Trump’s first 100 days ‘worst in history’ despite crypto promises

Published

3 months ago

April 29, 2025

admin

Trump’s first 100 days ‘worst in history’ despite crypto promises

The first 100 days of the administration of US President Donald Trump have deeply impacted the crypto industry, starting with his own memecoin and culminating in a Bitcoin reserve and a spate of blockchain policymaking.

Trump’s trade war with the entire world has had the largest short-term impact on crypto markets, as crypto prices have wavered amid macroeconomic worry and uncertainty. Higher prices on electronics mean Bitcoin (BTC) miners are finding it harder to break even, and de-dollarization concerns abound.

Still, crypto markets have shown some resilience and cause for optimism in the administration’s crypto-friendly policies. A number of pro-crypto leaders have been appointed to key government agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The crypto industry’s long-awaited regulatory framework is also imminent.

Trump’s first 100 days have seen remarkable changes for the crypto industry, and it appears that things are only getting started. Here’s a look at what’s happened so far.

Jan. 20 — Trump’s first 100 days kick off with a memecoin

On Jan. 20, while Trump was sworn into office in the rotunda of the Capitol Building, his family’s crypto investment firm, World Liberty Financial (WLFI), launched its second token sale of WLFI tokens.

Massive demand saw prices initially spike, though the true value of the tokens, if any, is yet to be determined, as WLFI is currently not transferable and cannot be traded on any exchanges.

The memecoin served as a kickoff for Trump’s crypto agenda, which has seen unprecedented support for the industry in Washington, DC, along with a slew of moral and ethical concerns among observers and lawmakers.

Jan. 20 — Pro-crypto leaders head up federal agencies on “day one”

The president of the US sets the tone for several federal regulators, including those overseeing crypto. Trump immediately set out to appoint a number of pro-crypto lawyers and businessmen to head up the SEC, the CFTC and other critical federal agencies.

Trump nominated businessman Paul Atkins to lead the SEC on “day one” of his presidency. Atkins would replace Gary Gensler, who was perceived by many in the crypto industry as an enemy to adoption and the industry’s progress.

Also on day one, Trump appointed businessman and crypto investor David Sacks as chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology — or the crypto and AI “czar.”

Atkins wouldn’t be confirmed by the Senate until April 9 and sworn in on April 21. But in the meantime, Trump also tapped former CFTC Commissioner and crypto proponent Brian Quintenz to head up that agency.

Jan. 21 — $500-billion Stargate AI initiative

In a press conference, Trump announced a $500-billion private-led AI infrastructure investment called “Stargate.” The president claimed the project — led by ChatGPT creator OpenAI, SoftBank and Oracle — would create some 10,000 American jobs.

Trump said the US needed to lead the world in AI innovation and keep development onshore. “China is a competitor, others are competitors. We want it to be in this country, and we’re making it available,” he said.

OpenAI claimed that the project would “not only support the re-industrialization of the United States but also provide a strategic capability to protect the national security of America and its allies.”

Jan. 21 — Pardon for Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht

Trump announced on Truth Social that he had called the family of Silk Road 2.0 founder Ross Ulbricht after commuting his sentence.

After his arrest in 2013, Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison in 2015 without the possibility of parole for his role in facilitating the trafficking of narcotics and other illicit substances.

Ulbricht’s case became a rallying point for libertarian movements and prison reform advocates alike. Libertarian-minded crypto advocates supported Ulbricht, as his platform was one of the first places people could actually spend Bitcoin.

Freeing Ulbricht was one of the many campaign promises Trump made to the crypto community.

Jan. 23 — Ban on digital dollar, establishing a crypto working group

With an executive order, Trump established an internal working group to focus on making the US “the world capital in crypto.” The order also prohibited “the establishment, issuance, circulation, and use” of a US central bank digital currency (CBDC).

CBDCs are a contentious issue in the crypto community, with many privacy activists claiming that they are another form of state surveillance and government control. Enthusiasm over their creation from central bankers has further set the more libertarian-minded crypto community against their creation.

