Connect with us

Business

Commentary: Crypto promoters saw Trump as their savior. Then reality set in

Published

on

Commentary: Crypto promoters saw Trump as their savior. Then reality set in

With Donald Trump’s election as president, the cryptocurrency community saw blue skies ahead.

The election sent the price of bitcoin to a record high, exceeding $75,000. After all, during the campaign Trump had vowed to make the U.S. the “crypto capital of the planet” and to create a “strategic reserve” of bitcoin. He and his family members formed World Liberty Financial, a crypto trading firm.

Within three days of his inauguration, Trump issued an executive order promoting the expansion of crypto in the U.S. He denigrated enforcement efforts by the Biden administration as reflecting a “war on cryptocurrency.”

Bitcoin and other crypto assets are once again demonstrating that they are among some of the first assets to decline among broader economic uncertainty.

— Molly White

Advertisement

On the second day of his presidency, he pardoned Ross Ulbricht, the boss of a notorious online black market in which transactions were conducted in crypto. Ulbricht, who had become something of a hero to crypto promoters, was serving two life sentences at the time. In July, Trump signed the so-called GENIUS Act, which dilutes consumer banking protections involving stablecoins, a crypto token.

Last year, the FBI labeled crypto a hive of “pervasive” criminality. Under Trump, things are likely to get worse. Since Trump took office, the Securities and Exchange Commission has closed or deferred 18 cases or investigations related to cryptocurrency firms.

Yet despite all these tailwinds from the White House, federal agencies and a compliant Congress, cryptocurrencies are having one terrible year. The price of bitcoin closed at a record $124,752 on Oct. 10 but has since fallen to about $87,845. That’s a stomach-churning loss of almost 30% in just six weeks.

Since Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration, bitcoin has lost more than 11% of its value. In the same period, the stock market, as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 index, has gained nearly 12%. To the question of who is getting rich on crypto in the Trump era, the answer thus far is: Trump, his family, and their friends. Everyone else has been taken to the woodshed.

Advertisement

Why has this happened?

To a certain extent, it’s a confluence of factors, not all of which can be blamed on Trump. But his economic policies, including his on-and-off-again tariff announcements, have certainly accounted for some of the notable crypto downdrafts of the last 11 months. Other geopolitical developments haven’t been friendly to crypto.

Another important factor is the growth of leverage in crypto accounts — users borrowing against their crypto holdings like stock investors buying on margin, a practice that can magnify gains in rising assets — but also magnify losses.

Let’s take a closer look at crypto’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year.

The first slap in the face with a wet fish came for crypto on Feb. 21. That’s when the crypto exchange Bybit, which is sometimes counted on the second-largest crypto exchange in the world, lost $1.5 billion in crypto tokens to hackers — “the largest cryptocurrency heist in history,” by the assessment of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. The FBI promptly traced the exploit to North Korea.

Advertisement

Trump can’t be blamed for the Bybit hack, but Trump’s weakening of America’s cyberdefenses doesn’t bode well for the future.

According to the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, a congressionally established body tasked with overseeing cyberdefense, Trump’s “cuts to cyber diplomacy and science programs and the absence of stable leadership at key agencies like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), the State Department, and the Department of Commerce” have resulted in the country’s ability to protect against cyber threats “stalling and, in several areas, slipping.”

That’s especially important when it involved North Korea. According to many experts, the rogue state has made up for its exclusion from the global economy by creating an alarmingly effective cyberhacking program.

Since 2017, North Korean hackers have stolen more than $5 billion in cryptocurrencies, as calculated by the cybersecurity firm TRM Labs. The North Koreans have not only made their thievery more efficient, but have also refined their money-laundering techniques to the point that the stolen booty disappears into the dark reaches of cyberspace within days.

This has undermined the crypto camp’s claim to offer users secure access to their funds. Crypto’s reaction to Trump’s economic policies has undercut the promoters’ claim that their asset class is a remedy for economic turmoil in the outside world.

Advertisement

“Bitcoin and other crypto assets are once again demonstrating that they are among some of the first assets to decline among broader economic uncertainty,” the indispensable crypto observer Molly White wrote in March, after Trump’s tariff threats and fears of higher inflation provoked a three-day slide of 12.6% in bitcoin—the worst downdraft since the bankruptcy of FTX in 2022. Bitcoin fell nearly 10% in the four days after Trump announced his “reciprocal tariffs” on April 2.

Another selloff erupted on Oct. 10, the day Trump abruptly announced new tariffs on China. That day became labeled “crypto’s Black Friday,” as crypto exchanges forced the liquidation of some $19 billion in leveraged holdings in 24 hours. Bitcoin lost $10,000 in value in a matter of minutes.

As White observed, the downdraft was frenzied in part because the crypto market lacks the circuit breakers installed in the stock and bond markets, which automatically halt trading before a selloff can gain steam, allowing traders and market makers to catch their breath. Nothing like that stands in the way of a tsunami of account liquidations by thinly-regulated crypto brokers.

Since then, the selling has continued almost unabated. At midday Wednesday, bitcoin has recovered by about 2.8%, but it is still appreciably lower than its price on Jan. 1 or on Inauguration Day.

Market observers say that institutional investors as well as small retail investors all have been bailing on crypto. Over the last year, banks and other financial services firms have made it easier for small investors to buy crypto — exchange traded funds and firms that have constructed themselves as crypto treasuries have proliferated.

Advertisement

But those devices also make it easier to sell. Investors have withdrawn an estimated $3.5 billion from crypto ETFs so far this month. The publicly traded company Strategy, the business model of which is to accumulate bitcoin, has lost some 60% of its value since mid-July.

Historical patterns suggest that the chief victims of the crypto selloff are small investors, however. They tend to buy into a stock or other asset when it is rising, and sell into a bear market (just the opposite of the buy-low, sell-high principle favored by experts). To the extent they were lured by the runup in crypto prices, they may be holding the bag just now.

That points us to the likely winners in the current crypto cycle: Trump and his circle. Trump in 2021 called bitcoin a “scam,” and in 2019 posted that the values of cryptocurrency were “based on thin air,” but he “has now warmly embraced its supposed virtues,” as federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who has presided over lawsuits alleging crypto-related fraud, recently wrote.

Consider World Liberty Financial, which was co-founded by Trump and his offspring Eric, Barron and Don Jr. (Trump himself is listed by the company as “co-founder emeritus,” a designation he acquired upon taking office as president.)

World Liberty’s fortunes have benefited from reported actions by Binance, the largest crypto exchange in the world. Earlier this year, Binance accepted a $2-billion investment from an Abu Dhabi-based investment firm to be paid in USD1, the dollar-linked “stablecoin” marketed by World Liberty. The acceptance of USD1 as a crypto token has added to its value, and therefore to the financial gains enjoyed by the Trump family.

Advertisement

On Oct. 23, Trump pardoned Binance founder Chengpeng Zhao, who had served a four-month term in U.S. prison and was fined $50 million after pleading guilty to violations of U.S. anti-money laundering regulations. Binance also pleaded guilty and paid more than $4.3 billion in settling the criminal case.

Asked during a Nov. 2 interview on “60 Minutes” why he pardoned Zhao, Trump replied, “I know nothing about the guy, other than I hear he was a victim of weaponization by government. When you say the government, you’re talking about the Biden government.”

I asked the White House whether Trump’s involvement in crypto while he held authority over crypto regulations amounted to a conflict of interest.

I received an emailed response from Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, who wrote, “The media’s continued attempts to fabricate conflicts of interest are irresponsible and reinforce the public’s distrust in what they read. Neither the President nor his family have ever engaged, or will ever engage, in conflicts of interest.”

The truth is that bitcoin investors may have less to fear from Trump’s dabbling in crypto than in the shortcomings of crypto itself as an asset class. As I’ve reported before, unlike almost any other asset, crypto tokens are untethered from anything of concrete value. That doesn’t mean that crypto will periodically drive higher, only that when holders are running for the exits, there may not be a discernible floor to how low it will go.

Advertisement

Crypto tokens don’t throw off interest or dividends. Their prices aren’t based on even a theoretical value of issuing enterprises such as corporations, municipalities or federal agencies. As commodities, they resemble collectibles like Beanie Babies, with values derived from the “greater fool” theory — that someone is out there willing to pay more than your acquisition cost to take them off your hands. That’s a path painted in red.

Business

Rent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns

Published

on

Rent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns

A rule intended to prevent rent gouging in the wake of the Eaton and Palisades fires has lapsed in Los Angeles County, possibly exposing some renters to hikes.

The executive order that blocked rent increases was issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom amid the devastating wildfires last year. Under the order, landlords couldn’t increase rents by more than 10% above their prefire levels.

The rule, which was supposed to be temporary and was repeatedly extended, ended Friday after a vote to extend it again failed to garner enough votes. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, sounded the alarm in a motion to extend price protections that failed to pass at the Board of Supervisors’ May 19 meeting.

“These price gouging protections continue to be necessary as construction and rebuilding continue, and as thousands of people remain displaced,” the motion said. “Families which signed short-term leases could face drastic price increases of 50% or more without further price gouging protection.”

Advertisement

Los Angeles County is home to more than 1 million rental properties, though not all of them needed protection from the new rule. There are already stricter rent increase caps for many residences, depending on the location, type and age of the building. Despite the rent control in the region, the people of Los Angeles pay among the highest rents in the country.

It is uncertain whether renters will face rapidly rising rents now that the protection has lapsed. But some real estate experts and policymakers said there was no need for the temporary rule that was part of the governor’s state of emergency.

Supervisors Kathryn Barger, Janice Hahn and Holly Mitchell abstained from voting on the motion to extend the protection, while Supervisors Hilda Solis and Horvath supported it.

“I abstained because I did not see sufficient evidence to justify extending this emergency ordinance, nor did I see evidence to eliminate it entirely,” Hahn said.

Barger’s office said she supported allowing the protections to sunset while waiting to see whether new information emerged.

Advertisement

“Market data already shows countywide rents are only about 2% above pre-emergency levels and rental inventory has grown,” Barger representative Helen E. Chavez Garcia said. “The Supervisor is also mindful of the burden these ongoing protections place on small property owners throughout the county.”

Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

There haven’t been steep rent hikes in neighborhoods within three miles of the Palisades fire, according to a Times analysis of data from Zillow, the property listing company.

In ZIP Codes within three miles of the Palisades fire, rent increased 4.8% from December 2024 to April 2025. In areas around the Eaton fire, which destroyed swaths of Altadena, rent jumped 5.2% in the same period.

In L.A. County, ZIP Codes farther from the fires saw only about a 2% increase.

Advertisement

A landlords representative, Jesus Rojas of the Apartment Owners Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, told the supervisors during public comment at the meeting that the county’s rent-gouging rules have “long outlived the emergency they were intended to address” and are now being “wrongfully used to harm thousands of rental housing providers throughout the county.”

“There is no proof that multifamily rental housing providers are hugely increasing rents for impacted homeowners,” Rojas said.

Indeed, there are strong signs that the property market in the Los Angeles area has at last begun to cool.

L.A. metro-area rent prices recently fell to a four-year low, with the median rent slipping to $2,167 in December.

Meanwhile, condominium sales had their slowest start of the year in decades. Condo sales in Los Angeles have plummeted to a 20-year low, with fewer than 2,000 units sold in January and February — the worst start to the year since 2005.

Advertisement

Newsom defended the price-gouging protections shortly after they went into effect.

“In the days following the Los Angeles firestorms, we worked quickly to protect Los Angeles survivors from any form of exploitation,” he said in February 2025. “The state has the tools in place to not only block price gouging during this emergency, but also to prosecute bad actors.”

The Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs said it received more than 2,000 complaints after the fires, alleging that retailers and landlords were taking advantage of people put in hardship by their losses, and sent out more than 2,000 cease-and-desist letters to businesses and landlords for alleged price gouging, said Morine Merritt, who oversees department investigations into consumer and real estate fraud.

“Close to 90% of the complaints that we received involved allegations of rent increases,” Merritt said in an interview. Now that the fire-related protections have expired, existing laws and “regular market conditions determine price increases for goods and services, including rents,” she said.

Crackdowns on fire-related rent gouging have been rare, said Chelsea Kirk of the activist organization the Rent Brigade, which analyzed L.A. County’s rental market in the year after the fires. It reported 18,360 potential examples of price gouging in listings but said that few lawsuits had been filed by authorities so far.

Advertisement

Last week, Rent Brigade announced what it said was the first private civil lawsuit brought by a family that claimed to be rent-gouged in the aftermath of the wildfires. Plaintiffs Randall and Candy Renick, whose Altadena home was damaged, said they were charged nearly three times the maximum permitted rate for nearly 10 months. They seek restitution of $96,000 plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.

The rental market has probably stabilized since the fires, Kirk said, but other families may still be “locked into illegal rents” that they agreed to pay when they were in a rush to find housing after they were displaced.

Continue Reading

Business

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Published

on

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Dear Mr. Pelley:

I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.

Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.

Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.

Sincerely,

Nick Bilton

Executive Producer, 60 Minutes

Continue Reading

Business

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

Published

on

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.

The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.

Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.

Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.

Advertisement

Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.

In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.

The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.

Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.

The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.

Advertisement

The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending