general

SEC Chair Paul Atkins Reveals Which Crypto Tokens He Thinks Are Securities

The post SEC Chair Paul Atkins Reveals Which Crypto Tokens He Thinks Are Securities appeared com. In brief SEC Chair Paul Atkins said most crypto tokens, including network tokens and meme coins, shouldn’t be treated as securities. Only tokens tied to explicit and unambiguous managerial promises should qualify as securities, he clarified. He also announced plans to let securities and non-securities trade together on “super app” platforms not regulated by the SEC. SEC chair Paul Atkins made perhaps his most explicit comments yet on the security status of crypto tokens Wednesday, in a lengthy speech that clarified the few circumstances in which the Wall Street regulator plans to oversee the booming crypto industry under the second Trump administration. Consistent with prior statements made by Atkins and his fellow Republican commissioner Hester Peirce, the SEC chair emphasized today that certain categories of crypto tokens should not be considered securities in and of themselves. Those include “network tokens” linked to a functional, decentralized blockchain network-a category that likely covers most popular crypto tokens, ranging from Ethereum to Solana to XRP. Another exempt token category listed by Atkins is one he dubbed “digital collectibles”-cryptocurrencies that either represent rights to media, or, crucially, reference “internet memes, characters, current events, or trends.” By that definition, wildly popular and volatile meme coins appear to also be carved out from the SEC’s purview.  Third, Atkins said that “digital tools”-crypto assets providing a practical function like a ticket, membership, or badge-are also not securities in his opinion. While those categorizations may not necessarily come as a surprise, given the SEC’s aggressively pro-crypto moves in recent months, Atkins’ comments Wednesday shed more light on the thinking behind those views. Namely, they underscored the SEC chair’s belief that only in situations where a third-party’s managerial efforts are absolutely essential to promises of an asset’s future value, should that asset be considered a security under the.

general

Despite Frustrating End, Democrats Can Still Build A Victory From 40-Day Shutdown

The shutdown is winding down as eight Senate Democrats (7 Democrats and one Independent who caucuses with Democrats) voted with Republicans to get to the 60 votes needed to reopen the government. The ensuing spending plan will not include the health coverage subsidies for which the Democrats were holding out. There is a lot of legitimate anger at the “defectors.” If you were going to cave, why wait until day 40? With public opinion leaning your way, why let up? Especially when this is the only leverage you’ve got? And how can you shake hands with these thoroughly untrustworthy Reppublicans, who have blatantly and illegally ignored previous spending allocations? All for the promise of a show vote on the health-coverage tax credits next month, a vote that will almost surely fail?! Also, some of what the moderate Democrats are claiming they “got” in the deal are not at all Republican concessions, specifically rehiring government workers illegally laid off during the shutdown and “fully funding SNAP.” Simply getting the other side to obey the law may look like a win these days, but it is not. Still, there are a number of arguments that point the other way, ones I’d argue are more compelling, though if and only if the fight we saw in the shutdown regarding who’s fighting for whom continues to rage. If these moderates don’t work with the rest of the Democratic caucus to build on the political and messaging gains made during the shutdown, then they really are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The main argument for ending the shutdown was that the Ds were not going to get the tax credits and too many people were feeling the brunt of the shutdown. The former is probably true; the latter is definitely true. The group of people affected by the shutdown grew with each week, beyond the hundreds of thousands of federal workers who have not been paid for weeks. The Trump administration’s legal fight to avoid paying SNAP food assistance benefits put tens of millions of Americans at risk of going hungry. And its decision to ratchet back air traffic capacity ensnared millions of others in air travel disruptions and flight cancellations that began over the weekend. Given that these two facts-probable loss on tax credits and spreading pain-were highly predictable from the start, why shutdown at all? For one, minority leader Schumer understood that the party was itching for a fight with what is, hands down, the worst, most spineless GOP Senate caucus of any of our lifetimes. On a daily basis, they bow before their corrupt leader and violate their vows to protect the Constitution. Granted the leverage that shutdown gave them, Senate Democrats had to pitch a fight. And they pitched a uniquely strong one. They made the Republicanss own the highly potent health-care (un)affordability issue, and they’ll get another chance to elevate that issue next month when Republicans continue to stand by while 20-plus million people see their premiums spike. My sense, backed by some polling evidence, with the most important polls being last Tuesday’s mini-blue-wave, is that a very important sentiment is clarifying among voters: the Trump administration doesn’t care a whit about their economic concerns but the Ds do. I grant you, that last bit-”the Democrats do”-is an uphill battle and is just now maybe coming into focus. The shutdown underscored that for Republicans, unaffordability and cruelty are spectator sports. This leaves Democrats as the only party in the game. No question, the party is suffering from years, if not decades, of being perceived as abandoning working-class economics, in many cases, justly so. But during the shutdown, they were clearly the party fighting for affordable health care, for SNAP, for government workers, while the Republicans were weaponizing the moment to push hard in the wrong direction on each of these issues. This is the fight that Democrats won in the shutdown, even if they lost on tax credits. But if they stop here, they’re toast, and deservedly so. I could be wrong-maybe this time is different-but in a few months, most regular folks won’t remember the shutdown. These events have historically had a very short half-life. But if they start here, if they learn from this shutdown that they can unify around the message of affordability, of competent governance that follows the rule-of-law, of elevating the hurt that this administration, backed by a do-nothing, wholly-compliant Congressional majority, is doing to large swaths of Americans on a daily basis, then the shutdown will have been worth it. Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his Substack. Reprinted with permission from Econjared.

general

Dr. Oz belittled with crushing putdown as he elbows way into shutdown fight

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) referred to Dr. Mehmet Oz as a “rando” and slammed the former television doctor as the Senate moves closer to ending the government shutdown. Jeffries was responding to a reporter’s question about Affordable Care Act subsidies and Dr. Oz’s comments when the Democratic lawmaker responded.”That’s like the most random way to start a question on a serious topic. Nobody who’s serious in this country takes Dr. Oz seriously. No one. And I mean, it’s shocking that the guy even was confirmed, but this is part of the reality of Republicans here in the House and over in the Senate. They’re nothing more than a rubber stamp for Donald Trump’s cruelty and extreme agenda,” Jeffries said.”I have no idea what Dr. Oz is talking about and neither do the American people,” he added. Jeffries pointed to Democrat wins in elections last week and cited how Americans are upset with the Trump administration amid the shutdown and rising cost of living. “It’s been a disaster for the American people and the American people know it, which is why last Tuesday, Republicans all across the country got wiped out. One of the most decisive off year elections ever. In modern American history,” Jeffries said.

general

Trump Urged to Offer $2,000 Stimulus in Stablecoins, Firm Says It Could Ignite Bull Run

The post Trump Urged to Offer $2,000 Stimulus in Stablecoins, Firm Says It Could Ignite Bull Run appeared com. U. S. President Donald Trump has been advised to issue his proposed $2,000 stimulus in stablecoins instead of traditional cash payments. A crypto firm said the move could start a bull run across digital assets. Calls Grow for Trump’s $2,000 Stimulus to Be Issued in Stablecoins Recently, Trump announced that his administration intends to send a minimum of $2,000 per adult. Tariffs charged on foreign imports fund this. The president referred to the move as “a kind of dividend” for American taxpayers. He further added that this would exclude high-income earners. Crypto firm BowTiedBull said the “smartest thing Trump could do” would be to distribute the $2,000 stimulus using stablecoin payments. That, he said, could send the digital asset industry “into the stratosphere.” The smartest thing Trump could do is offer the $2,000 stimmy idea in stable coins. Not sure they actually care about crypto but it would send the industry into the stratosphere BowTiedBull came after Democratic victories in local and state elections. During the pandemic, the Trump administration approved two rounds of stimulus checks amounting to more than $814 billion in relief. According to IRS data, there were 476 million payments for individuals earning up to $75,000 and couples earning up to $150,000. Those measures helped stabilize an economy in downturn. This also coincided with Bitcoin’s surge from $10,000 to over $30,000 by the end.

general

The future of the GOP is not what it used to be: analysis

While ‘Reaganism’ is “still an article of faith for many conservatives,” the future of the Republican Party despite it taking a beating at the ballot box last Tuesday, is ‘Trumpism,’ according to New York Times opinion writer Damon Linker.”The second Trump administration has given the country 10 months of relentless power grabs, a globally disruptive trade war and, most recently, a demolition project at the White House all while an inexorably rising cost of living continues to weigh on American workers,” Linker writes.”The result? A presidential approval rating that has plummeted from already middling levels,” he adds. Linker thinks it does.”Could Mr. Trump prove to be a temporary aberration? Might the Republican Party return to its Reaganite essence once the man who has done so much to trash it finally leaves the Oval Office in a few years?” he asks. Unfortunately, he writes, Reaganism seems to be over.”In other words, is the future of the Republican Party Reaganism or Trumpism? The answer, I’m afraid, is most likely Trumpism,” Linker says. President Ronald Reagan, he notes, was a one-off, saying, “Reagan’s election in 1980, through the presidency of George W. Bush and the candidacies of John McCain and Mitt Romney, was an unusual and fleeting moment of moderation and responsibility for the G. O. P.”Reaganism, he writes, “was provoked and inspired by the sense of threat and moral clarity of the Cold War and its immediate aftermath.”Republicans have now returned to what Linker says is “a spirit of furious reaction to modern liberalism, an unwillingness to countenance compromise with the realities of governing a sprawling continentwide commercial nation and a conviction that political wisdom lay in the country’s turning inward and indulging a temptation toward self-absorption. Any serious effort to think through what’s likely to follow the Trump presidency needs to grapple with these potent and persistent strands in the right’s political DNA,” Linker says. A rebellious right, Linker says, started to emerge at the end of the Cold War.”Discontented factions on the right first began to rebel against their marginalization immediately after the end of the Cold War and demise of the Soviet Union,” he explains. George W. Bush’s administration, Linker says, rewrote “the Cold War script to portray the global war on terror as a battle for freedom against the enemies of civilization largely satisfied the most rabid factions of the Republican base. Had a Democrat been president when Al Qaeda unleashed its attacks, the furiously reactive antiliberalism of the Old Right might have overwhelmed the G. O. P. more than a decade before it actually did,” Linker says. Republicans in the White House, Linker notes, “kept populist rage submerged at least until it began to heat up in response to the financial crisis and Great Recession and then to boil over during the Obama administration, leading first to the Tea Party protest movement.”Today, Linker says, “we’ve been living in a world dominated by Mr. Trump and a newly emboldened hard right.”The MAGA movement, he writes, “aspires to take a wrecking ball to the ‘administrative state’ and career civil service, use extortionist threats to force ideological capitulation across civil society, deploy troops and a masked federal police force to round up and deport millions of immigrants, and bully other countries into submission to the president’s will.”When Trump eventually exits, and he will, Linker says, the stench of “the more personalistic dimensions of his rule above all, its most breathtaking examples of corruption will likely recede as well,” he notes. But other stains of Trumpism will linger, Linker says.”Much of the rest will remain, including a willingness to use sweeping state power to combat anyone who dares to defy the destructive impulses of the rejectionist Republican base,” he writes. Removing this should become the Republican Party’s number one issue, he writes.”What might tame these reactive impulses is unclear, but doing so may be the G. O. P.’s, and the country’s, most pressing priority,” Linker says.”If Republicans receive a drubbing in next year’s midterm elections in proportion to the one they suffered this past week, many in the party will begin to think more anxiously about where it should turn in 2028. Such thoughts (and second thoughts) will need to grapple seriously with the right’s longstanding dark currents that are part of our national character and cannot be willed or wished away,” he adds.

general

College students, stressed about federal food aid uncertainty, look to campuses for support

U. S. college students who receive federal food aid are looking to their campuses for support because the program known as SNAP is in limbo during the government shutdown. Colleges are spreading awareness about food pantries and handing out free meals to students. A tribal college in North Dakota is hosting ‘Soup Tuesdays’ and providing students with meal kits. A university in New Mexico is asking people to donate to the campus food pantry. And a college in Sacramento is considering increasing grocery pop up events where students can access free produce.

Sitemap Index