The working group would kickstart the process for creating the forthcoming US Bitcoin and crypto reserves.

Feb. 1 — Trade war begins with tariffs on Mexico, China and Canada

One of the promises of the Trump campaign was to rectify the “bad deals” that the US had with many of its oldest allies and most important trading partners.

Just over a week after he was sworn into office, Trump announced sweeping tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, citing border security concerns and the supposed proliferation of cross-border trade of fentanyl from those countries.

The same day, Canada announced retaliatory measures. On Feb. 3, Mexico promised to step up security of its northern border, responding to American requests for increased patrols. This led Trump to reverse initial tariff plans on both countries.

The unexpected hostile tariffs from a close partner and ally sent stock and crypto prices tumbling. They marked the beginning of the macroeconomic uncertainty that has come to characterize the early days of the Trump administration.

Feb. 12 — Vinnik-Foegel prisoner swap with Russia

Alexander Vinnik, the convicted money launderer who funneled Bitcoin stolen in the infamous Mt. Gox hack through his crypto exchange BTC-e, returned to his home country of Russia.

Vinnik pled guilty to money laundering conspiracy charges in 2024. BTC-e processed more than $9 billion in transactions and had over 1 million users worldwide, many of whom were in the US.

Vinnik was exchanged for American schoolteacher Marc Fogel, who was teaching at the Anglo-American School of Moscow and had been in a Russian jail since 2021 after being arrested for illegal possession of cannabis.

Feb. 18 — Bankman-Fried makes veiled plea for release

In an interview with The New York Sun, the former CEO of now-defunct crypto exchange FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried, addressed his controversial political contributions, saying the Republican Party was always “far more reasonable.”

Bankman-Fried, or SBF, made widely publicized contributions to the Democratic Party as he purportedly tried to influence democratic policymakers’ approach to the digital asset industry. It later became known that SBF was playing both sides of the aisle, donating significant funds to Republicans, though the exact amount remains unknown.

In the interview, SBF likened his position to that of Trump, claiming that he’d been unfairly treated by the criminal justice system. SBF called into question the conduct of the federal judge overseeing his trial, Judge Lewis Kaplan. “I know President Trump had a lot of frustrations with Judge Kaplan. I certainly did as well.”

Observers saw the interview as an attempt to elicit a pardon from Trump. Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin advocate facing criminal tax evasion charges, has made an outright appeal.

March 7 — Trump establishes Bitcoin reserve and crypto stockpile

On March 7, the 46th day of Trump’s presidency, he signed an executive order establishing a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.” Trump made big promises about crypto adoption on the campaign trail, including the possibility of a long-sought-after Bitcoin reserve.

The US reserve, however, would fall short of expectations among Bitcoin maximalists. Rather than create a concrete plan for the US government to purchase and hold Bitcoin, it merely created a single reserve to pool all Bitcoin the government had seized during criminal proceedings.

While the order does state that the government may purchase additional Bitcoin, it must do so in a budget-neutral fashion.

In tandem with the Bitcoin reserve, Trump also established a US Digital Asset Stockpile containing other cryptocurrencies such as Ether (ETH), Solana (SOL), XRP (XRP) and Cardano (ADA).

March 7 — White House Crypto Summit

Leaders of the crypto industry descended on Washington for a meeting at the White House to discuss a wide range of topics related to crypto regulation and the development of the industry in the US.

Attendees included Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and “crypto czar” David Sacks.

While some attendees, including Chainlink co-founder Sergey Nazarov, were optimistic about the event’s focus on strengthening the US crypto industry, some crypto luminaries who were not on the list were less impressed.

Cardano and IOHK co-founder Charles Hoskinson, who did not attend the event, noted in a video stream that real change — i.e., legislation — must be made in Congress.

“Everybody focuses on the White House because it’s simple and easy to do so. […] And as much as we, as an industry, want this to be a short process, it’s going to be a long and methodical process,” Hoskinson said.

