Water regulators and the government have failed to provide a trusted and resilient industry at the same time as bills rise, the state spending watchdog has said.
Public trust in the water sector has reached a record low, according to a report from the National Audit Office (NAO) on the privatised industry.
Not since monitoring began in 2011 has consumer trust been at such a level, it said.
The last time bills rose at this rate was just before the global financial crash, between 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Regulation failure
All three water regulators – Ofwat, the Environment Agency and Drinking Water Inspectorate – and the government department for environment, food and rural affairs (Defra) have played a role in the failure, the NAO said, adding they do not know enough about the condition or age of water infrastructure and the level of funding needed to maintain it.
More on Environment
Related Topics:
Since the utilities were privatised in 1989, the average rate of replacement for water assets is 125 years, the watchdog said. If the current pace is maintained, it will take 700 years to replace the existing water mains.
Image: The NAO said the government and regulators have failed to drive sufficient investment into the sector. File pic: PA
Despite there being three regulators tasked with water, there is no one responsible for proactively inspecting wastewater to prevent environmental harm, the report found.
Instead, regulation is reactive, fining firms when harm has already occurred.
Financial penalties and rewards, however, have not worked as water company performance hasn’t been “consistent or significantly improved” in recent years, the report said.
‘Gaps, inconsistencies, tension’
The NAO called for this to change and for a body to be tasked with the whole process and assets. At present, the Drinking Water Inspectorate monitors water coming into a house, but there is no entity looking at water leaving a property.
Similarly no body is tasked with cybersecurity for wastewater businesses.
As well as there being gaps, “inconsistent” watchdog responsibilities cause “tension” and overlap, the report found.
The Environment Agency has no obligation to balance customer affordability with its duty to the environment when it assesses plans, the NAO said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:53
Thames Water boss can ‘save’ company
Company and investment criticism
Regulators have also been blamed for failing to drive enough funding into the water sector.
From having spoken to investors through numerous meetings, the NAO learnt that confidence had declined, which has made it more expensive to invest in companies providing water.
Even investors found Ofwat’s five-yearly price review process “complex and difficult”, the report said.
Financial resilience of the industry has “weakened” with Ofwat having signalled concerns about the financial resilience of 10 of the 16 major water companies.
Most notably, the UK’s largest provider, Thames Water, faced an uncertain future and potential nationalisation before securing an emergency £3bn loan, adding to its already massive £16bn debt pile.
Water businesses have been overspending, with only some extra spending linked to high inflation in recent years, leading to rising bills, the NAO said.
Over the next 25 years, companies plan to spend £290bn on infrastructure and investment, while Ofwat estimates a further £52bn will be needed to deliver up to 30 water supply projects, including nine reservoirs.
Image: The NAO said regulators do not have a good understanding of the condition of infrastructure assets
What else is going on?
From today, a new government law comes into effect which could see water bosses who cover up illegal sewage spills imprisoned for up to two years.
Such measures are necessary, Defra said, as some water companies have obstructed investigations and failed to hand over evidence on illegal sewage discharges, preventing crackdowns.
Meanwhile, the Independent Water Commission (IWC), led by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, is carrying out the largest review of the industry since privatisation.
What the regulators and government say?
In response to the report, Ofwat said: “The NAO’s report is an important contribution to the debate about the future of the water industry.
“We agree with the NAO’s recommendations for Ofwat and we continue to progress our work in these areas, and to contribute to the IWC’s wider review of the regulatory framework. We also look forward to the IWC’s recommendations and to working with government and other regulators to better deliver for customers and the environment.”
An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “We have worked closely with the National Audit Office in producing this report and welcome its substantial contribution to the debate on the future of water regulation.
“We recognise the significant challenges facing the water industry. That is why we will be working with Defra and other water regulators to implement the report’s recommendations and update our frameworks to reflect its findings.”
A Defra spokesperson said: “The government has taken urgent action to fix the water industry – but change will not happen overnight.
“We have put water companies under tough special measures through our landmark Water Act, with new powers to ban the payment of bonuses to polluting water bosses and bring tougher criminal charges against them if they break the law.”
Water UK, which represents the water firms, has been contacted for comment.
Cryptocurrency firms and centralized exchanges are launching more traditional investment offerings, bridging the divide between traditional financial and digital assets.
With investors seeking more flexible product offerings under one platform, the “line is blurring” between traditional finance (TradFi) and the cryptocurrency space, as the two financial paradigms signal a “growing synergy,” according to Gracy Chen, CEO of Bitget, the world’s sixth-largest crypto exchange.
In the wider crypto space, Securitize partnered with Mantle protocol to launch an institutional fund that will generate yield on a basket of diverse cryptocurrencies, similar to how traditional index funds track a mix of stocks.
The developments come after crypto investor sentiment staged a significant recovery, moving from “fear” to “neutral” for the first time since January 2025.
Investor sentiment was bolstered after US President Donald Trump said that import tariffs on Chinese goods will “come down substantially,” adopting a softer tone in negotiations for the first time since the reciprocal tariff announcement.
Crypto firms moving into Wall Street territory
Cryptocurrency firms and exchanges are increasingly moving into Wall Street territory, launching more traditional investment offerings and showcasing the increasing connection between crypto and traditional finance (TradFi).
“There’s a growing synergy between traditional financial investments and the emerging crypto space,” according to Gracy Chen, the CEO of Bitget, the world’s sixth-largest crypto exchange.
“Crypto players are now checking out traditional finance as they see the opportunity to bridge it,” Chen told Cointelegraph.
“The lines are blurring. Investors want flexibility, and products that can straddle both worlds are naturally attractive,” Chen said. “Some players see TradFi as a safety net; others, like Bitget, see it as a launchpad for broader adoption.” She added:
“In a volatile market, integration is smarter than isolation.”
