Crypto News
Bitcoin hits new 10-week high as Trump demands rate cut on US jobs beat
Key points:The US labor market is “still holding up” as nonfarm payrolls data comes in higher than expected.Bitcoin and stocks head higher as US President Donald Trump repeats calls for the Fed to lower interest rates.BTC price action may spark a “liquidity grab” above $97,000, a trader warns.Bitcoin (BTC) hit new multimonth highs after the May 2 Wall Street open as US nonfarm payrolls data beat expectations.BTC/USD 1-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingViewBitcoin meanders after nonfarm payrolls beatData from Cointelegraph Markets Pro and TradingView showed BTC/USD building on $97,000 as markets digested the latest in a bumper week of macro data.Nonfarm payrolls indicated 177,000 jobs added in April, considerably more than the roughly 140,000 forecast.“The labor market is still holding up,” trading resource The Kobeissi Letter wrote in part of a reaction on X.The strong result is ostensibly less bullish for crypto and risk assets as it implies that the labor market is more resilient to tight financial conditions, including raised interest rates, than expected.This, in turn, gives the US Federal Reserve more leeway to keep those conditions in play for longer, depriving markets of the liquidity influx associated with lower rates.Despite this, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite Index were both up more than 1.3% on the day at the time of writing.In his latest post on Truth Social, meanwhile, US President Donald Trump reiterated calls on the Fed to cut rates — an approach adopted throughout his ongoing implementation of trade tariffs.“Consumers have been waiting for years to see pricing come down. NO INFLATION, THE FED SHOULD LOWER ITS RATE!!!” part of the post stated, referencing various inflation markers.Source: Truth SocialAs Cointelegraph reported, the Fed’s next decision on rates will come on May 7, with markets overwhelmingly seeing no change to the current regime. The latest data from CME Group’s FedWatch Tool puts the odds of a cut next week at just 2%.Fed target rate probabilities for May FOMC meeting. Source: CME GroupWarning over BTC price “liquidity grab”In Bitcoin circles, market participants eyed sellers’ response to continued pushes higher through the week.Related: Bitcoin hodler unrealized profits near 350% as $100K risks sell-off“Going to be an interesting day ahead,” popular trader Skew told X followers alongside a chart of exchange order book liquidity.“Sellers have been defending $97.2K & shorts continue to scale into price. Passive spot flow will probably again decide the trend.”BTC/USDT charts with order book liquidity data. Source: Skew/XFellow trader Daan Crypto Trades warned that current local highs may end up a ploy to take liquidity before a reversal.“$BTC Broke out of the $93K to $96K range after price action got compressed for about a week,” part of an X post read prior to the macro data releases. “So far it's a similar setup as the week before, but I wouldn't want to see it trade back into that $93K-$96K range or this would just be a liquidity grab.”BTC/USD 1-hour chart. Source: Daan Crypto Trades/XAnother popular trader known as TheKingfisher referenced bid liquidity as a reason for a short-term dip to $95,000.Trader and analyst Rekt Capital, meanwhile, gave an end-of-week BTC price target requirement of $99,000.“If Bitcoin continues to hold above $93,500 (as it has been thus far), then price will be positioned for a move across the range,” he explained alongside the weekly BTC/USD chart the day prior.“However, it's key that $BTC breaks the black Lower High resistance within this Range which is positioned at ~$99k this week.”BTC/USD 1-week chart. Source: Rekt Capital/XThis article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.
Published Date: 2025-05-02 16:30:40Creator: Cointelegraph by William Suberg
Read More
Free speech is at risk without decentralized, open-source technology
Opinion by: Chris Jenkins, adviser to Pocket NetworkTim Berners-Lee’s vision of the World Wide Web is dead. Instead of an open and accessible global information system, the web is controlled by centralized global data conglomerates, which don’t just restrict free speech but also monetize your data as a price of entry. Web2 firms have built walled gardens with massive information asymmetry between companies and users.Blockchain-based decentralized tech challenges the status quo, offering an alternative to Web2’s closed-source infrastructure. It enables developers and engineers to build a censorship-resistant and accessible open-data web to champion the cause of free speech. Open-source technology creates a paradigmatic shift in a fair and inclusive internet where centralized web companies won’t dictate the terms.A vision deferredIn 1989, Berners-Lee’s invention created a virtual space for collaboration, sharing and learning from one another. The web’s first iteration was based on openness, where anyone could contribute, access information, work together, and enjoy the same opportunities.The internet is no longer free in 2025. Capital’s brute force has emboldened centralized companies to exercise authoritarian control over data and information flows.Unfortunately, these companies have acquired their power and resources from unaware users who unknowingly contributed to their capital accumulation strategies. Web2 companies surreptitiously collect data from users without fair compensation and use that as a weapon to control user behavior.Corporations harness user data to train opaque algorithms and deploy information “discoverability” to shape users’ beliefs and emotions. This practice is visible mainly on centralized social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and X, with multiple scandals and pending litigations eroding user trust.For example, in June 2024, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, received 11 complaints from European Union members. The complaints concerned using personal data like posts and images to train Meta’s AI models without consent, violating EU privacy laws.Recent: The case against Pavel Durov and why it’s important for cryptoThe Cambridge Analytica scandal demonstrated how companies mine data to shape political perspectives and election outcomes. These companies also construct