Others put it more simply:

March 25 — WLFI goes stablecoin

WLFI expanded its offerings in March with the soft launch of its stablecoin USD1. The coin, “100% backed by short-term US government treasuries, US dollar deposits, and other cash equivalents,” launched on the Ethereum and BNB Chain networks.

News of the token’s launch came just days after WLFI secured more than $500 million by selling its own WLFI tokens.

US lawmakers subsequently called for an ethics probe into WLFI and cited the president’s ability to influence stablecoin policy as a major conflict of interest with the project.

April 2 — Liberation Day

Doubling down on his belligerent trade policy, Trump levies tariffs on all US trade partners on what he dubs “Liberation Day.”

At a special event at the White House, Trump signed an executive order levying reciprocal tariffs on every country with a tariff on US goods, starting at a 10% minimum.

Markets saw a spate of red across the board following the order, and many economic observers raised concerns over a looming recession. Crypto miners based in the US were further squeezed as their operation costs, namely for buying new mining rigs, increased significantly.

Former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci told Cointelegraph, “I would say that he’s had the worst 95 days in modern presidential history. The markets recovered a little, but we’ve got $9 trillion taken from the stock market. You had a growing economy that’s now heading into a medium-sized recession, possibly a steep recession.”

He said that Trump declared a trade war “without any real weaponry” and subsequently lied about progress when the president claimed China was attempting to negotiate.

“The lies are ok — everyone accepts that he’s a congenital liar […] but when you’re declaring war on people and then you’re lying, it’s really bad.”

April 25 — $300,000-per-plate memecoin dinner raises call for impeachment

Top Trump memecoin holders were reportedly offered an opportunity to have dinner with the president, sparking renewed concerns over his crypto project and prompting one US lawmaker to support impeachment.

At a town hall meeting in his home state of Georgia, Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff said he “strongly” supports impeachment. “When the sitting president of the United States is selling access for what are effectively payments directly to him, there is no question that that rises to the level of an impeachable offense,” he said.

Rumors on social media stated that $300,000 would grant tokenholders an audience with the president, a claim the Trump administration later denied.

Trump’s first 100 days could jeopardize change

The first 100 days of Trump’s presidency have brought unprecedented change to the crypto industry. Simultaneously, they have opened it up to increased criticism and controversy as the president’s personal ties with blockchain projects raise ethical questions.

These controversies may well jeopardize the industry’s efforts to effect change in Congress, according to Scaramucci, who said, “Trump has so inflamed everything that he’s made it even hard for [stablecoin legislation] to happen.”

The STABLE Act, which aims to provide guardrails for stablecoin issuance in the US, was introduced in the House of Representatives on March 26 and passed a committee vote on April 3, with prominent Democrats dissenting. The bill will soon head to the floor for a general vote before going to the Senate.

The Senate’s GENIUS Act has recently made headway, passing a vote in the Banking Committee, largely along party lines.

Magazine: Bitcoin $100K hopes on ice, SBF’s mysterious prison move: Hodler’s Digest, April 20 – 26

Politics

Republicans propose 7% leaner SEC budget compared to Biden’s era

Published

5 hours ago

July 22, 2025

admin

Republicans propose 7% leaner SEC budget compared to Biden’s era

House Republicans have proposed a plan to trim the SEC’s budget and cut enforcement funding for a Biden-era rule requiring public companies to quickly report cyberattacks.

Politics

The wealth tax options Reeves could take to ease her fiscal bind

Published

9 hours ago

July 22, 2025

admin

The wealth tax options Reeves could take to ease her fiscal bind

Faced with a challenging set of numbers, the chancellor is having to make difficult choices with political consequences.

Tax rises and spending cuts are a hard sell.

Now, some in her party are calling for a different approach: target the wealthy.

Is there a way out of all of this for the chancellor?

Economic growth is disappointing and spending pressures are mounting. The government was already examining ways to raise revenue when, earlier this month, Labour backbenchers forced the government to abandon welfare cuts and reinstate winter fuel payments – blowing a £6bn hole in the budget.

The numbers are not adding up for Rachel Reeves, who is steadfastly committed to her fiscal rules. Short of more spending cuts, her only option is to raise taxes – taxes that are already at a generational high.