Securitize, Mantle launch institutional crypto fund
Tokenization platform Securitize partnered with decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol Mantle to launch an institutional fund designed to earn yield on a diverse basket of cryptocurrencies, the companies said.
Similar to how a traditional index fund tracks a mix of stocks, the Mantle Index Four (MI4) Fund aims to offer investors exposure to cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), and Solana (SOL), as well as stablecoins tracking the US dollar, Securitize said in an April 24 announcement.
The fund also integrates liquid staking tokens — including Mantle’s mETH, Bybit’s bbSOL, and Ethena’s USDe — in a bid to enhance returns with onchain yield, according to the announcement.
Mantra says CEO has begun the process of burning his 150 million OM tokens
Mantra founder and CEO John Patrick Mullin has started unstaking 150 million of his Mantra (OM) tokens in preparation for sending them to a burn address in an attempt to restore the token’s value by tightening supply.
Mantra announced on April 21 that the unstaking process had begun, and would be completed by April 29, at which point Mullin’s Mantra (OM) tokens will be sent to the burn address and permanently removed from circulating supply.
Mullin said it was a “first step in rebuilding trust with the community, but far from the last.”
Mantra said it was also in talks with “key ecosystem partners” about burning a further 150 million OM to bring the total burn amount to 300 million.
With 150 million fewer OM, Mantra’s total supply will decline to 1.67 billion, and its number of staked tokens will drop by over 26% to 421.8 million OM from 571.8 million OM.
Symbiotic raises $29 million for staking-based universal coordination layer
Cryptocurrency staking protocol Symbiotic closed a $29 million Series A funding round led by Web3-focused investment firms, including Pantera Capital and Coinbase Ventures, to support the launch of a new economic coordination layer for blockchain security.
The round included more than 100 angel investors, with participation by major industry players Aave, Polygon and StarkWare, the company said in an April 23 announcement shared with Cointelegraph.
The closing of the funding round also marks the launch of Symbiotic’s Universal Staking Framework, which aims to be an economic coordination layer that bolsters blockchain security via staking.
The new staking layer enables the use of any combination of cryptocurrencies to secure networks, including monolithic and modularlayer-1 and layer-2 blockchains, the announcement said.
“We’ve created a modular framework that lets protocols evolve security models over time while efficiently coordinating risk,” Misha Putiatin, co-founder of Symbiotic, told Cointelegraph. “This empowers protocols at every stage of their lifecycle to evolve their security models seamlessly without rebuilding infrastructure.”
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) delayed a decision on whether to approve a proposed exchange-traded fund (ETF) holding Polkadot’s native token, regulatory filings show.
According to an April 24 filing, the regulator has extended its deadline for a final ruling until June 11, nearly four months after the Nasdaq sought permission to list Grayscale Polkadot Trust on Feb. 24.
Grayscale’s ETF filing adds to a roster of about 70 proposed ETFs awaiting SEC approval, including funds holding altcoins, memecoins and crypto-related financial derivatives, according to Bloomberg Intelligence.
Asset managers are pitching ETFs for “[e]verything from XRP, Litecoin and Solana to Penguins, Doge and 2x Melania and everything in between,” Bloomberg analyst Eric Balchunas said in an April 21 post on the X platform. Asset manager 21Shares is also awaiting permission to list its own Polkadot ETF.
According to data from Cointelegraph Markets Pro and TradingView, most of the 100 largest cryptocurrencies by market capitalization ended the week in the green.
The Official Trump (TRUMP) token rose over 73% as the week’s biggest gainer, after the president announced an exclusive in-person dinner for the top tokenholders. The Sui (SUI) token rose over 69% as the week’s second-best performing token.
Total value locked in DeFi. Source: DefiLlama
Thanks for reading our summary of this week’s most impactful DeFi developments. Join us next Friday for more stories, insights and education regarding this dynamically advancing space.
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.
A high court in Nigeria has reportedly granted the country’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) the authority to arrest six individuals who were allegedly involved in investment fraud at a cryptocurrency exchange.
According to an April 24 report from Nigerian news outlet The Cable, the Federal High Court in Abuja approved the arrest and detention of six people who promoted the Crypto Bridge Exchange (CBEX), allegedly defrauding investors out of 1 billion naira, or roughly $620,000. The suspects in the cases did not appear to have been arrested at the time of publication.
“[The defendants used] their company ST Technologies International Limited, promoted another company Crypto Bridge Exchange by making adverts, and lured unsuspecting members of the public to invest cryptocurrencies on the CBEX investment platform,” the EFCC reportedly said in its motion for the arrest.
The legal case marked another instance of Nigeria cracking down on representatives of crypto exchanges in the country. In February 2024, Nigerian authorities detained and arrested two Binance executives who were visiting to discuss the exchange’s activities.
In April, many CBEX users began reporting that they could not withdraw their funds from the exchange, resulting in online outrage that led to real-world violence. A group of investors stormed CBEX’s local office in Ibadan, looting items like the air conditioning unit in an apparent attempt to recuperate some of their losses.
The case against Binance is still on
The Nigerian case against Binance, in which a US citizen, Tigran Gambaryan, was detained and whose health reportedly deteriorated as he waited in prison, drew criticism from many in the crypto industry and US lawmakers. He was held for eight months on tax and money laundering charges before being released to US custody.
Nigeria’s tax evasion case against Binance continues to move forward after Gambaryan’s release, though the exchange has no office in the country. Cointelegraph reached out to a representative from Nigeria’s Ministry of Information for comment but did not receive a response at the time of publication.