Senator Patrick Toomey (R-PA) listens while Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) speaks during a press … [+] conference on crypto currency legislation on Capitol Hill as the Senate moves toward a vote on infrastructure funding August 9, 2021, in Washington, DC. – US lawmakers on Monday laid out a $3.5 trillion budget framework, calling it the “most consequential” social spending plan since the 1930s, and launching what are expected to be tough congressional negotiations over the programs it covers.The 10-year budget blueprint pushes Congress towards the next step in President Joe Biden’s ambitious vision for his first term in office, following on the heels of the $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan, which the Senate is expected to approved Tuesday before sending it to the House of Representatives. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)
AFP via Getty Images
Despite the efforts of a few members of Congress, U.S. cryptocurrency policy remains a mess. For years, the Securities and Exchange Commission, most federal banking agencies, and many members of Congress have been outright hostile toward crypto.
But due to several new proposals, many crypto supporters are hopeful this hostility will fade. Over the last few weeks, Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), former President Donald Trump, and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., all announced proposals for the U.S. to create a bitcoin reserve.
Given the sad current state of U.S. crypto policy, however, it is doubtful these kinds of proposals would get things on track. Still, they provide a great opportunity to have a more fundamental conversation about how to improve crypto policy. To paraphrase my colleague George Selgin, there’s surely a good policy somewhere between the status quo and these reserve proposals.
Advertisement
And it’s vital that Congress finds it.
Crypto enables new forms of digital payments, where users can bypass traditional third-party intermediaries, such as banks and broker-dealers. In other words, it allows for person-to-person electronic transfers of digital assets, including money.
In theory, allowing people to spend money electronically in ways resembling how they’ve been spending cash shouldn’t be controversial, especially in America. Nonetheless, this feature, along with the potentially disruptive nature of crypto, has proven too much for politicians to overcome.
Some people don’t like that crypto is a competitive threat to companies in the traditional payments industry. Others don’t like that it’s a threat to the existing anti-money laundering regime. (That’s an especially big problem because the federal government has drafted traditional financial institutions to act as an extension of law enforcement.) Other critics see bypassing these systems as a threat to the U.S. dollar itself.
Advertisement
The specter of these threats has made it difficult to develop sound cryptocurrency policy, but there are two basic principles—principles that have been foundational to the United States—that can help Congress address these concerns.
The first one relates to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects Americans against warrantless searches and seizures by the government. Thanks to the Bank Secrecy Act and its many amendments, Fourth Amendment protections have been all but eliminated when it comes to Americans’ financial records. The BSA gives law enforcement warrantless access to Americans’ financial records when they use a bank or any other financial institution.
Rather than adapt to the technology, many policymakers want to force crypto to adapt to a system that was designed to work with financial intermediaries. But crypto often upends the traditional role of intermediaries, thus forcing Congress to deal with how it has used those intermediaries to end-run the Fourth Amendment.
Many members of Congress (and the financial industry) now view the Fourth Amendment as a relic, somewhere between overly burdensome and an afterthought, unapplicable to modern America. But the Fourth Amendment was never supposed to be perfect. It represents, instead, the necessarily imperfect balance between the competing interests of individuals’ financial privacy and the government’s ability to gather evidence of a crime.
Reaffirming Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights, as Congress should do, would not be a license to commit crime. It would simply mean that law enforcement must demonstrate probable cause to a judge before accessing Americans’ financial records, just as they do for other searches.
Advertisement
The second principle—limited government—dictates that people, not government officials, are generally the best judges of which economic transactions are in their own best interest. Yet, the federal government now dictates which methods of payments are acceptable, which special institutions may facilitate those payments, and how those institutions may operate. Some members of Congress even want cryptocurrency banned because it doesn’t fit into this government regime.
The principle of limited government also answers the critics who see crypto as a threat to the U.S. dollar. The federal government is not supposed to be the provider of Americans’ money precisely because governments tend to debase currency. The U.S. government is supposed to refrain from debasing people’s money, and to protect people’s right to use money as they see fit. The government is not supposed to control every aspect of how people use their money or even what they use for money.
Critics of crypto assume that the government’s existing monopoly on money issuance maintains the dollar standard itself, but that’s incorrect. The prevalence of the U.S. dollar grew when gold and silver were recognized as money, and it does not depend on a specific type of paper currency or digital entries. The prevalence of the U.S. dollar derives from the country’s relatively strong legal and economic systems, especially as they pertain to protecting individual property rights.
Many advocates of cryptocurrency are frustrated because the federal government has failed to uphold these limited government principles and debased the currency. Americans now have effectively one choice for money, and even the person-to-person transfer of that currency is now highly regulated and surveilled.
So, it makes sense that so many crypto proponents are cheering on these reserve proposals in the hope that they will gain wider acceptance for Bitcoin. Unfortunately, these proposals do not directly address the underlying problems that have kept U.S. crypto policy such a mess.
Advertisement
Cryptocurrency will remain of limited use until Congress pares back the overly invasive regulatory framework that currently governs U.S. financial markets. To do so, Congress need only reaffirm the importance of the Fourth Amendment and a limited government.
Cornell University administrator Warren Petrofsky will serve as the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ new dean of administration and finance, charged with spearheading efforts to shore up the school’s finances as it faces a hefty budget deficit.
Petrofsky’s appointment, announced in a Friday email from FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra to FAS affiliates, will begin April 20 — nearly a year after former FAS dean of administration and finance Scott A. Jordan stepped down. Petrofsky will replace interim dean Mary Ann Bradley, who helped shape the early stages of FAS cost-cutting initiatives.
Petrofsky currently serves as associate dean of administration at Cornell University’s College of Arts and Sciences.
As dean, he oversaw a budget cut of nearly $11 million to the institution’s College of Arts and Sciences after the federal government slashed at least $250 million in stop-work orders and frozen grants, according to the Cornell Daily Sun.
He also serves on a work group established in November 2025 to streamline the school’s administrative systems.
Advertisement
Earlier, at the University of Pennsylvania, Petrofsky managed capital initiatives and organizational redesigns in a number of administrative roles.
Petrofsky is poised to lead similar efforts at the FAS, which relaunched its Resources Committee in spring 2025 and created a committee to consolidate staff positions amid massive federal funding cuts.
As part of its planning process, the committee has quietly brought on external help. Over several months, consultants from McKinsey & Company have been interviewing dozens of administrators and staff across the FAS.
Petrofsky will also likely have a hand in other cost-cutting measures across the FAS, which is facing a $365 million budget deficit. The school has already announced it will keep spending flat for the 2026 fiscal year, and it has dramatically reduced Ph.D. admissions.
In her email, Hoekstra praised Petrofsky’s performance across his career.
Advertisement
“Warren has emphasized transparency, clarity in communication, and investment in staff development,” she wrote. “He approaches change with steadiness and purpose, and with deep respect for the mission that unites our faculty, researchers, staff, and students. I am confident that he will be a strong partner to me and to our community.”
—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.
My spreadsheet reviewed a WalletHub ranking of financial distress for the residents of 100 U.S. cities, including 17 in California. The analysis compared local credit scores, late bill payments, bankruptcy filings and online searches for debt or loans to quantify where individuals had the largest money challenges.
When California cities were divided into three geographic regions – Southern California, the Bay Area, and anything inland – the most challenges were often found far from the coast.
The average national ranking of the six inland cities was 39th worst for distress, the most troubled grade among the state’s slices.
Bakersfield received the inland region’s worst score, ranking No. 24 highest nationally for financial distress. That was followed by Sacramento (30th), San Bernardino (39th), Stockton (43rd), Fresno (45th), and Riverside (52nd).
Advertisement
Southern California’s seven cities overall fared better, with an average national ranking of 56th largest financial problems.
However, Los Angeles had the state’s ugliest grade, ranking fifth-worst nationally for monetary distress. Then came San Diego at 22nd-worst, then Long Beach (48th), Irvine (70th), Anaheim (71st), Santa Ana (85th), and Chula Vista (89th).
Monetary challenges were limited in the Bay Area. Its four cities average rank was 69th worst nationally.
San Jose had the region’s most distressed finances, with a No. 50 worst ranking. That was followed by Oakland (69th), San Francisco (72nd), and Fremont (83rd).
The results remind us that inland California’s affordability – it’s home to the state’s cheapest housing, for example – doesn’t fully compensate for wages that typically decline the farther one works from the Pacific Ocean.
Advertisement
A peek inside the scorecard’s grades shows where trouble exists within California.
Credit scores were the lowest inland, with little difference elsewhere. Late payments were also more common inland. Tardy bills were most difficult to find in Northern California.
Bankruptcy problems also were bubbling inland, but grew the slowest in Southern California. And worrisome online searches were more frequent inland, while varying only slightly closer to the Pacific.
Note: Across the state’s 17 cities in the study, the No. 53 average rank is a middle-of-the-pack grade on the 100-city national scale for monetary woes.
Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com
The up-and-coming fintech scored a pair of fourth-quarter beats.
Diversified fintech Chime Financial(CHYM +12.88%) was playing a satisfying tune to investors on Thursday. The company’s stock flew almost 14% higher that trading session, thanks mostly to a fourth quarter that featured notably higher-than-expected revenue guidance.
Sweet music
Chime published its fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 results just after market close on Wednesday. For the former period, the company’s revenue was $596 million, bettering the same quarter of 2024 by 25%. The company’s strongest revenue stream, payments, rose 17% to $396 million. Its take from platform-related activity rose more precipitously, advancing 47% to $200 million.
Image source: Getty Images.
Meanwhile, Chime’s net loss under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) more than doubled. It was $45 million, or $0.12 per share, compared with a fourth-quarter 2024 deficit of $19.6 million.
Advertisement
On average, analysts tracking the stock were modeling revenue below $578 million and a deeper bottom-line loss of $0.20 per share.
In its earnings release, Chime pointed to the take-up of its Chime Card as a particular catalyst for growth. Regarding the product, the company said, “Among new member cohorts, over half are adopting Chime Card, and those members are putting over 70% of their Chime spend on the product, which earns materially higher take rates compared to debit.”
Today’s Change
(12.88%) $2.72
Current Price
$23.83
Advertisement
Key Data Points
Market Cap
$7.9B
Day’s Range
$22.30 – $24.63
52wk Range
Advertisement
$16.17 – $44.94
Volume
562K
Avg Vol
3.3M
Advertisement
Gross Margin
86.34%
Double-digit growth expected
Chime management proffered revenue and non-GAAP (adjusted) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) guidance for full-year 2026. The company expects to post a top line of $627 million to $637 million, which would represent at least 21% growth over the 2024 result. Adjusted EBITDA should be $380 million to $400 million. No net income forecasts were provided in the earnings release.
It isn’t easy to find a niche in the financial industry, which is crowded with companies offering every imaginable type of service to clients. Yet Chime seems to be achieving that, as the Chime Card is clearly a hit among the company’s target demographic of clientele underserved by mainstream banks. This growth stock is definitely worth considering as a buy.