For some in her party – including Lord Kinnock, the former Labour leader, the solution is simple: introduce a new tax.
They say a flat wealth tax, targeting those with assets above £10m, could raise £12bn for the public purse.

Yet, the government is reportedly reluctant to pursue such a path. It is not convinced that wealth taxes will work. The evidence base is shaky and the debate over the efficacy of these types of taxes has divided the economics community.

Why are we talking about wealth?

Wealth taxes are in the headlines but calls for this type of reform have been growing for some time. Proponents of the change point to shifts in our economy that will be obvious to most people living in Britain: work does not pay in the way it used to.

At the same time wealth inequality has risen. The stock of wealth – that is the total value of everything owned – is much larger than our income, that is the total amount of money earned in a year. That disparity has been growing, especially during that era of low interest rates after 2008 that fuelled asset prices, while wages stagnated.

It means the average worker will have to work for more years to buy assets, say a house, for example.

Left-wing politicians and economists argue that instead of putting more pressure on workers – marginal income tax rates are as high as 70% for some workers – the government should instead target some of this accumulated wealth in order to balance the books.

The Inheritocracy

At the heart of it all is a very straightforward argument about fairness. Few will argue that there aren’t problems with the way our economy is functioning: that it is unfair that young people are struggling to buy homes and raise families.

Proponents of a wealth tax say that it would not only raise revenue but create a fairer tax system.

They argue that the wealth distortions are creating a divided society, where people’s outcomes are determined by their inheritances.

The gap is large. A typical 50-year old born to the poorest 20% of parents in the UK is already worth just a quarter of what someone born to the richest 20% of parents is worth at that age. This is before they inherit anything when their parents die.

A lot of money is passed on earlier; for example, people may have had help buying their first home. That gap widens when the inheritance is passed on. This is when inheritance tax, one of the existing wealth taxes we have in the UK, kicks in.

However, its impact in addressing that imbalance is negligible. Most people don’t meet the threshold to pay it. The government could bring more people into the tax but it is already a deeply unpopular policy.

Alternatives

So what other options could they explore?

Lord Kinnock recently suggested a new tax on the stock of wealth – one to two percent on assets over £10m. That could raise between £12bn and £24bn.

When making the case for the tax, Lord Kinnock told Sky News: “That kind of levy does two things. One is to secure resources, which is very important in revenues.

“But the second thing it does is to say to the country, ‘we are the government of equity’. This is a country which is very substantially fed up with the fact that whatever happens in the world, whatever happens in the UK, the same interests come out on top unscathed all the time while everybody else is paying more for getting services.”

However, there is a lot of scepticism about some of these numbers.

Wealthier people tend to be more mobile and adept at arranging their tax affairs. Determining the value of their assets can be a challenge.

In Downing Street, the fear is that they will simply leave, rendering the policy a failure. Policymakers are already fretting that a recent crackdown on non-doms will do the same.

Critics point to countries where wealth taxes have been tried and repealed. Proponents say we should learn from their mistakes and design something better.

Some say the government could start by improving existing taxes, such as capital gains tax – which people pay when they sell a second property or shares, for example.

The Labour government has already raised capital gains tax rates but bringing them in line with income tax could raise £12bn.

Then there is the potential for National Insurance contributions on investment income – such as rent from property or dividends. Estimates suggest that could bring in another £11bn.

This is nothing to sniff at for a chancellor who needs to find tens of billions of pounds in order to balance her books.

By the same token, she is operating on such fine margins that she can’t afford to get the calculation wrong. There is no easy way out of this fiscal bind for Rachel Reeves.

Whether wealth taxes are the solution or not, hers is a government that has promised reform and creative thinking. The tax system would be a good place to start.

Politics

Pressure grows to leave ‘mad’ Aarhus Convention used to block UK building projects

Published

9 hours ago

July 22, 2025

admin

Pressure grows to leave 'mad' Aarhus Convention used to block UK building projects

Pressure is growing to renegotiate or leave an international convention blamed for slowing building projects and increasing costs after a judge warned campaigners they are in danger of “the misuse of judicial review”.