pre-determined narratives and shape market behavior by promoting or subverting curated reports, sometimes shaping public perspectives on health and economic data.Under its Digital Markets Act, the European Commission has initiated a noncompliance investigation into Apple, Meta, Amazon and Alphabet’s practices. Meta has also incurred a $1.3 billion fine for failing to comply with privacy regulations.In this environment, “free speech” remains a far-fetched dream because the entire tech stack is hostile to accessibility and openness. To realize Berners-Lee’s vision, apps must use a decentralized tech stack and be built from the ground up on an open architecture.Make the internet free (again)An app’s tech stack consists of its front and back ends, data storage and Content Delivery Network (CDN). Web2 platforms depend on a centralized tech stack that puts free speech at risk, while most blockchain-powered apps leverage a censorship-resistant decentralized tech stack with high uptime.Some decentralized applications (DApps) build their front end on a decentralized interface. Most of their back end, however, is still stuck on centralized data infrastructure.For example, despite their censorship vulnerabilities and single failure points, decentralized applications (DApps) often use centralized cloud providers and data hosting platforms. These types of attack vectors make projects like Tornado Cash subject to the changing moods of state actors.Shifting to open-source protocols for distributed data storage like InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) and Filecoin upholds the free speech philosophy on DApps. These protocols offer a censorship-resistant, tamper-proof storage facility that remains accessible without arbitrary outages.DApps also use centralized remote procedure call (RPC) providers to supply data from the back-end to the front-end interface, especially across multiple networks. But any outage or attack, like the one on X, can lead to downtime, inaccuracies, data gaps and disconnected information flows. If it doesn’t seem like much, remember downtime or inaccuracies in decentralized finance can cost billions.Decentralized protocols avoid these situations by transforming data accessibility and transfer channels with independent node operators. Data queries are distributed across the network, eliminating any single point of failure and providing uninterrupted data availability. More importantly, it safeguards free speech rights because no single node can block or obstruct data flow, and the network remains accessible even if several nodes go offline.CDNs, yet another crucial component for serving user requests, can become inaccessible due to market pressure or political influence. Opaque decisions from closed-door meetings dictate data flows on CDNs without any certainty in information flows.Start with the basicsDecentralized protocols remove the need for centralized decision-making by enabling apps to directly access data without intermediaries. These permissionless protocols connect open-source data and service providers with users and applications, removing human interaction and associated manufactured problems.Blockchain-powered platforms lay the foundation for a decentralized tech stack that promotes free speech and isn’t controlled by centralized Web2 companies. These permissionless protocols build an open-source world and return the internet to Berners-Lee’s vision of a global and accessible network.Opinion by: Chris Jenkins, adviser to Pocket Network.This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Published Date: 2025-05-02 15:00:00Creator: Cointelegraph by Chris Jenkins
Read More
Ether more ‘like a memecoin,’ says trading firm as ETH drops 45% YTD
As Ether’s price has struggled in the first quarter of 2025, a US-based investment adviser firm, Two Prime, has dropped support for ETH and adopted a Bitcoin-only strategy.After lending $1.5 billion in loans both in Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) over the past 15 months, Two Prime decided to ditch ETH to focus solely on BTC asset management and lending, the firm announced on May 1.“ETH’s statistical trading behavior, value proposition, and community culture have failed beyond a point that is worth engaging,” Two Primes stated.The firm’s shift to a Bitcoin-only approach comes as ETH has lost 45% of its value year-to-date, with some optimists speculating that ETH is potentially close to the bottom and reversing its negative trend soon.“Ether no longer trades predictably”“As an algorithmic trading firm, we value data more than narratives,” Two Primes said, adding that the “data suggests ETH has fundamentally changed.”In addition to de-correlating from Bitcoin, Ether has become no longer predictable, Two Primes argued, adding:“It trades now like a memecoin rather than a predictable asset. Even during the turbulence of Q1 2025, Bitcoin remained within its fundamental behavior, whereas ETH saw several multi-standard deviation moves.”Two Primes then went on to say that such conditions “create a headache” for both algorithmic trading and ETH-back lending as the asset no longer behaves predictably, “even by the high volatility expectations of digital asset markets.”Founded in 2019 by Alexander Blum and Marc Fleury, Two Prime is an investment advisory firm registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The firm has been offering trading and lending services for both BTC and ETH for the past six years.Community fires back: ETH bottom signalTwo Prime’s critical remarks about Ether were quick to trigger responses from the community, with many seeing the message as another bottom signal for the cryptocurrency.“What a retarded essay statement,” one market observer wrote on X, citing the high volatility of the S&P 500, which dropped 4.7% YTD.Source: SEMB“Never even heard of them. Seems irrelevant,” another commentator said, expressing doubt on whether the community should rely on Two Prime’s shifting approach to Ether.“If this isn’t a bottom signal for ETH idk [I don’t know] what is,” another poster speculated, joining the many expecting ETH price to bounce following a downtrend cycle.Who else ditched ETH in the past months?Two Primes also mentioned the weak performance of Ether exchange-traded funds (ETFs), highlighting that BTC ETF buying has outpaced ETH by almost 24 times. “The failure of ETH’s ETF creates a reflexive loop whereby institutions like BlackRock dedicate fewer resources to their promotion and sale. BTC has found the mainstream while ETH has floundered,” the firm stated.Related: Vitalik Buterin outlines vision as Ethereum ecosystem addresses hit new highDespite Ether ETFs seeing low performance, Ether is still the biggest altcoin for crypto ETFs in terms of assets under management (AUM), far outpacing others like Solana (SOL) and XRP (XRP).According to the latest update from CoinShares, Ether-based exchange-traded products had $9.2 billion in AUM by the end of last week, while Solana and XRP followed with $1.4 billion and $1 billion, respectively.Crypto ETP flows by asset (in millions of US dollars). Source: CoinSharesFollowing approval from the US SEC in May 2024, spot Ether ETFs saw a slow start in 2024, with performance losing ground compared to the massive spot Bitcoin ETF debut.Amid low investor demand, some issuers like VanEck ceased trading futures Ether ETFs, while WisdomTree withdrew its Ethereum Trust ETF proposal in September 2024. In March 2025, ARK liquidated its futures ETFs for both Ether and Bitcoin.Magazine: Ethereum is destroying the competition in the $16.1T TradFi tokenization race
Published Date: 2025-05-02 14:30:23Creator: Cointelegraph by Helen Partz
Read More
Moon soon? XRP's strongest spot premium aligns with 70% rally setup
Key takeaways:XRP’s strongest spot premium phase suggests real buying demand, not just speculative futures trading. The number of XRP addresses holding ≥10,000 tokens has steadily climbed, even during recent price pullbacks. A falling wedge pattern points to a possible breakout toward $3 to $3.78, with up to 70% upside if confirmed.XRP (XRP) is experiencing its strongest sustained phase of spot premium in history, a period where the spot market has been consistently trading at stronger levels compared to perpetual futures.XRP’s 350% rally is backed by real demand Since 2020, most major XRP price peaks happened when the perpetual futures market was leading, noted market analyst Dom in his May 2 post on X. XRP’s futures prices being higher than spot signaled excessive speculation and led to sharp price drops.XRP/USD daily price ft. spot vs premium rates. Source: TradingView/DomAs of 2025, a spot premium suggests that demand from actual XRP buyers is driving the rally, pointing to a more stable price rise compared to past runs powered by leveraged bets.Further reinforcing the case for real demand, Glassnode data shows a consistent rise in the number of XRP addresses holding at least 10,000 XRP (the green wave in the chart below) since late November 2024. XRP’s price has rallied by approximately 350% since then.XRP number of addresses with a balance of over 10,000 tokens vs. price. Source: GlassnodeXRP’s whale count has risen even during its 35% price pullback between January and April. It suggests that larger holders—often viewed as more patient or strategic investors—are steadily accumulating positions in anticipation of further gains.Optimism has been fueled by improving odds of spot XRP ETF approval in the US. The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) decision to drop its lawsuit against Ripple has further boosted the market’s upside sentiment.Source: Eric BalchunasRelated: SEC punts decisions on XRP, DOGE ETFsFalling wedge hints at 70% XRP price rally XRP has been consolidating within a falling wedge pattern on the weekly chart — a structure defined by downward-sloping, converging trendlines. In technical analysis, this pattern is generally viewed as a bullish reversal signal.A confirmed breakout requires a clear move above the wedge’s upper resistance near $2.52. XRP/USD weekly price chart. Source: TradingViewIf XRP breaks this level, the pattern’s measured move — calculated from the wedge’s maximum height — suggests a potential rally toward $3.78 by June. This would represent an estimated 70% upside from the current prices.Conversely, if XRP fails to break above the $2.52 resistance, the price could pull back toward the wedge’s lower trendline. The pattern’s apex near $1.81 may act as the final potential breakout point.A breakout from the $1.81 level would still keep the pattern’s structure intact, with a potential upside target around $3 by June or July — roughly 35% above current levels.This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.
Published Date: 2025-05-02 14:25:57Creator: Cointelegraph by Yashu Gola
Read More
Bitcoin unsure as recession looms, US-China tariff talks kick off
Bitcoin’s recovery to its all-time high may be threatened by rising recession fears, which could ease if the United States and China begin tariff negotiations this month, research analysts told Cointelegraph.Appetite for global risk assets such as Bitcoin (BTC) may take another hit, with analysts from Apollo Global Management predicting a recession by the summer.“Apollo predicting Summer Recession: Sharpest decline in earnings outlook since 2020,” cross-asset analyst Samantha LaDuc wrote in an April 26 X post.The progress on the tariff negotiations may be the most significant factor impacting a potential recession and Bitcoin’s price trajectory, according to Aurelie Barthere, principal research analyst at crypto intelligence platform Nansen.Source: Samantha LaDuc“May is seen as pivotal as Chinese shipments reach the US’s shores, and exemptions on some tariff categories such as auto parts and sub-USD-800 shipments from China/ Hong Kong expire,” Barthere told Cointelegraph, adding that a lack of negotiations in May could lead to an economic recession and “double-digit losses” for Bitcoin.However, this is the least likely scenario, since neither China nor the US “ has an economic interest in the interruption of bilateral trade,” Barthere said, adding:“Given this, the main tariff scenario is for the US reaching deals or at least ‘agreements in principle’ with its main trade partners, probably settling around the 10% reciprocal tariff ‘floor’.”If that scenario plays out and trade tensions ease in May, Bitcoin is likely to revisit its all-time high, Barthere said. The US has “proactively reached out to China through multiple channels,” for signaling its openness for tariff negotiations, Reuters reported on May 1, citing unnamed sources who spoke to state-affiliated Chinese media platform Yuyuan Tantian.Related: Bitcoin treasury firms driving $200T hyperbitcoinization — Adam BackBitcoin may rally despite recessionWhile most analysts hope to see trade negotiations in May alleviate economic concerns, Bitcoin may see more upside even in the face of a potential recession.“Initially, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies may experience volatility, dropping alongside risk assets like stocks due to investor sell-offs,” Anndy Lian, author and intergovernmental blockchain adviser, told Cointelegraph, adding:“Historical data, such as Bitcoin’s recovery post-2020 recession, suggests it could rebound, especially if seen as a hedge against inflation.”“In stagflation (high inflation and slow growth), Bitcoin, often compared to gold, may perform well, attracting investors seeking value preservation. Yet, its increased correlation with the stock market, particularly tech stocks, introduces uncertainty,” said Lian, adding that crypto investors should continue monitoring economic policy shifts to gauge market direction.BTC/USD, 1-week chart, 2020-2021. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingViewHowever, Bitcoin’s increasing correlation with tech stocks adds uncertainty to that outlook. Following the COVID-19 crash in March 2020, Bitcoin surged more than 1,050%, climbing from $6,000 to an all-time high of $69,000 in November 2021. That rally came after the Federal Reserve launched its $4 trillion asset purchase program in March 2020.Related: Bitcoin to $1M by 2029 fueled by ETF and gov’t demand — Bitwise execOther industry watchers remain concerned by the crypto market’s response to economic stagnation.“If the analysts are correct about the recession (which is certainly not guaranteed), crypto markets will likely decline alongside broader risk-on assets and equities,” according to Marcin Kazmierczak, co-founder and chief operating officer of blockchain oracle firm RedStone.Kazmierczak said April’s “Liberation Day tariffs and trucking slowdown could create economic contagion that historically hits speculative assets hardest.” “While crypto’s growing institutional adoption introduces some uncertainty, it’s not enough to overcome the fundamental risk-on classification that still dominates market behavior,” he added.Magazine: Altcoin season to hit in Q2? Mantra’s plan to win trust: Hodler’s Digest, April 13 – 19
Published Date: 2025-05-02 13:49:06Creator: Cointelegraph by Zoltan Vardai
Read More
UK regulator moves to restrict borrowing for crypto investments
The United Kingdom’s financial regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), plans to stop retail investors from borrowing money to fund their crypto investments.According to a May 2 Financial Times report, the ban on borrowing to fund crypto purchases is one of the upcoming crypto rules by the FCA. David Geale, FCA executive director of payments and digital finance, told the FT that “crypto is an area of potential growth for the UK, but it has to be done right.” He added:“To do that we have to provide an appropriate level of protection.”Geale denied claims that the FCA is hostile to the crypto industry. Instead, he explained that he views the industry as offering high-risk investments with less consumer protection. “We are open for business,“ he said.The interview follows the FCA seeking feedback on regulating the crypto market. In an attached document, the regulator noted that it is “exploring whether it would be appropriate to restrict firms from accepting credit as a means for consumers to buy cryptoassets.”FCA crypto regulation discussion paper. Source: FCAThe FCA did not respond to Cointelegraph’s inquiry by publication.Related: FCA releases discussion paper on crypto market transparency, abuseFCA’s upcoming rulesThe FCA aims to regulate the domestic cryptocurrency market, ruling over trading platforms, intermediaries, crypto lenders and borrowers, as well as decentralized finance (DeFi) systems. The regulator reportedly plans to introduce stricter rules for crypto services aimed at retail investors than those offered exclusively to professional or sophisticated investors.Gale explained that the agency aims to develop a framework “that is safe and is competitive.” He said that the regulator aims to develop a regulatory regime that would attract businesses:“If we can get the regulatory regime right it actually becomes attractive for firms. That is what we are trying to achieve.”Related: UK’s finance watchdog defends ‘too tough’ crypto stanceThe FCA lending banThe regulator explained that its upcoming ban to restrict lending to fund consumers’ crypto purchases is motivated by a concern over “unsustainable debt, particularly if the value of their crypto asset drops and they were relying on its value to repay.” The ban would also include credit card purchases.While 2024 FCA research showed that “the leading method of payment for cryptoassets among cryptoasset users continues to be the individual’s own disposable cash/income (72%),” it also highlights a growing trend in credit purchases. The research cites that only 6% of purchases were made on credit in 2022, but this metric climbed to 14% in 2024.The FCA also purportedly plans to block retail investors from accessing crypto lenders and borrowers. Other concerns about the crypto market cited by the regulator include market manipulation, conflicts of interest, settlement failures, a lack of transparency, illiquidity, and unreliable trading systems.To alleviate those issues, the regulator plans to require equal trade treatment by crypto trading platforms. Other potential rules include the enforcement of a separation between proprietary trading activities from those done for retail investors and demanding transparency on trade pricing and execution.Trading platforms would be banned from paying intermediaries for order flow, and users of staking services would have to be reimbursed for any potential losses caused by third parties. The FCA plans to exempt DeFi systems without centralized operations, as long as they do not feature a “clear controlling person.”Magazine: Crypto wanted to overthrow banks, now it’s becoming them in stablecoin fight
Published Date: 2025-05-02 13:11:03Creator: Cointelegraph by Adrian Zmudzinski
Read More
Are Donald Trump’s tariffs a legal house of cards?
On Wednesday, speaking from the White House, US President Donald Trump suggested that families scale back on gifts this year.Asked about his tariff program, the president remarked, “Somebody said, ‘Oh, the shelves are gonna be open. Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more.’”But the toy stores where those dolls are sold might have something to say about it. Earlier in the week, Mischief Toy Store in St. Paul, Minnesota joined a growing number of American small businesses suing the president over his emergency tariff plan.Throughout April, a groundswell of lawsuits led by 13 states further challenged Trump’s ambitious tariff program. Their success or failure rests on hundreds of years of judicial policy and American constitutional law. The legal basis for the Trump tariffsWhen Trump first announced his ambitious tariff program to the world, you might have wondered, Why is he allowed to do this? Well, he may not be. The president’s power to unilaterally impose tariffs is not rooted in the office’s constitutional Article II power. Instead, it is a delegation of authority by Congress. Article I of the US Constitution creates Congress, and Section 8 delegates the authority to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” For much of the United States’ history, this is precisely what it did — through a series of colorfully named tariff programs like the Tariff of Abominations of 1828, the Dingley Tariff of 1897 and culminating in the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. At the time, Smoot-Hawley was widely perceived as contributing to the devastation of the Great Depression. As a consequence, Congress’s use of tariffs became viewed as corrosively political and dysregulated, spurring change.In the early 1930s, then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed for legislation to grant his office the authority to negotiate tariffs. He argued that tariffs had wrecked the economy and that he should have the power to reduce them:World trade has declined with startling rapidity. Measured in terms of the volume of goods in 1933, it has been reduced to approximately 70 percent of its 1929 volume; measured in terms of dollars, it has fallen to 35 percent. The drop in the foreign trade of the United States has been even sharper. Our exports in 1933 were but 52 percent of the 1929 volume, and 32 percent of the 1929 value […] a full and permanent domestic recovery depends in part upon a revived and strengthened international trade and that American exports cannot be permanently increased without a corresponding increase in imports.Thus followed the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 (RTAA), which gave the president the power to set tariff rates, provided it came as part of a reciprocal agreement with a counterpart. This allowed the office to negotiate directly with other nations and promoted a period of liberalized trade. The RTAA, however, is not the law that Trump is now relying on. His tariffs are unilateral, not reciprocal, and would require another century of law to conceive. After the RTAA, Congress continued to delegate authority to the president through the midcentury. Notably, this included the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allowed the president to impose unilateral tariffs in response to national security threats; the Trade Act of 1974, which allowed the president to retaliate against unfair trade practices; and, crucially, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, known as IEEPA. Now, the IEEPA doesn’t say anything about tariffs; it is better known as the law that recent presidents have used to levy sanctions against enemy nations like Russia. It grants the president the power to respond to declared emergencies in response to “unusual and extraordinary threat[s]” (the president also has the power to declare emergencies, but that comes from the National Emergencies Act, a different law) by “investigat[ing], regulat[ing], or prohibit[ing] any transactions in foreign exchange.” Related: Trump’s WLFI crypto investments aren’t paying offDespite this novel application, the Trump administration has seized on the law because, unlike all other tariff statutes, it permits the president to act through executive order alone.Throughout his young second term, Trump has used this statute to declare arbitrary tariffs on virtually all of America’s trading partners. First, declaring 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and then various large tariffs on the rest of the world.To do so, Trump declared a “national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries.”This was the first time a president had attempted to use the law in this way, and many legal scholars believe it is illegal.Like flies to honeyAlmost immediately after Trump’s tariffs were announced, lawsuits began to trickle in. Fearing retribution from the administration, many trade groups and major players reportedly chose to bow out of proceedings. However, California became the first state to sue on April 16, followed a week later on April 23 by a dozen other states.There are basically two legal arguments you can make against Trump’s tariffs: (1) The IEEPA doesn’t authorize the president to implement his tariff program, and (2) it is unconstitutional for the IEEPA to delegate such broad authority to the president. This is exactly what California and the consortium of 12 states did — arguing that (1) the president’s actions are ultra vires — beyond his legal authority — and (2) they would violate separation of powers. There are a few reasons this might be true. For one, as the states identified, any action under the IEEPA must be tailored to “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat,” and, “[t]he nearly worldwide 10 percent tariff level is wholly unconnected to the stated basis of the emergency declaration: it applies without regard to any country’s trade practices or purported threat to domestic industries.”Second, there is a constitutional limit on Congress’s authority to delegate Article I powers to the president, known as the “nondelegation doctrine.” While in theory this could be robust, it has generally been nerfed by the obsequious Supreme Court’s past. Nonetheless, there remains an “intelligible principle test” that such delegation may only be allowed “if Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such rates is directed to conform.”Related: If Trump fired Powell, what would happen to crypto?In theory, if Congress had actually given the president plenary authority to fix tariffs according to his whims, it should violate this doctrine. But the Supreme Court has not struck down an executive action on these grounds since Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan in 1935.Despite the constitutional uncertainty, the net of the arguments is broadly perceived as strong. This is why one “prominent conservative lawyer” told ABC News that plaintiffs may win in a fight against Trump:There is a strong argument that the tariffs imposed under the IEEPA are not legal or constitutional. Under that particular statute, tariffs are not listed amongst the various actions a president can take in response to the declaration of a national emergency.But there are some factors in the president’s favor. For one, the administration may be able to hear these claims in the US Court of International Trade (CIT), which has exclusive jurisdiction over most tariff disputes.Appeals from this court are heard in the Federal Circuit, which is generally seen as favorable for Trump. The 12-state complaint was actually filed in this court from the outset, but California filed its complaint in the Northern District of California, which sits in the less deferential Ninth Circuit.If Trump succeeds in removing that action to CIT, it will be an early victory for the administration.More importantly, the administration is attempting to invoke the “political question doctrine.” In the first major Supreme Court case, 1803’s Marbury v. Madison, the Court noted that “[q]uestions, in their nature political or which are, by the Constitution and laws, submitted to the Executive, can never be made in this court.” Ever since then, pusillanimous courts have used the doctrine to avoid difficult questions, most notably in cases involving impeachment, foreign policy and partisan gerrymandering.The Trump administration argued exactly this in its April 29 motion for preliminary injunction and summary judgment in the states’ AG case. Trump argues that “courts have consistently held that the President’s emergency declarations under NEA, and the adequacy of his policy choices addressing those emergencies under IEEPA, are unreviewable” and that “[t]herefore, any challenge to the fact of the emergency itself — particularly the claim that the emergency is not ‘unusual’ or ‘extraordinary’ enough, in plaintiffs’ view — is a nonjusticiable political question that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider.”To date, no rulings hint at which side the courts are likely to prefer. The president’s track record in court has historically been poor, with a win rate of 35% in the Supreme Court during his first term, compared to an average presidential win rate of 65.2%.The outlook for cryptoAs the tariff fight has matured, the outlook for crypto is uncertain. It is a peculiarity of tariffs that they apply only to goods and not services or digital products. This has left cryptocurrency assets — intangible, borderless and often routed through offshore entities — outside the reach of traditional trade barriers.As markets shuddered at Trump’s policies, Bitcoin (BTC) finished April up 14% on the month. If Trump is allowed to pursue an arbitrary trade policy and abide by Peter Navarro’s wish to turn the United States into a new hermit nation, it may prove the final validation to force cryptocurrency as the medium of international trade. Magazine: Crypto wanted to overthrow banks, now it’s becoming them in stablecoin fight
Published Date: 2025-05-02 12:54:55Creator: Cointelegraph by Aaron Brogan
Read More
KuCoin to reenter South Korea after securing key markets: CEO
Crypto exchange KuCoin said that it may reenter South Korea after its platform was blocked in the country. On March 21, South Korean regulators ordered Google Play to block access to exchanges that were not compliant with the requirements needed to operate in the country. On April 11, South Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC) ordered the Apple Store to block unregistered crypto exchanges. KuCoin was among those affected by the country’s crackdown on unregistered platforms that were previously available. While the platform is now unavailable to South Koreans, it has not fully abandoned the jurisdiction. In an exclusive interview with Cointelegraph, KuCoin’s newly appointed CEO, BC Wong, said that the crypto exchange has plans to reenter the country. Wong (left), KuCoin EU CEO Oliver Stauber (middle) and Cointelegraph reporter Ezra Reguerra (right) at the Token2049 event in Dubai. Source: Market AcrossRegulators drive global players away from local marketsWong told Cointelegraph that before the exchange can reenter South Korea, it plans to secure compliance with major jurisdictions first. He said: “The resource is there. We need to go one by one. Our strategy will always be that major jurisdictions come first, which means the United States, EU, China, India, and maybe after that, Australia.”Wong confirmed to Cointelegraph that KuCoin representatives had started speaking with regulators. The executive said that operating in crypto is very similar to traditional financial markets, where there’s a need for a clear background in each jurisdiction. The KuCoin CEO also said that regulators are stricter compared to three years ago. He said that this could be a move to drive global players away from local crypto markets. “I'm not so sure that if the regulators’ intention is to regulate the global market or just simply, they want to pave the way to get all the global kind of players to be out from their market, and pave the road for their domestic exchange,” Wong added. Related: Kraken tells how it spotted North Korean hacker in job interviewKuCoin’s EU CEO shares regulatory challenges in EuropeOliver Stauber, who joined KuCoin as its European Union CEO, told Cointelegraph that there are also difficulties operating in the EU, even with the bloc’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) in place. Stauber, who previously worked as the chief legal officer of Bitpanda, told Cointelegraph that while MiCA licenses have a passporting feature, which should allow license holders to provide services across the EU, the executive said that some jurisdictions interpret the laws differently. Stauber said that some jurisdictions may say that licenses were “wrongly assessed,” which gets in the way of operating in some jurisdictions. “MiCA was said to have a level playing field in crypto all over Europe. However, as long as there are players who are not playing by the books, you know it's getting quite messy and difficult,” Stauber told Cointelegraph. Magazine: Pokémon on Sui rumors, Polymarket bets on Filipino Pope: Asia Express
Published Date: 2025-05-02 11:56:35Creator: Cointelegraph by Ezra Reguerra
Read More
EU to ban anonymous crypto accounts and privacy coins by 2027
The European Union is set to impose sweeping Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules that will ban privacy-preserving tokens and anonymous cryptocurrency accounts from 2027.Under the new Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR), credit institutions, financial institutions and crypto asset service providers (CASPs) will be prohibited from maintaining anonymous accounts or handling privacy-preserving cryptocurrencies, such as Monero (XMR) and Zcash (ZEC).“Article 79 of the AMLR establishes strict prohibitions on anonymous accounts [...]. Credit institutions, financial institutions, and crypto-asset service providers are prohibited from maintaining anonymous accounts,” according to the AML Handbook, published by European Crypto Initiative (EUCI).The AML Handbook. Source: EUCIThe regulation is part of a broader AML framework that includes bank and payment accounts, passbooks and safe-deposit boxes, “crypto-asset accounts allowing anonymisation of transactions,” and “accounts using anonymity-enhancing coins.”Related: Eric Trump: USD1 will be used for $2B MGX investment in Binance“The regulations (the AMLR, AMLD and AMLAR) are final, and what remains is the ‘fine print’ — aka the interpretation of some of the requirements through the so-called implementing and delegated acts,” according to Vyara Savova, senior policy lead at the EUCI.She added that much of the implementation will come through so-called implementing and delegated acts, which are mostly handled by the European Banking Authority:“This means that the EUCI is still actively working on these level two acts by providing feedback to the public consultations, as some of the implementation details are yet to be finalized.”“However, the broader framework is final, so centralized crypto projects (CASPs under MiCA) need to keep it in mind when determining their internal processes and policies,” Savova said.Related: Bitcoin volatility lowest in 563 days, Hayes predicts $1M BTC by 2028EU to increase oversight of crypto service providersUnder the new regulatory framework, CASPs operating in at least six member states will be under direct AML supervision.In the initial stage, AMLA plans to select 40 entities, with at least one entity per member state, according to EUCI’s AML Handbook. The selection process is set to start on July 1, 2027.AMLA will use “materiality thresholds” to ensure that only firms with “substantial operations presence in multiple jurisdictions are considered for direct supervision.”The thresholds include a “minimum of 20,000 customers residing in the host member state,” or a total transaction volume of over 50 million euros ($56 million).Other notable measures include mandatory customer due diligence on transactions above 1,000 euros ($1,100).These updates come as the EU ramps up its regulatory oversight of the crypto industry, building on previous measures such as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).Magazine: Bitcoin $100K hopes on ice, SBF’s mysterious prison move: Hodler’s Digest, April 20 – 26
Published Date: 2025-05-02 11:32:20Creator: Cointelegraph by Zoltan Vardai
Read More
Circle’s Refund Protocol, explained: Bringing refunds to stablecoin payments
Why are refunds important in stablecoin payments? Anyone who has used traditional payment systems will likely be familiar with refunds and chargebacks. If a purchase goes wrong, like receiving damaged items or not receiving the product at all, the payer can file a complaint with the seller to recover their funds. This process of refunds builds trust between payers and sellers, ensuring secure transactions for both sides.However, stablecoin transactions differ significantly. Unlike credit cards or PayPal, stablecoin payments are generally irreversible. Once sent, the payment is final, with no standard way to dispute or reverse it if issues arise, which can make payers wary of using stablecoins for daily purchases.This highlights the importance of refunds in the stablecoin ecosystem. Just as payers rely on protections with traditional payment methods, stablecoin transactions need comparable systems to inspire confidence. Without options to dispute or reverse payments, payers may avoid stablecoins for online shopping or other transactions. A clear, reliable refund system could make stablecoin payments safer and more attractive for payers, whether purchasing digital goods, services or physical items. Circle’s Refund Protocol, explained Circle’s refund protocol is basically a smart contract designed to resolve payment disputes while preventing custodial control over funds. It has transformed the role of arbiter by restricting their ability to redirect funds at will or indefinitely block access.Traditionally, an arbiter could fully control escrowed funds, including misusing or losing them. The Refund Protocol changes this by limiting the arbiter’s powers strictly to dispute resolution. Rather than making the arbiter all-powerful, the protocol entrusts the arbiter with three specific authorities:Set a lockup period during which the payer’s funds are securely held in escrowAuthorize refunds to a pre-specified address provided by the payerAllow early fund withdrawal by the payer if they pay a mutually agreed fee to the arbiter.The arbiter cannot send the funds to any arbitrary address, ensuring they remain non-custodial. The use of a smart contract ensures transparency, locking the process into code rather than trusting human discretion. The smart contract logs the recipient’s address, amount and refund address. By removing full custodial rights and fixing the dispute period, the Refund Protocol protects both payers and recipients while offering a structured, tamper-proof way to handle disagreements. Key features of Circle’s Refund Protocol In digital payments, stablecoins like USDC (USDC) have transformed transactions by providing swift, borderless and stable payment options. But these stablecoins lack the ability to manage disputes or process refunds, which is typically expected from traditional payment systems such as credit cards. The Refund Protocol fills this void.Here are the key features of the Refund Protocol:Non-custodial escrow: With the Refund Protocol, funds are never controlled by a central party. You don’t need to trust any single entity with your funds. Instead, the smart contract itself ensures that funds are only released when the conditions are met. This creates a more secure and trustworthy system for both payers and sellers.Mediation by an arbiter: If a dispute arises, the Refund Protocol employs an arbiter who works as a neutral mediator to settle conflicts without centralization or excessive authority. The arbiter’s role is to facilitate dispute resolution, not to manage the funds. If the payer and the seller cannot resolve the issue, the arbiter can make a final ruling, but they cannot arbitrarily access or control the funds. Lockup periods: To allow both parties time to address issues, the Refund Protocol incorporates lockup periods. During this period, funds stay in escrow, giving both sides an opportunity for negotiation or dispute resolution before funds are transferred to the payer. This ensures the payment isn’t immediately lost to fraud or mistakes.Early withdrawals: If the seller needs access to funds before the lockup period concludes, the Refund Protocol permits early withdrawals. But this is subject to a fee and requires consent from both the payer and the arbiter. Early withdrawals offer flexibility, enabling quicker access to funds if both parties agree on the conditions.Composability and transparency: A standout feature of the Refund Protocol is its composability, designed to integrate effortlessly with other blockchain-based applications. All transactions are logged on the blockchain, allowing the payer to monitor their funds’ status and maintain a clear record if a dispute occurs.Did you know? The Refund Protocol is built to work with USDC and can be integrated into merchant platforms, wallets or payment services. This opens doors to mainstream e-commerce use cases, where stablecoin refunds become as seamless as traditional card chargebacks. How Circle’s Refund Protocol works With Circle’s Refund Protocol, the payer no longer needs to avoid USDC payments, fearing an irreversible payment. It offers a transparent, decentralized and clear method to resolve disputes, ensuring funds’ safety. Here is how the refund protocol works:The payment: When the payer makes a payment, funds aren’t instantly transferred to the seller. The protocol’s smart contract holds the funds in escrow, showing the payment as initiated but pausing the transfer until conditions are fulfilled.The refund: If an issue occurs post-payment, such as non-delivery of service or products, the payer can request a refund from escrow if the supplier agrees. But if the seller doesn’t consent, they can escalate the matter to the arbiter for a resolution.The withdrawal: After the lockup period, if no disputes arise, the seller can withdraw funds without arbiter involvement. The decentralized, non-custodial system would only hold funds when needed.Early withdrawal: If the seller needs funds sooner, they can request early withdrawal. This feature includes a fee the arbiter determines and must be mutually agreed upon with the payer. To prevent arbitrary charges, the recipient must sign off on the terms before the withdrawal can happen.Did you know? The protocol predefines refund addresses at the time of payment. This means that even if disputes arise, arbiters can’t redirect funds elsewhere. It’s a privacy-preserving and fraud-resistant design that limits trust assumptions while still allowing dispute mediation. Benefits of the Refund Protocol Refund Protocol transforms stablecoin transactions by prioritizing security, transparency and user autonomy. It delivers a cost-effective, decentralized framework that enhances trust and usability for everyday payments.Here are some benefits of the Refund Protocol:Non-custodial system: The Refund Protocol ensures funds remain free from centralized control and, subsequently, arbitrary decision-making. This mechanism boosts trust as the payers don’t need to rely on any single entity. The smart contract ensures automated release of funds when conditions are met, fostering a secure, trustworthy environment for both payers and sellers.Transparent dispute resolution: A key advantage of the Refund Protocol is a transparent dispute resolution process. If an issue arises, an arbiter resolves it. As all transactions are onchain, both payers and buyers can monitor dispute progress anytime. Flexibility and control: The payer can designate a refund address in advance, setting payment terms. A seller may withdraw funds early, though with a fee. These features provide greater control over fund handling, which becomes especially useful for uses like e-commerce.Lower costs: By eliminating intermediaries like banks or payment processors, the Refund Protocol cuts transaction fees. This makes stablecoin payments a cost-effective option, particularly for cross-border transfers where traditional methods are slow and expensive.Greater stablecoin adoption: The Refund Protocol has overcome a significant hurdle to stablecoin use — the lack of trust. Its transparent, fair dispute resolution encourages more businesses and consumers to adopt stablecoins.Did you know? Circle’s Refund Protocol helps bridge the trust gap in crypto commerce by mimicking familiar Web2 refund experiences but in a decentralized way. It demonstrates how programmable money can unlock new consumer protection forms without sacrificing blockchain’s permissionless ethos. Challenges concerning the Refund Protocol The Refund Protocol faces hurdles in achieving widespread adoption and seamless functionality. Addressing these challenges is crucial for its scalability and integration into global payment systems.Here are the challenges the Refund Protocol is facing:Adoption by wallet providers: For the Refund Protocol to work smoothly, wallet providers must integrate it with the wallet. If a wallet doesn’t support specifying refund addresses or interacting with the Refund Protocol smart contract, both the payers and the sellers may not be able to use the full range of features. Gas costs and scalability: The Refund Protocol requires multiple interactions with the blockchain — payment deposits, withdrawals and dispute resolutions — each of which can incur gas costs. As the number of transactions grows, the fee may become prohibitive, particularly in high-volume applications. Legal and regulatory considerations: As stablecoins become more widely adopted, there may be legal and regulatory challenges regarding the enforceability of the protocol. The role of the arbiter in dispute resolution may need clarification under various jurisdictions, which could impact the global use of the protocol.Malicious arbiters: While the Refund Protocol minimizes the power of the arbiter, there is still the probability of misuse. A malicious arbiter could approve a refund that isn’t justified, leading to unfair outcomes. To mitigate this risk, auditing mechanisms and reputation systems could help ensure that arbiters act fairly and responsibly.Integration with traditional payment systems: As stablecoins gain popularity, there will likely be challenges in integrating them with traditional fiat-based systems. Most consumers are still accustomed to using credit cards or other payment methods, so ensuring that the Refund Protocol works seamlessly with both stablecoins and fiat currencies is a key challenge for the future.
Published Date: 2025-05-02 10:45:00Creator: Cointelegraph by Dilip Kumar Patairya
Read More