work for its reps to explain how to use the feature to every EV renter? It’s never occurred to me to take a rental car to a car wash, but I’m not fastidious with my cars. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this car wash thing in the comments below.
Photo: Tesla
UnderstandSolar is a free service that links you to top-rated solar installers in your region for personalized solar estimates. Tesla now offers price matching, so it’s important to shop for the best quotes. Click here to learn more and get your quotes. — *ad.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
California will go to court to protect its clean air in the face of illegal attacks by republicans in Congress, said California Governor Gavin Newsom today.
Earlier today, the US Senate voted to revoke California’s waiver to set its own clean air rules using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The House previously voted on a similar measure earlier this month.
For more than half a century, California has asked for and been granted this waiver that allows it to set its own emissions rules. Other states can follow California’s rules (and around 11 states do so, though that amount differs for each rule), as long as they do so exactly, and as long as those rules are stronger than the national ones.
It has this unique authority because California had its own Clean Air Act before the federal Clean Air Act was passed, and because the state had a unique problem with smog at the time and needed stricter rules than the rest of the country. So a carveout was made in the federal law in recognition of this, and California has been granted this waiver over 100 times after following proper rulemaking processes, and denied zero times.
California’s clean air laws have been effective in reducing pollution, with vehicle-based pollutants dropping by 98% in the last 50 years. But of course, there’s still more to be done, as the LA area remains one of the smoggiest in the country due to factors including geography, high car dependency, heavy shipping traffic, and a lack of public transitt.
Despite the protestations of industry at the time and since, these rules have not made it impossible for them to operate, or sell cars, or profit from selling cars, in California or any other states that follow its rules.
California’s newest set of rules is set to save Californians, and the residents of other states who follow them, hundreds of billions of dollars on health, fuel, and maintenance costs through 2050 by encouraging electrification – and of course will save thousands of lives due to pollution reductions.
Republicans targeted not just California’s regulation on light duty vehicles (ACC II), but also some other truck emissions rules (the ACT and HD low-NOx Omnibus rules), with their CRA action today.
The problem is, Congress does not have the power to revoke this waiver, because that’s not how the CRA works.
The CRA is an until-recently rarely-used Act which allows Congress to disapprove of recent rules set by a federal government agency, and bar that agency from implementing similar rules.
However, California’s waiver is not a rule from a federal government agency, it’s a waiver from the EPA to let California set its own rules. Therefore, the CRA doesn’t apply, as acknowledged by the Senate Parliamentarian, the Government Accountability Office, many, many other legal observers, and even Congress itself, where Senator Mike Lee voted to rescind the waiver, despite saying clearly that it “cannot be reviewed under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).”
It’s also outside the 60 day window allowed for review by the CRA. Stack another violation of law on top of the first one.
So, today’s action by Congress is illegal, and California is now going to court to stop it.
California announces lawsuit to protect clean air
Hot on the heels of republicans declaring their desire to raise health and fuel costs for Americans, and their opposition to clean air, California Governor Gavin Newsom came out with a response, committing to taking the issue to court, as California has done (and won) in the face of previous republican attacks on clean air.
Gov. Newsom declared his opposition to the republican plan to “Make America Smoggy Again” today, saying:
“This Senate vote is illegal. Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China. We’re going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.”
-California Governor Gavin Newsom
California Attorney General Rob Bonta also spoke at the press conference, saying:
“With these votes, Senate Republicans are bending the knee to President Trump once again. The weaponization of the Congressional Review Act to attack California’s waivers is just another part of the continuous, partisan campaign against California’s efforts to protect the public and the planet from harmful pollution. As we have said before, this reckless misuse of the Congressional Review Act is unlawful, and California will not stand idly by. We need to hold the line on strong emissions standards and keep the waivers in place, and we will sue to defend California’s waivers.”
In its press release, the California Governor’s Office pointed to the decades of precedent upholding California’s waiver, which is protected by the Clean Air Act. It also pointed out that the California Air Resources Board was established under Governor Ronald Reagan, and waivers were first granted by President Richard Nixon.
Both of these individuals are republicans, though from a time before the party had fallen quite so far down the rabbit hole of openly wishing harm on Americans.
California goes on to talk about how Congress’ actions make driving less affordable by raising fuel and health costs, hand over the keys to the auto industry to China by slowing down the US auto industry’s transition to EVs, and harm the climate leadership of California, the most productive state and the 4th largest economy in the world, which has grown by 78% since the year 2000 while cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20% since then.
California did not yet file the lawsuit, merely stated its intent to do so today. But courts have ruled in favor of California many times in the past in cases related to its authority to protect its own air, most recently doing so in December.
Clean air groups also offered their support for California’s lawsuit. The Environmental Defense Fund said:
“We stand with California’s leaders in protecting the health and safety of millions of people from harmful vehicle pollution. The state’s clean air standards for new cars and trucks protect children’s lungs and the communities where they grow up from smog and soot. They help farmers, builders, and others who work outdoors breathe easier. They reduce the climate pollution that fuels deadly wildfires, droughts, and other disasters. They save hard-earned money at the pump — and they save thousands and thousands of lives”
-Vickie Patton, General Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund
While the EDF did not yet join the lawsuit (as it hasn’t been filed), a number of nonprofits joined another California lawsuit against an illegal freeze on charging funds today, so we may expect future comment from the groups involved in that lawsuit.
On another note, republicans took action to cut the rooftop solar credit today. That means you could have only until the end of this year to install rooftop solar on your home, before republicans raise the cost of doing so by an average of ~$10,000. So if you want to go solar, get started now, because these things take time and the system needs to be active before you file for the credit.
To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Here we compare the specs of the new Tesla Model Y (Chinese version) to the newly unveiled Xiaomi YU7, a vehicle dubbed the ‘Tesla killer’.
For years, we laughed at people using the term ‘Tesla killer’ for new electric vehicles. To this day, even as Tesla’s sales are declining, it’s a bit dumb to use the term since no single EV is going to “kill” Tesla.
However, there’s one that is as close to do it as we have seen so far.
Earlier this year, we reported on how Xiaomi’s first electric vehicle, the SU7, had a major negative impact on Tesla’s Model 3 sales in China.
At the time, we reported that the bigger concern for Tesla was that the Chinese electronics giant was now planning to launch a new EV, the YU7, aimed at competing against Tesla’s popular Model Y.
The Xiaomi YU7 was unveiled today, and we can now provide a side-by-side specs comparison that highlights Tesla’s problem in China.
Tesla Model Y vs Xiaomi YU7
The only thing that is missing about the YU7 as of the time of writing is the price, but it is expected to be very similar to Model Y and even likely to undercut by a bit.
| Specs | Tesla Model Y RWD | Tesla Model Y Long Range AWD | Xiaomi YU7 Standard (RWD) | Xiaomi YU7 Pro (AWD) | Xiaomi YU7 Max (AWD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Launch Date | January 2025 | January 2025 | July 2025 (expected) | July 2025 (expected) | July 2025 (expected) |
| Price (CNY) | ¥263,500 | ¥303,500 | ~¥250,000 (est.) | Not announced | Not announced |
| Price (USD) | ~$36,600 | ~$42,200 | ~$34,700 (est.) | Not announced | Not announced |
| Dimensions (L x W x H) | 4,797 x 1,920 x 1,624 mm | 4,797 x 1,920 x 1,624 mm | 4,999 x 1,996 x 1,600 mm | 4,999 x 1,996 x 1,600 mm | 4,999 x 1,996 x 1,600 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2,890 mm | 2,890 mm | 3,000 mm | 3,000 mm | 3,000 mm |
| Weight | 1,921 kg | 1,992 kg | Not specified | 2,405 kg | 2,405 kg |
| Powertrain | Single motor RWD | Dual motor AWD | Single motor RWD | Dual motor AWD | Dual motor AWD |
| Power Output | Not specified (est. 200-250 kW) | Not specified (est. 350-400 kW) | 235 kW (315 hp) | 508 kW (681 hp) | 508 kW (681 hp) |
| 0-100 km/h | 5.9 s | 4.3 s | 5.8 s | 4.3 s | ~3.2 s |
| Top Speed | 201 km/h | 201 km/h | 240 km/h | 253 km/h | 253 km/h |
| Battery Type | LFP | NMC | LFP | LFP | Li-ion ternary (CATL) |
| Battery Capacity | ~62.5 kWh | ~80 kWh | 96.3 kWh | 96.3 kWh | ~101.7 kWh |
| Range (CLTC) | 593 km | 719 km | 835 km | 750 km | 760 km |
| Charging Architecture | 400V | 400V | 800V | 800V | 800V |
| Seating Capacity | 5 (7 optional) | 5 (7 optional) | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Key Features | – Updated design – Rear seat touchscreen – FSD-capable | – Same as RWD – Higher performance | – Panoramic HUD – HyperOS – Larger cabin | – Same as Standard – Higher performance | – Top-tier performance – Premium interior (assumed) |
| Autonomous Driving | FSD with AI4 computer | FSD with AI4 computer | Nvidia Thor chip (700 TOPS) | Nvidia Thor chip (700 TOPS) | Nvidia Thor chip (700 TOPS) |
These specs show that the vehicles are extremely similar. The main difference is that Xiaomi packs a lot more batteries into the YU7 than Tesla puts into the Model Y, resulting in a significant difference in range.
To be fair to Tesla, it still dominates in efficiency as it does more with fewer batteries, which is an important skill to have. However, most customers don’t care about that and want a longer range. They don’t care how you make it happen.
Another big difference is the design.
As we previously reported, the Tesla Model Y design refresh looks similar to other Chinese EVs.
Based on the online reception, the Model Y is viewed as having a more tired design that is not as luxurious as the YU7.
That’s particularly true of the exteriors.
It’s a similar situation in the interior, but Xiaomi also outshines Tesla here with more technology, like display along the dash:
Both vehicles feature a large center display where most of the controls are located.
Electrek’s Take
I think Tesla is in trouble in China. The competition is impressive and there are vehicles that clearly directly target Model Y, Tesla’s bread and butter, and there’s no better example than this one.
The only thing missing is pricing, but if it’s priced as expected, which is like the SU7 to the Model 3, it will make it a no-brainer for most buyers.
Also, Xiaomi often gets mentioned as a ‘Tesla killer’ because the vehicles are not only ultra competitive with Tesla, but it is also producing them in high volumes.
SU7 outsold the Model 3 within a year of launching. The YU7 is coming to market within the next 2 months, and it should reach impressive volumes that are going to put pressure on Tesla’s Model Y sales by the end of the year.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Top $TRUMP holders head to crypto dinner with president that Democrats call ‘orgy of corruption’
Jonathan Raa | Nurphoto | Getty Images
Nick Pinto is a marketing director at his family’s law firm in New Jersey. He’s also a crypto trader who spent enough money on Donald Trump’s meme coin to win a spot at a private black-tie dinner with the president scheduled for Thursday night.
“I was kind of early in bitcoin and ethereum, so I’ve always been trading crypto,” said the 25-year-old Pinto, who claims he finished number 72 on the leaderboard for the token contest. “Once I saw the announcement that Trump was releasing a coin, I immediately started to purchase it.”
Pinto said in an interview that he spent half a million dollars on the $TRUMP meme token in order to attend the dinner, which is being held at President Trump’s private golf club in Potomac Falls, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Pinto shared screenshots with CNBC that appear to back up his claim.
The $TRUMP coin, which has no attached asset or underlying value, was launched just ahead of the president’s inauguration in January and has drawn heavy scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers who say President Trump is profiting from his position of power.
The dinner was announced last month and promised to reward the top 220 token owners with “the most exclusive invitation in the world.” The top 25 finishers were also told they would get a private reception with the president, as well as a “special VIP tour.”
Democratic senators called the competition a blatant example of “‘pay to play’ corruption” — the coin jumped 50% after the dinner announcement. Earlier this week, the Senate advanced a Trump-backed crypto regulation bill called the GENIUS Act after getting enough Democratic support to clear a potential filibuster.
Guests for Thursday night’s dinner were required to complete a background check, according to a copy of the invitation viewed by CNBC. Attendees were instructed not to arrive before 5:30 p.m., with the dinner starting at 7 p.m. and expected to last three hours.
Pinto doesn’t know what his investment in $TRUMP will get him other than the dinner. He said he thinks the tokens will be usable in a digital Trump golf game that was announced in December and is expected to launch next month, according to a press release.
