The shadow of Liz Truss’s mini-budget still looms large. Mr Hunt was taking no risks with the public finances in a budget that was far smaller in tax cuts and policy decisions than the autumn statement.
Normally, when insiders tell you that the chancellor is limited in what he can do – in the context of the economic backdrop and that this budget will be “a proof point” that the prime minister is delivering on his plan, rather than a “poll gamechanger”, a few months from an election – you take it with a pinch of salt.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
When the chancellor didn’t offer up more, the verdict from some senior Tories was swift: “Terrible,” texted one former cabinet minister, “this won’t shift the needle”. Another told me that this budget would make “zero difference” and MPs would be unhappy: “They were hoping for more.”
Advertisement
What this does tell us is that when Rishi Sunak said his “working assumption” was for an autumn election, he meant it: this was not a budget trying to set the political weather, rather it was aimed at keeping a steady ship.
“Safety first,” is how one former Treasury insider described it, pointing out that the chancellor could have been more aggressive on tax cuts if he had decided to cut back on future spending commitments.
Ahead of the budget there had been lots of chatter that the chancellor was going to shave 0.25 percentage points off departmental spending plans after 2025 to raise another £5bn or so for tax cuts (this could have gone towards another 1 percentage point cut in national insurance) but decided not to do it.
Perhaps he was mindful of polling suggesting the public doesn’t much like the idea of cutting spending on public services, but his decision not to set this trap for an incoming Labour government has left some Tories pulling out their hair.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
One told me: “He could have created a wedge issue by cutting spending assumptions, by a quarter point or even a half point to then use on tax cuts.
“Labour would then have to back tax cuts or spending cuts, and perhaps we could have then pressed them on higher tax question.
“But we’ve done just enough on tax cuts for Labour to accept it. They didn’t create a wedge and MPs were looking for that from an electoral perspective.
“Maybe he had one eye on the Kwateng mini-budget, so didn’t want to take on more risk when it came to the fiscal forecasts.”
Politically too, the tax-cutting chancellor is still facing the double whammy of the overall tax burden of GDP still going up and heading for a 70-year-high by the end of the forecast period (2028-9), while the Institute of Fiscal Studies noted in its budget wash-up that average households would still be worse off going into the next general election than they were in 2019.
Image: Jeremy Hunt and Rishi Sunak during Keir Starmer’s Budget response
Safety first when you are 20 points ahead (Sir Keir Starmer) makes some sense, you don’t want to squander your lead.
But when you’re 20 points behind, your party are clamouring for you to go all out and try to close the gap.
The chancellor and his prime minister have clearly decided that the route to better polling is steady as she goes: a January national insurance cut, followed by another cut in April when energy bills should be coming down too.
The interest rates could be falling, alongside inflation in the summer.
The hope will be then that the feel-good factor is on the up, and the financial forecasts are improving to perhaps give the government the option of more tax cuts.
But right now, this budget doesn’t look like a moment for renewal. A March budget delivered, but still not a spring in the Tories’ step.
KuCoin announced an exclusive multiyear deal with Tomorrowland Winter and Tomorrowland Belgium from 2026 to 2028, making the exchange the music festival’s exclusive crypto and payments partner.
The move comes just weeks after KuCoin secured a Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) service provider license in the European Union.
KuCoin’s MiCA play goes mass‑market
KuCoin EU Exchange recently obtained a crypto asset service provider license in Austria under the EU’s MiCA regime, giving it a fully regulated foothold in the bloc as Brussels’ new rulebook for exchanges, custody and stablecoins comes into force.
The Tomorrowland deal signals how KuCoin plans to use that status, not just to run a compliant trading venue, but to plug crypto rails directly into mainstream culture.
KuCoin joins forces with Tomorrowland. Source: KuCoin
KuCoin said the Tomorrowland deal will cover Tomorrowland Winter 2026 in Alpe d’Huez, France, and Tomorrowland Belgium 2026 in Boom, Belgium, with the same arrangement continuing through 2028.
KuCoin insists this is not just a logo play. A spokesperson at KuCoin told Cointelegraph that as an exclusive payments partner, the exchange is working with Tomorrowland to weave crypto into the festival’s existing payments stack so that “financial tools” sit behind the scenes of ticketing, merch and food and drink.
The stated goal is to keep the rails “intuitive and invisible,” rather than forcing festivalgoers through clunky wallets or unfamiliar flows, with KuCoin positioning itself as facilitating the secure and efficient movement of value while fans focus on the music.
The company declined to spell out exactly which assets and rails will be supported on‑site, or whether every purchase will run natively onchain, but said that KuCoin’s “Trust First. Trade Next.” mantra runs through its messaging.
The spokesperson stressed advanced security, multi‑layer protection and adherence to EU standards as the foundation for taking crypto beyond the trading screen and into live events.
Tomorrowland’s organizers have been here before. In 2022, the festival announced a Web3 partnership with FTX Europe that promised NFTs and “the future of music festivals” before collapsing along with the exchange itself months later.
That experience makes the choice of a MiCA‑licensed partner, and the emphasis on user protection, more than cosmetic; it is a second attempt at bridging culture and crypto (this time with regulatory scaffolding and clearer guardrails).
Rather than setting public hard targets for user numbers or payment volumes by 2028, KuCoin is pitching success as “seamless integration” of crypto into the festival experience:
“We aim to demonstrate that digital assets can be a core component of global digital finance, moving from a niche technology to a mainstream utility. “
Screenshots of an internal email outlining plans to wind down Shima Capital have surfaced online, days after the US Securities and Exchange Commission sued the crypto venture firm and its founder over allegations of investor fraud.
On Nov. 25, the SEC charged Shima Capital Management LLC and its founder, Yida Gao, with making false and misleading statements while raising almost $170 million from investors, the agency announced on Dec. 3.
The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleged that Gao inflated his investment track record in marketing materials used to raise capital for Shima Capital Fund I between 2021 and 2023.
According to the SEC, Gao claimed one prior investment had delivered a 90x return, when the actual return was closer to 2.8x. The regulator also alleged that when discrepancies in the pitch deck were about to be reported publicly, Gao told investors the issues were the result of clerical errors.
SEC alleges $1.9 million undisclosed gain
Separately, the SEC claimed that Gao raised about $11.9 million through a special purpose vehicle tied to BitClout tokens, telling investors that they would be protected by discounted token purchases. While Gao did acquire tokens at a discount, the SEC said he sold them to the SPV at a higher price without disclosing that he personally retained about $1.9 million in profits.
In a Wednesday post on X, crypto journalist Kate Irwin shared screenshots of an email allegedly sent by Gao to portfolio founders. In the screenshots, Gao purportedly said he would step down as managing director of Shima Capital and that the fund would undergo an “orderly wind-down.”
Gao’s alleged email to portfolio companies. Source: Kate Irwin
The screenshots purportedly show Gao stating that the SEC and Department of Justice actions are related to his personal conduct, not that of Shima Capital’s portfolio companies, and claiming that no fines have been imposed on the company.
The screenshots also show that independent advisers from FTI Consulting and FTI Capital Management would oversee the wind-down process and monetization of investments, while Shima’s finance team would remain in place. Gao allegedly said he would remain involved with portfolio support “as permitted,” but without management control.
Cointelegraph could not independently verify the email. We reached out to Shima Capital and some of the fund’s portfolio companies for confirmation, but had not received responses at the time of publication.
Shima Capital launched with $200 million debut fund
In 2022, Shima Capital announced the launch of its first venture fund, Shima Capital Fund I, raising $200 million to back early-stage blockchain startups. Founded in 2021 by Gao, the firm said the fund received backing from a range of prominent investors, including Dragonfly Capital, Animoca Brands, OKX Blockdream Capital, Republic and Andrew Yang.
Shima Capital has invested in numerous crypto projects, including Humanity Protocol, Berachain, Monad, Pudgy Penguins, Shiba Inu and many others.