Under the Aarhus Convention, campaigners who challenge projects on environmental grounds but then lose in court against housing and big infrastructure have their costs above £10,000 capped and the rest met by the taxpayer.

Government figures say this situation is “mad” but ministers have not acted, despite promising to do so for months.

The Tories are today leading the call for change with a demand to reform or leave the convention.

In March, Sky News revealed how a computer scientist from Norfolk had challenged a carbon capture and storage project attached to a gas-fired power station on multiple occasions.

Andrew Boswell took his challenge all the way the appeal court, causing delays of months at a cost of over £100m to the developers.

In May, the verdict handed down by the Court of Appeal was scathing about Dr Boswell’s case.

“Dr Boswell’s approach is, we think, a classic example of the misuse of judicial review in order to continue a campaign against a development… once a party has lost the argument on the planning merits,” wrote the judges.

They added: “Such an approach is inimical to the scheme enacted by parliament for the taking of decisions in the public interest,” adding his case “betrays a serious misunderstanding of the decision of the Supreme Court” and “the appeal must therefore be rejected”.

Another case – against a housing development in a series of fields in Cranbrook, Kent – was thrown out by judges in recent weeks.

The case was brought by CPRE Kent, the countryside challenge, to preserve a set of fields between two housing developments alongside an area of outstanding natural beauty.

John Wotton, from CPRE Kent, suggested it would have been hard to bring the challenge without the costs being capped.

“We would’ve had to think very carefully about whether we could impose that financial risk on the charity,” he told Sky News.

After his case was dismissed, Berkeley Homes said the situation was “clearly absurd and highlights how incredibly slow and uncertain our regulatory system has become”.

They added: “We welcome the government’s commitment to tackle the blockages which stop businesses from investing and frustrate the delivery of much needed homes, jobs and growth.

“We need to make the current system work properly so that homes can actually get built instead of being tied-up in bureaucracy by any individual or organisation who wants to stop them against the will of the government.”

‘Reform could breach international law’

Around 80 cases a year are brought under the Aarhus Convention, Sky News has learned.

The way Britain interprets Aarhus is unique as a result of the UK’s distinctive legal system and the loser pays principle.

Barrister Nick Grant, a planning and environment expert who has represented government and campaigns, said the convention means more legally adventurous claims.

“What you might end up doing is bringing a claim on more adventurous grounds, additional grounds, running points – feeling comfortable running points – that you might not have otherwise run.

“So it’s both people bringing claims, but also how they bring the claims, and what points they run. This cap facilitates it basically.”

However, Mr Grant said that it would be difficult to reform: “Fundamentally, the convention is doing what it was designed to do, which is to facilitate access to justice.

“And it then becomes a question for the policymakers as to what effect is this having and do we want to maintain that? It will be difficult for us to reform it internally without being in breach of our international law obligations”

In March, Sky News was told Number 10 is actively looking at the convention.

Multiple figures in government have said the situation with Britain’s participation in the Aarhus Convention is “mad” but Sky News understands nothing of significance is coming on this subject.

The Tories, however, want action.

Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary and former housing minister, said the Tories would reform or leave the convention.

He told Sky News: “I think the country faces a choice. Do we want to get the economy firing on all cylinders or not?

“We’ve got to reform the planning system and we’ve got to ensure that judicial review… is not used to gum up the system and this convention is clearly one of the issues that has to be addressed.

“We either reform it, if that’s possible. I’m very sceptical because accords like this are very challenging and it takes many many years to reform them.

“If that isn’t possible, then we absolutely should think about leaving because what we’ve got to do is put the interest of the British public first.”

Mr Jenrick also attacked the lawyers who work on Aarhus cases on behalf of clients.

“A cottage industry has grown. In fact, it’s bigger than a cottage industry,” he said.

“There are activist lawyers with campaign groups who are now, frankly, profiteering from this convention. And it is costing the British taxpayer a vast amount of money. These lawyers are getting richer. The country is getting poorer.”