Connect with us

Finance

Bypassing Financial Gatekeepers With Bitcoin

Published

on

Bypassing Financial Gatekeepers With Bitcoin

In a world where large financial institutions influence the global economy, bitcoin stands out as a force for change, driving forward inclusion and diversity in the financial sector.

At its core, bitcoin represents more than just digital currency; it symbolizes a departure from the age-old financial structures dominated by a few large entities and families. These gatekeepers, often criticized for consolidating wealth among the elite, have perpetuated a cycle that extracts wealth from the economically disadvantaged.

Contrary to the centralized control of traditional banking, bitcoin enables direct financial exchanges without intermediaries. It reduces transaction costs and opens up access to financial services, especially for the unbanked populations worldwide. This is not just theoretical; it’s observable in real-world applications and initiatives that illustrates bitcoin’s potential to revolutionize how we think about and interact with money.

Advertisement

Enter Fedimint and Cashu, innovative projects that reveal bitcoin’s capacity to strengthen communities by equipping them with the tools to establish their own decentralized banks.

Fedimint leverages bitcoin to create a community custody and financial inclusion protocol, enhancing privacy and security for its users. By pooling their bitcoin holdings, communities can form a federated mint, operating on collective consensus. This model not only bolsters security and privacy but also instills a sense of community ownership and financial autonomy, a contrast to the hierarchical nature of traditional banking.

Similarly, Cashu builds on bitcoin’s technology to further decentralize financial power. It provides a secure and private platform for individuals to manage and transact in digital currencies, challenging the longstanding dominance of overbearing financial institutions. Cashu and Fedimint show the move towards financial self-sovereignty, filling the void left by traditional banks that have failed to cater to the masses’ needs.

Unlike traditional cooperative bank setups, where bureaucratic hurdles and regulatory gatekeeping can limit establishment and access, Mints like Fedimint and Cashu offer a groundbreaking approach. They remove barriers imposed by paperwork, governments, or traditional banks, democratizing finance in a way that allows anyone to participate. In this model, the community itself becomes the bank, representing the principles of decentralization and collective ownership.

Advertisement

These initiatives stand at the forefront of a broader movement to challenge big banks and the conventional financial establishment. This signals a redistribution of power within the global economy, marking a step towards a decentralized and equitable financial future.

The impact of bitcoin extends beyond the philosophical and into the practical, especially in emerging economies plagued by financial instability and inequality. In Venezuela, for instance, bitcoin has emerged as a critical tool for citizens battling hyperinflation, offering a more stable and accessible means to preserve their savings.

Across Africa, bitcoin facilitates cross-border transactions without high fees or the necessity for traditional banking infrastructure, enabling businesses and individuals to partake in the global economy. In Lebanon, amidst severe economic distress, bitcoin provides a lifeline for individuals seeking to avoid financial restrictions and safeguard their wealth from currency devaluation.

Fedimint and Cashu represent a move away from the reliance on large corporations and towards community empowerment. Projects are driven by a desire to see the unmet needs of the people. It’s a testament to the power of bitcoin and its underlying technology to effect change, not through confrontation but by creating alternatives that cater to the unbanked and underserved.

As projects like Fedimint and Cashu thrive, they don’t just challenge the status quo; they lay the groundwork for a future where financial liberation and access are not privileges but rights accessible to all. The rest of the world may follow, recognizing that the path to true financial inclusivity lies not within the walls of towering banks but in the collective hands of empowered communities.

Advertisement

Finance

UK cities where families ‘losing significant cash in the bin due to food waste’

Published

on

UK cities where families ‘losing significant cash in the bin due to food waste’

Families in Glasgow, Liverpool and Nottingham are particularly likely to be wasting high amounts of money on food that goes uneaten, a survey indicates.

The survey of more than 2,000 UK parents of children aged four to 12 found that 60% said their children refuse to eat a meal they are served at least once a week.

The average amount that parents estimated their family wasted annually on uneaten food was £283 – with families in Glasgow estimating they waste £369 on average, according to the research for Bernard Matthews.

Liverpool was another food waste hotspot in the survey, with an estimated £316 wasted annually typically by families, while in Nottingham, the average annual food waste bill was found to be £315.

In London and Belfast, families were also found to be wasting more than £300 per year on average on uneaten food, according to the research, carried out by Censuswide in May.

Advertisement

At the other end of the spectrum, families in Bristol estimated they were wasting £198 per year typically.

Half (50%) of parents surveyed felt that encouraging their child to play with food would help to reduce the pressure.

Laurence Hinton, head of marketing at Bernard Matthews, said: “Parents agree that playing with your food can take some of the pressure out of mealtimes, encouraging children to engage positively with food and ultimately making family meals more enjoyable and less wasteful.”

Here are the average amounts parents estimate they waste on food annually across various UK cities, according to the survey:

Glasgow, £369

Advertisement

Liverpool, £316

Nottingham, £315

London, £312

Belfast, £306

Leeds, £299

Advertisement

Edinburgh, £291

Newcastle, £286

Cardiff, £285

Birmingham, £277`

Manchester, £252

Advertisement

Sheffield, £251

Plymouth, £250

Brighton, £243

Southampton, £240

Norwich, £235

Advertisement

Bristol, £198

Continue Reading

Finance

Personal Finance: New housing affordability law has promising provisions | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Published

on

Personal Finance: New housing affordability law has promising provisions | Chattanooga Times Free Press

On June 23, members of Congress did something commendable and all too rare: They came together to pass legislation in a broadly bipartisan move to address the housing affordability crisis in the U.S. The new law, designated the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, includes an expansive compilation of 56 separate provisions aimed at increasing the supply of housing, improving access to financing and limiting ownership by large financial institutions.

The act is more evolutionary than revolutionary, since many of the barriers are down to state and local zoning and building codes that are beyond the reach of the federal government. Still, the measure creates a framework for streamlining local permitting, removes several obstacles to expansion of manufactured homes and includes many incremental incentives that should materially improve the supply of residential housing units over time.

Housing affordability has emerged as a public policy priority in recent years, as costs have accelerated faster than incomes since the COVID pandemic. The median price of a single-family home today is $440,000, up 50% over the past six years according to the National Association of Realtors. Zillow reports that the cost to rent a single-family home has risen by 45% over the same period, while apartment rents are up 28%. Meanwhile, median nominal household income has risen by just 25% since 2020.

The housing bill cleared the House of Representatives on a vote of 358 to 32 and passed in the U.S. Senate by a margin of 85 to 5, a commendable accomplishment. However, on June 24, the president abruptly cancelled a scheduled signing ceremony in reaction to the Senate’s unwillingness to pass new voter restrictions, calling the housing act a “big yawn.” Legislators from both parties were blindsided, having anticipated a high-profile bipartisan victory to tout in advance of the approaching midterm elections.

The president’s action did provide Americans with an interesting constitutional lesson. When Congress passes a bill, the president may either sign it into law or veto the bill, challenging Congress to muster a 2/3 majority to override the veto. However, the president can also simply refuse to sign, in which case the bill becomes law after 10 calendar days, excluding Sundays, if Congress is in session. The 21st Century Road to Housing Act therefore went into effect automatically at midnight on July 11.

Advertisement

Among the numerous provisions in the law, a few stand out as particularly promising.

Manufactured housing. In what may be the most impactful action, the act eliminates one of the biggest impediments to expanding manufactured housing: the permanent chassis requirement. Since 1976, thanks to lobbying from traditional homebuilding interests, the federal government has forbidden the removal of the heavy steel trailer on which the unit was built even though 90% are never moved, and many are set on permanent foundations. This rule is risibly applied even in cases where an additional unit was stacked to form a second story. As I wrote in this space in October, factory-built homes can be produced more efficiently and therefore more affordably through mass production techniques. Eliminating the useless chassis after delivery could save a typical buyer an additional 5% and 10% of the purchase price as well as qualifying for more traditional mortgage financing.

Financial incentives to cities. Although the act does not include any additional federal funding, it directs a significant reallocation of existing incentives. The 1970s-era Community Development Block Grant program is reimagined, providing extra grant funding to high-cost metro areas that move aggressively to build affordable housing. The program is cost neutral, transferring funds from other cities that continue to discourage new unit construction through restrictive local policies.

Improving access to financing. Nearly half of the surge in housing costs is due to sharply higher mortgage interest rates since 2020. The housing act cannot impact rates, but it does provide additional access to financing. Small dollar loans of $100,000 or less will now be eligible for Federal Housing Administration guarantees, providing more access to lower-income buyers. The act also more than doubles the Federal Housing Administration loan limit for multifamily housing units.

Promoting rental homebuilding. The role of large institutions in purchasing single-family homes since the 2008 financial crisis has garnered significant public attention. The housing bill strikes a constructive balance.

Advertisement

“Large institutional investors”, defined in the bill as investors holding 350 or more single-family residences, are now prohibited from acquiring additional homes subject to specific exemptions. For instance, homes purchased for the specific purpose of renovation for rental are excluded. These institutional investors are also not required to divest their existing holdings.

Importantly, the restrictions do not apply to so-called build-to-rent acquisitions wherein large investors purchase newly constructed homes specifically for rental. Economic research generally finds that large investor ownership tends to push up home purchase prices to buyers but reduces pressure on rent costs by adding to supply, just what the doctor ordered.

Local zoning and permitting reforms. As mentioned above, states and municipalities retain jurisdiction for their own local building and zoning codes, many of which have served to hinder the construction of more affordable residential units. The new housing act directs the Department of Housing and Urban Development to create a template incorporating best practices for modernizing zoning and land use policies to support more housing construction and renovation.

A curiously unrelated addition to the bill forbids the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital cryptocurrency version of the U.S. dollar, called a stablecoin, until 2030. The crypto industry has vigorously opposed an official U.S. stablecoin and accounted for nearly half of all corporate political contributions to federal election candidates in 2024. The president himself has amassed $1.4 billion in profits from his various crypto ventures since taking office in 2025.

Additional elements include a variety of incremental pilot projects, regulatory reforms and tweaks to existing federal housing programs that, taken together, could also have a meaningful impact and set the stage for further progress based upon the results. And perhaps most important: bipartisan cooperation, compromise and agreement.

Advertisement

Christopher A. Hopkins, CFA, is a co-founder of Apogee Wealth Partners in Chattanooga.

Continue Reading

Finance

Former Bank chief financial officer sentenced to three years for $4.3 million loan fraud

Published

on

Former Bank chief financial officer sentenced to three years for .3 million loan fraud

LINCOLN, Neb. (KOLN) – A former bank chief financial officer was sentenced to three years in prison for a bank fraud scheme involving a car wash and undisclosed debts in a $4.3 million loan scheme.

The Department of Justice said Aaron T. Luneke, 44, of Columbus, was sentenced after being convicted of committing bank fraud and attempted bank fraud in connection with loans he sought to build and operate a Legacy Express Wash, a car wash in Columbus.

According to the DOJ, Luneke was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal system.

After his release from prison, Luneke will begin a five-year term of supervised release. Luneke was also ordered to pay a $10,000 fine.

The jury found that Luneke attempted to defraud Stearns Bank, located in St. Cloud, Minnesota, by using fraudulent and inflated contractor invoices to artificially inflate the valuation of the car wash property in pursuit of a $3.5 million refinancing loan. Further evidence at trial established that Luneke failed to reveal significant personal debts owed to family members in connection with the Stearns Bank loan application.

Advertisement

The jury also found that Luneke defrauded Bank of the Valley by submitting fraudulent and inflated invoices from contractors as the basis for additional construction loan proceeds, obtaining two loans totaling approximately $4,320,000.

At the sentencing, the judge found that Luneke’s abuse of his position as chief financial officer at Bank of the Valley significantly allowed for the fraud against the victim bank to occur, and helped to conceal the crime.

The DOJ said the court further determined that Luneke employed sophisticated means to carry out the scheme, and that he served an aggravating role by organizing, leading, managing, or supervising others in executing aspects of the fraud.

Luneke also obstructed justice by providing false testimony during trial and caused a victim to suffer substantial financial hardship.

Click here to subscribe to our 10/11 NOW daily digest and breaking news alerts delivered straight to your email inbox.

Advertisement

Copyright 2026 KOLN. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending