Connect with us

Finance

To Boost Crypto, Break The Federal Grip On Americans’ Financial Rights

Published

on

To Boost Crypto, Break The Federal Grip On Americans’ Financial Rights

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.

Finance

Psychological shift unfolds in soft Aussie housing market: ‘Vendors feel pressure’

Published

on

Psychological shift unfolds in soft Aussie housing market: ‘Vendors feel pressure’
Is it becoming a buyers market? (Source: Getty)

Property markets move in cycles, and with interest rates rising and other pressures like high fuel costs, some markets are clearly slowing down. Many first-home buyers who have only ever seen markets going up are conditioned to think that when purchasing, competition is always intense and decisions need to be made quickly.

In those times, buyers often feel they need to act fast, stretch their budget and secure a property at almost any cost. But things have definitely changed.

In a softer market, the dynamic shifts. Properties take longer to sell, competition thins, and it’s the vendors who begin to feel pressure.

RELATED

For buyers who understand how to navigate that change, the balance of power quickly moves in their favour. The opportunity is not simply to buy at a lower price. It is to negotiate from a position of strength.

Advertisement

If that’s you right now, these are the key skills first-home buyers need to take advantage of in softer market conditions.

The most important shift in a soft market is psychological. In a rising market, buyers often feel like they are competing for limited opportunities. In a softer market, the opposite is true. There are more properties available, fewer active buyers and less urgency overall. This gives buyers options.

When buyers understand that they are not competing with multiple parties on every property, their decision-making improves. They are more willing to walk away, compare opportunities and avoid overpaying. Negotiation strength comes from not needing to transact immediately. When that pressure is removed, buyers are able to engage more strategically.

One of the most common mistakes first-home buyers make is continuing to apply strategies that only work in rising markets. Auction urgency is a clear example. In strong markets, auctions often attract multiple bidders and create competitive tension. In softer conditions, properties are more likely to pass in, shifting the process away from a public bidding environment into a private negotiation.

This is where leverage increases.

Advertisement

Private negotiations allow buyers to introduce conditions that protect their position. These may include finance clauses, longer settlement periods or price adjustments based on due diligence. Opportunities that are rarely available in competitive markets become standard in softer ones.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Finance Committee approves an average increase of University tuition by 3.6 percent

Published

on

Finance Committee approves an average increase of University tuition by 3.6 percent

The Board of Visitors Finance Committee met Thursday and approved a 3.6 percent average increase in tuition, a 4.8 percent average increase in meal plan costs and a 5 percent increase in the cost of double-room housing for the 2026-27 school year. The approval was unanimous amongst Board members, though some expressed resistance to the increases before voting in favor of them. 

The Committee heard from Jennifer Wagner Davis, executive vice president and chief operating officer, and Donna Price Henry, chancellor of the College at Wise, about reasons for the raise in tuition and rates. According to Davis and Henry, salary increases for professors and legislation passed by the General Assembly contribute to tuition and rates increases.  

The Finance Committee, chaired by Vice Rector Victoria Harker, is responsible for the University’s financial affairs and business operations, and the Committee manages the budget, tuition and student fees. 

Changes in tuition vary between schools, with the School of Law seeing at most a 5.1 percent increase, the School of Engineering & Applied Science seeing at most a 3.2 percent increase and the College of Arts and Sciences seeing at most a 3.1 percent increase in tuition for the 2026-27 school year. 

For the 2026-27 school year at the College at Wise, the Committee also unanimously approved a 2.5 percent average increase in tuition, a 3.8 percent increase in meal plans and a 2 percent increase in the cost of housing.

Advertisement

Last year, the Committee approved a 3 percent average increase in tuition, a 5.5 percent increase in meal plans and a 5.5 percent increase in the cost of housing for the University.

Davis cited increased costs as the primary reason for the approved increase in tuition. She said that the budget that could be passed by the General Assembly for June 30, 2027 through June 30, 2028 could increase professor salaries — University professors receive raises via this process. Davis said that the Senate and House of Delegates have separate proposals dealing with the pay increases that are currently unresolved, with House Bill 30 raising salaries by 2 percent and Senate Bill 30 raising salaries by 3 percent. 

Davis said every percent increase in faculty salaries costs the University $15 million annually, and the Commonwealth will increase funding to the University by $1-2 million to help pay for that increase. According to Davis, the most common way to stabilize the budgetary imbalance caused by raised salaries is through tuition raises. 

Beyond the increase in salary, Davis cited the minimum wage increase, inflation and Virginia Military Survivors & Dependents Education Program as increased costs to the University. VMSDEP is a program that gives education benefits to spouses and children of disabled veterans or military service members killed, missing in action or taken prisoner. Davis said that the program is “partially unfunded” and could cost the University somewhere between $3.6 to $6 million, depending on how many students qualify for the program.

Davis spoke on other contributing factors to the increase in tuition, specifically collective bargaining — which allows workers to bargain for better wages and working conditions.

Advertisement

“If we look at other institutions or other states that have collective bargaining, [collective bargaining] does put an upward pressure on tuition,” Davis said.

Prior to Thursday’s meeting, the Committee heard the proposal for tuition increases from Davis and Henry April 6 in a Finance Committee tuition workshop with public comment. During the tuition workshop, tuition increases ranged from 3 to 4.5 percent for the University and 2 to 3 percent for the College at Wise. Both increases approved Thursday are within the ranges originally proposed.

Meal plan costs, on average, will be increasing by 4.8 percent in the upcoming academic year. Davis said that the University has been expanding dining options with the opening of the Gaston House and new locations for the Ivy Corridor student housing that is still in progress. She also said that the University has been taking steps to increase the availability of allergen-friendly food options. 

Davis shared that the 5 percent cost increase in housing is due to the expansion of student housing in the Ivy Corridor. Davis also said that there will be 3,000 new units added to the Charlottesville housing market by 2027, of which 780 beds will be for University housing. Davis said that she hopes the Ivy Corridor housing would “free up” the city housing supply by having more students live on Grounds.

Board member Amanda Pillion said she was “concerned” about how tuition increases would harm rural families — she said the constant increases in cost could make a University education out of reach for middle-income Virginians. 

Advertisement

“This is the second governor I’ve served under. Both times I’ve heard affordability, affordability, affordability,” Pillion said. “We need to really be conscious of the fact that … there is a large group of people that [are middle-income] that these increases [in tuition and fees] are really tough for.”

The Committee also approved a renovation for The Park — an 18-acre recreational hub in North Grounds — which will cost $10 million. As part of the renovation, The Park will include a maintenance facility, storm water systems and a maintenance access route. Davis said the renovation will address safety and security issues for the 200 people that use The Park daily. According to Davis, the University will use $2 million of institutional funds and issue $8 million of debt to fund the renovation. 

The Finance Committee will reconvene during the regularly scheduled June Board meetings.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

A Protracted US–Iran War Could Strain Climate Finance From Wealthy Countries to Developing Nations – Inside Climate News

Published

on

A Protracted US–Iran War Could Strain Climate Finance From Wealthy Countries to Developing Nations – Inside Climate News

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The ongoing war in Iran is casting a long shadow over the climate finance commitments countries agreed to in 2024, experts warned, as surging oil prices and rising defense budgets put further pressure on the limited pot of money developing nations are counting on to stave off worsening impacts from a warming planet.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund’s annual spring meetings are underway in the capital this week, with a focus on a coordinated global response to a world economy under pressure from slower growth and rising debt, exacerbating global inequities. 

The U.S. war in Iran adds new supply-chain challenges. In a press briefing Tuesday, the IMF slashed its growth forecast to 3.1 percent for the year, down from 3.3 percent in January, with global inflation rising to 4.4 percent. 

“Our severe scenario assumes that energy supply disruptions extend into next year, with greater macro instability. Global growth falls to 2 percent this year and next, while inflation exceeds 6 percent,” said Pierre‑Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s director of research. 

The blunt assessment has caused a scramble to determine what financial support the institution can offer to member states. And it has raised fresh questions about climate-finance obligations, already under strain from donor-country budget cuts and the United States jettisoning global climate commitments under the second Trump administration. One of President Donald Trump’s first actions back in office last year was ordering the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

Advertisement

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, wealthier countries that promised climate finance have experienced widening fiscal deficits and rising debt, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found in its latest assessment. As a result, aid from donor countries has already declined sharply—dropping almost 25 percent in 2025 compared to 2024. Even before the Iran conflict began, that was projected to drop further this year. 

COP29, the global climate conference held in late 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan, set a commitment of $300 billion per year by 2035, with a broader goal of reaching $1.3 trillion annually from public and private sources. Called the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), the arrangement replaced the previous $100 billion-a-year commitment that wealthy nations had met belatedly in 2022, two years after the deadline. 

Developing nations widely criticized the $300 billion figure as grossly inadequate, given the scale of the climate crisis. These countries are among the least responsible for the pollution driving that crisis and among the hardest hit by its effects. 

The Iran war has triggered a new set of worries as top economists and experts weigh potential impact and likely mitigation strategies. 

“Even before the Iran conflict, reaching the NCQG target would have been difficult, particularly with the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The war worsens the outlook,” said Gautam Jain, senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.

Advertisement
Plumes of smoke rise over the oil depot tanks hit by overnight attacks on March 8 in Tehran, Iran. Credit: Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images
Plumes of smoke rise over the oil depot tanks hit by overnight attacks on March 8 in Tehran, Iran. Credit: Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

He said sustained disruption of the Strait of Hormuz would exacerbate the problem and the effects would weigh on the global economy. As a result, aid budgets would decline and the political pushback to external spending would increase. 

The conflict is “pushing energy security to the forefront of government agendas,” Jain said. That will likely strengthen incentives to deploy more renewables and other forms of domestic clean energy, but the war’s economic convulsions could cut both ways for the energy transition.

“In low-income countries, the transition could be significantly delayed, given limited fiscal capacity to absorb sustained energy price shocks,” Jain said.

One of the main priorities for the World Bank during the meetings in Washington is to develop a new Climate Change Action Plan to replace the one expiring in June. “In the current geopolitical context, progress on this front looks quite unlikely,” Jain said.

Jon Sward, environment project manager at the Bretton Woods Project, which monitors World Bank and IMF policies, said countries that used to fund climate finance are now choosing to spend that money on other priorities.

This story is funded by readers like you.

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.

Advertisement

Donate Now

The Gulf crisis exposed the fragility of a global economic system tethered to fossil fuel extraction and use, Sward noted. For countries dependent on fossil fuel imports, “this is yet another price shock, and quickly diversifying to renewables is certainly an option that many countries are looking at,” he said in an email.

He said that although multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF have begun to assess the conflict’s fallout, it is not yet clear what their response will be or how the World Bank’s climate finance would be affected.

“All of this points to the need for more serious discussions on pausing debt repayments for affected countries and the mobilisation of non-debt creating forms of finance, in order to address the multiple, overlapping shocks facing countries in the Global South, in particular,” he said in his email.

Advertisement

Experts said that rising security and defense expenditures were also cutting into an already limited pot of money badly needed by developing countries struggling to cope with climate challenges.   

“The system was already too fragile given that the U.S. leads all the major multilateral development banks … and has disavowed these targets,” said Kevin Gallagher, director of the Global Development Policy Center at Boston University. On top of that, he said, U.S. threats to abandon NATO’s European countries incentivizes them to prioritize  defense budgets over climate finance.

He said developing countries are already under pressure to cough up climate funding on their own. The current conflict could make that nearly impossible.  

“This year was supposed to be putting together a roadmap to take the $300 billion annual target to the agreed upon $1.3 trillion. This is likely to be abandoned unless new donors such as [the] UAE, China and others step in to fill the gap left from the West,” Gallagher said in an email. 

The crisis in the Persian Gulf makes the loudest case for renewables, he said. “The energy security argument from this conflict is to diversify from fossil fuels. The Dutch took that cue after the Middle East oil shock of the 1970s to build the world’s best wind turbines, and China did after Middle East conflicts in this century. Fossil fuels are now a bad bet on security, economic and climate grounds. The writing is on the wall.”

Advertisement

Gallagher said the World Bank should accelerate solar and wind technology programs across the world. “If the Fund and the Bank don’t rise to this occasion,” he said, “not only is the global economy and climate at stake, but so is the legitimacy of these institutions.” 

Gaia Larsen, a climate finance expert at the World Resources Institute, said it’s too early to know whether stronger interest in energy independence through renewables is translating into shifts in investment. But “if we’re trying to think about long-term peace and long-term access to energy, then renewables are really increasing in prominence,” she said.

About This Story

Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.

That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.

Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.

Advertisement

Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?

Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.

Thank you,

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending