Recent months have seen the ebb and flow of a certain pattern: US President Donald Trump will take some objectively harmful action to the US economy, and the markets will crash. Seeing this, Trump has turned to Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, and now demands he lower the Fed Funds Rate — the rate at which the Fed lends money to banks. And the steely eyed Powell will say “No.”
Trump wants to lower rates because doing so is an effective cash injection into the United States economy, stimulating activity and lifting the market. This, he believes, will make him appear successful. Powell wants to follow rigorous economic standards to set rates to carefully balance the Fed’s dual mandates of maximizing employment and maintaining stable prices.
He also wants to maintain the Fed’s independence from political pressure and, crucially, maintain the Fed’s appearance of independence from political pressure. If the markets believe that the central bank’s independence has failed in the US, it may become more difficult to sell US Treasury Bills, the United States’ sovereign debt. That is a problem in the fundamental sense that the US will have to pay more to borrow money, making it poorer — but it is an especially acute problem now because the US already has an enormous, $30-trillion pile of debt which it has to periodically refinance.
If it is forced to refinance at higher rates because markets do not trust the US government anymore, then an ever greater percentage of GDP will be absorbed by the cost of interest, and, as the kids say, the United States will be cooked.
That dance takes us to now. Last week, Trump repeatedly intimated that he would like to fire Powell, and the market didn’t like it. On Monday, Trump provoked a crash by calling Powell a “major loser” on Truth Social. In response, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has reportedly voiced concerns with the risks of firing Powell to Trump, who seems, for now, to have acquiesced, stating Tuesday that he would not fire his Fed chair.
Still, this process feels more like a spiral than anything else, and many market watchers are waiting for the next shoe to drop. That forces the question: if Trump does go through with his base instincts and axes Powell, what will be the result? In particular, what effect will this have on the cryptocurrency industry?
Cracking the Fed
It bears mentioning that the President is not supposed to be able to fire the Fed chair at will. Section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 states that “each member shall hold office for a term of fourteen years from the expiration of the term of his predecessor, unless sooner removed for cause by the President.”
This language may appear ambiguous, but in the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not give the President an “illimitable power of removal” and so the President’s removal power is limited by statutory language.
This decision ratified the concept of “independent agencies,” which reside within the executive branch, but have independent authority. While a number of agencies have this characteristic, including the SEC, the CFTC, and the FTC, the Fed is the most important.
Economists do not think much about the political control of central banks. Politicians have relatively short-term incentives, thinking in years or election cycles. This inherently pushes them to prefer short-termist policies, of which hot cash injections are the purest form. However, fiscal and monetary policy are delicate arts that often animate painful policy choices.
In a classic example, Richard Nixon pressured then-Fed chair Arthur Burns to pursue expansionary monetary policy in the lead up to the 1972 election, believing that it would help his reelection odds. Nixon won that election in a landslide, but soon followed catastrophic “stagflation” that crippled the United States economy for a decade, and indeed may still be felt in the industries which hollowed out during that period.
Contrast this with the policies of Paul Volcker, who, after this devastating period of stagflation, implemented a vicious series of rate increases between 1979 and 1987, which caused the “Volcker Shocks”, a series of painful recessions. However, the effect of this policy was to eventually strangle inflation and herald in the boom times of the 90s, facilitating Bill Clinton’s remarkable fiscal policy.
No politician could have made these choices, none will in the future, and that is the rub. Economists — and, crucially, markets — believe deeply that the Fed must remain independent or else the entire economic fabric of American society risks collapse. This is no hyperbole — nations with politically controlled central banks like Weimar Germany, Peronist Argentina and Venezuela have experienced such crippling hyperinflation that it led variously to multigenerational geopolitical backsliding, reports of citizens starving and eating rats, and the rise of Adolph Hitler. This is serious stuff.
To fire Powell, Trump will first have to defeat the Humphrey’s Executor precedent, a prospect that many legal scholars believe likely in light of the current Supreme Court composition. This is a Rubicon which, once crossed, marks a point of no return. Not just Trump, but every President who follows will have plenary legal authority to direct all executive officers — Fed Chair included — at their will. Most believe this will lead to ruin.
But disaster or no, it will be a test for cryptocurrency. The original Bitcoin White Paper aimed to disintermediate financial transactions from “financial institutions serving as trusted third parties.” If the Fed falls, and US monetary policy is unmoored from sound judgment, the thesis of cryptocurrency’s early years will be put in stark relief.
As Trump has provoked capital flight in recent weeks, investors have sought safety in various assets. Traditionally, any time there was a crisis, sophisticated parties fled risk assets into US Treasurys. The thinking was that these were riskless assets. Well, those days may be done. Ten year bond yields approached 5% during the peak of the Tariff Crisis and have not yet fully returned to previous lows. If Trump breaks the Fed, these outflows will be a drop in a bucket in a river, and that money may move into cryptocurrencies.
Trump admonishes Powell, referred to here as “Mr. Too Late.” Source: Trump
Historically, the price of Bitcoin has tightly tracked the Nasdaq (albeit with a multiplier). However, since the Tariff Crisis, while US securities prices have remained largely depressed, Bitcoin has miraculously begun to pump. This has led some to speculate that we are witnessing the long-prophesied “decoupling”, wherein crypto-assets will fulfill their original purpose and move independently from centralized assets.
It is impossible to say if this will or will not happen, but if Trump gives Powell the boot, we will find out for sure.
Out of the frying pan, and into the fire
Of course, world-historical collapse can’t be all good for crypto, and there will be significant pain across a variety of surfaces from this crisis as well. In the first instance, stablecoins will feel dire consequences almost immediately.
In the last decade, two USD-denominated stablecoins — USDC and USDT — have dominated the market. Their issuers, Circle and Tether, are both important systemic institutions and major buyers of US Treasurys, which collateralize the majority of their stablecoin obligations.
An immediate result of a Fed Crisis could be a Treasury default. The economist Noah Smith has speculated that Trump might try to write down the US’s sovereign debt:
“I suspect Trump will do something more like what he used to do as a businessman when his debt went bad — look for a cheap bailout, and if one doesn’t emerge, declare bankruptcy.”
Indeed, the President has hinted darkly at this prospect himself, in February suggesting that they might rely on pretense to mark the bills down:
“There could be a problem – you’ve been reading about that, with Treasuries and that could be an interesting problem…It could be that a lot of those things don’t count. In other words, that some of that stuff that we’re finding is very fraudulent, therefore maybe we have less debt than we thought.”
A sovereign default would immediately affect Circle and Tether by marking down the value of their collateral. This, in turn, could leave the stablecoins undercollateralized, which might provoke a bank run. The markets may ultimately stabilize, but events could easily turn the other way, leading to collapse of major stablecoins.
This in turn would have numerous second-order effects, as smart contracts holding stables as collateral began liquidating positions, and contagion swept the rest of the market.
Interestingly, these mechanical consequences may be less dire than the political costs of a Fed Crisis, because treasuries are not the only asset that has systemic importance to crypto. The US dollar has been the world’s reserve currency for many, many years. There are lots of good reasons for this; it is relatively strong and stable, so it is good to settle trade with. But if the government backing it ceases to be strong and stable, this paradigm will likely shift.
And as more trade is executed in euro or yuan-denominated accounts, regulators in the EU and China will, in turn, have much more control of the flows of fiat currency through cryptocurrency. One prominent cryptocurrency attorney, who chose not to be named for fear of political reprisal, speculated exactly this:
“I think China will fill a lot of the void and EU will fill most of the rest. Neither would be good for crypto generally between CCP and EU over-regulating in different ways for different goals. This seems bad.”
This might prompt flight to uncollateralized crypto-primitive assets, but there is essentially no precedent for such assets being used at scale for real-world transactions. It is just as likely that a stablecoin crisis could simply kneecap the industry for years as it is catching its stride.
Ultimately, nobody knows whether Trump will fire Powell, or even if he can. Nobody knows what consequences might flow downstream from his decisions. But if a butterfly flapping its wings in Argentina can cause a tornado in Prague, then Donald Trump muttering incantations in the West Wing might vindicate or destabilize the blockchain forever.
Former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf has attacked Sir Keir Starmer for his “dog whistle” stance on immigration after the prime minister said the UK risked becoming an “island of strangers”.
In a piece penned by Mr Yousaf for LBC, the former leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) repeated claims the prime minister’s recent remarks on immigration were a “modern echo” of Enoch Powell’s infamous 1968 Rivers Of Blood speech.
The prime minister stirred controversy earlier this week when he argued Britain “risked becoming an island of strangers” if immigration levels were not cut.
In the LBC piece published on Saturday, Mr Yousaf said: “Powell’s 1968 speech warned of immigration as an existential threat to ‘our blood and our culture’, stoking racial panic that led directly to decades of hostile migration policies.
“Starmer’s invocation of ‘strangers’ is a modern echo – a dog-whistle to voters who blame migrants for every social ill, from stretched public services to the cost-of-living crisis.
“It betrays a failure to understand, or deliberately mask the fact that Britain’s prosperity depends on migration, on openness not building walls.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sir Keir made the comments at a news conference in which measures were announced to curb net migration, including banning care homes from recruiting overseas, new English language requirements for visa holders and stricter rules on gaining British citizenship.
The package is aimed at reducing the number of people coming to the UK by up to 100,000 per year, though the government has not officially set a target.
The government is under pressure to tackle legal migration, as well as illegal immigration, amid Reform UK’s surge in the polls.
Mr Yousaf concluded his article saying the UK was “on the brink of possibly handing the keys of No 10 to Nigel Farage”.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has held discussions with Everstake, one of the largest non-custodial staking providers globally, to explore clearer regulatory definitions around staking in blockchain networks.
The meeting, which also involved the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, comes at a time when over $193 billion in digital assets are staked across major proof-of-stake (PoS) networks.
However, despite the massive scale of participation, staking remains in a legal gray zone in the US as regulators wrestle with its classification under existing securities law.
The previous SEC administration also took enforcement actions against major players such as Kraken, Coinbase, and Consensys due to their staking services. The agency, under pro-crypto President Donald Trump, has recently dismissed these enforcement actions.
During the meeting, Everstake told the SEC that non-custodial staking should not be classified as a securities transaction. The company said that users maintain full control over their digital assets throughout the staking process and do not transfer ownership to a third party.
They argued that this makes staking a technical function, not an investment product.
“Our main assertion is that staking is not a financial instrument or security transaction, but rather a technical process, a base-layer protocol mechanism—akin to an oracle in a database—that maintains the integrity and functionality of decentralized networks,” Everstake founder Sergii Vasylchuk told Cointelegraph.
Everstake team meeting with the SEC. Source: Everstake
In a letter submitted to the SEC’s Crypto Task Force on April 8, 2025, Everstake asked the agency to extend regulatory clarity to non-custodial staking and custodial and liquid staking models.
In the letter, which came in respond to Commissioner Hester Peirce’s call for input on regulatory treatment of blockchain services, Everstake argued that non-custodial staking should not be considered a securities offering.
It claimed that non-custodial staking, where users retain control of their tokens, does not involve the pooling of assets or the expectation of profits from managerial efforts.
In its model, Everstake said users delegate only validation rights while maintaining ownership of their digital assets. The staking rewards are algorithmically distributed by the blockchain network itself, and the firm merely provides technical infrastructure.
The letter also details why non-custodial staking fails each prong of the Howey test. Users do not make an investment of money in a common enterprise, do not expect profits from Everstake’s efforts, and are not dependent on the company’s management for financial returns.
Instead, any rewards come from network-level incentives and fluctuate with the market value of the underlying asset.
Everstake proposes specific criteria that should exempt non-custodial staking from securities classification. These include user asset control, absence of pooled funds, permissionless unstaking, and the provision of purely technical services.
It likens non-custodial staking to proof-of-work mining, which the SEC has previously ruled out as a securities transaction.
Margaret Rosenfeld, Everstake’s chief legal officer, also told Cointelegraph that “with non-custodial staking, there’s no handover of assets, no investment contract, and no third-party risk.” She added:
“Treating it as a securities offering undermines the decentralized model and risks chilling innovation in the blockchain sector.”
Nevertheless, the SEC has so far withheld a definitive stance. Rosenfeld said that the agency did not make any “specific commitments” on staking guidance. However, it continues to listen to industry stakeholders.
“The Task Force is actively engaging with a range of stakeholders—including those involved with non-custodial staking, ETFs, and broader blockchain infrastructure—to gather input.”
In an April 30 letter to the SEC, nearly 30 crypto advocate groups led by the lobby group the Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) asked the agency for clear regulatory guidance on crypto staking and staking services.
A man from Wellington, the capital city of New Zealand, has been arrested in connection with an FBI-led investigation into a global cryptocurrency fraud operation that allegedly stole $450 million New Zealand dollars ($265 million).
According to New Zealand Police, the man is one of 13 individuals charged after authorities executed search warrants across Auckland, Wellington, and California over the past three days.
The charges stem from allegations that members of an organized criminal group manipulated seven victims to obtain large amounts of cryptocurrency, which was then laundered through multiple platforms between March and August 2024.
The US Department of Justice has indicted the man under federal law, including charges of racketeering, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, per the announcement.
Scammer used stolen funds to purchase luxury vehicles
Prosecutors allege the stolen funds were used to purchase $9 million worth of luxury vehicles and spent lavishly on high-end goods, including designer handbags, watches, and clothing, as well as services such as nightclub access, private security, and rentals in Los Angeles, Miami, and the Hamptons.
The accused appeared in Auckland District Court and was granted bail with interim name suppression. He is scheduled to reappear on July 3.
“We have worked closely with our law enforcement colleagues in the United States in support of their investigation,” the police stated. They added:
“Today’s search warrant and arrest reflects the importance of international partnerships where criminals are operating across borders.”
Digital asset thefts skyrocketed in April 2025, with nearly $360 million stolen across 18 separate hacking incidents, according to data from blockchain security firm PeckShield.
The figure marks a staggering 990% jump from March when reported losses stood at just $33 million. The sharp rise was largely attributed to a single unauthorized Bitcoin transfer that accounted for the bulk of the month’s losses.
On April 28, blockchain analyst ZachXBT identified a suspicious $330 million BTC transaction. The incident was later confirmed as a social engineering attack that targeted an elderly US resident, resulting in one of the largest individual crypto thefts to date.