“There’s a few things that I want to ask him,” Pinto said. “I definitely want to find out if he’s going to want to use this coin in the game. That’s probably my top question, because not many people know about that game.”
The Trump coin team didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Because crypto wallets are pseudonymous, most participants in the competition appeared only as three- to four-letter usernames linked to cryptographic wallet addresses. Many of the winners are tied to international exchanges, according to blockchain analytics firm Inca Digital, raising concern that non-Americans may be paying for the opportunity to try and influence the U.S. president.
While Pinto is going public about his participation, most of the identities tied to top wallets are unknown. Blockchain data shows that a majority of the top entrants used offshore exchanges barred to U.S. residents. An analysis by Bloomberg revealed that 19 of the top 25 wallets, and more than half of the top 220, are almost certainly owned by individuals operating outside the U.S.
The competition drew an estimated $148 million in purchases from supporters around the world, a massive fundraising haul for a digital asset launched just months ago. Among those attending is Justin Sun, the Chinese-born founder of the TRON blockchain, who confirmed this week that he is the contest’s top-ranked investor.
At current prices, Sun’s stake in $TRUMP is now worth more than $20 million. Sun was also one of the first major backers of World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s crypto venture, buying at least $75 million of its native token “WLFI.”
In 2023, U.S. regulators accused Sun of illegally selling unregistered securities and artificially inflating token prices. A month into Trump’s second White House term, a federal court filing showed the SEC was in settlement talks with Sun to resolve the civil fraud charges.
Final leaderboard
MemeCore, a Singapore-based crypto network that was vocal in its quest to secure a spot at the Trump dinner, landed in second place with an investment of around $19.7 million, according to a post on X that the company later deleted. MemeCore didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Some buyers didn’t make the cut.
Freight Technologies, a Houston-based logistics company, said it spent $2 million on $TRUMP tokens as part of what it called a strategic push to “champion fair and free trade” across the U.S.-Mexico border. The company still finished in 250th place. Freight trades on the Nasdaq as a penny stock and has a market cap of about $6.5 million.
The final leaderboard was calculated using a time-weighted formula that factored in both the size and duration of each participant’s holdings. That means early buyers who held onto their tokens consistently, like Pinto, could outrank bigger last-minute spenders.
Investors in $TRUMP, like with other meme coins, have to be prepared for big ups and downs.
Immediately after its launch in January, the Trump coin spiked to a $15 billion market cap before crashing within days. It’s currently worth about $2.1 billion.
That volatility has created stark winners and losers. Blockchain data shows that more than $5.2 billion in profits flowed to the top wallets, while over 590,000 wallets — mostly small retail traders — collectively lost nearly $4 billion.
Since January, more than $324 million in trading fees have been routed to wallets tied to the project’s creators, according to Chainalysis. The token’s code automatically directs a cut of each transaction to these addresses, allowing the team to profit from ongoing activity. The blockchain analytics firm stopped tracking the president’s meme token about two weeks ago, citing a need to refocus resources on paying clients.
The Trump family has reaped enormous financial benefit. Roughly 75% of proceeds from World Liberty Financial and more than 80% of profits from the meme coin have gone directly to the Trump Organization and affiliated entities. The project has also generated hundreds of millions of dollars in trading fees.
Senator Chris Murphy, D-Conn., has introduced legislation that would ban sitting presidents from profiting off meme coins while in office.
In a press conference hours before the dinner, Murphy warned that “just because the corruption is playing out in public where everybody can see, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t rampant, rapacious corruption.” He called tonight’s event “maybe the most corrupt, of all of the corruption.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., went further, describing the gathering as “an orgy of corruption” and accusing Trump of using the presidency “to make himself richer through crypto.” She called for changes to the GENIUS Act that would bar any president from profiting off stablecoin ventures.
With Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, Democrats have limited ability to force action.
In response to CNBC’s questions about the dinner, Deputy White House Press Secretary Anna Kelly said, “The president is working to secure good deals for the American people, not for himself,” adding that he “only acts in the best interests of the American public.”
Pinto, who paid $500,000 for his invitation and still holds most of his tokens, said the risk is worth it.
“I didn’t put in more than I’m willing to lose,” he said. “I’m fine if it goes to zero.”
WATCH: Bitcoin surges to new record high above $111,000: CNBC Crypto World
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway