Latest news with #TrinityAudio
2 days ago
- Entertainment
Un renard euthanasié pour un cas de rage à Ottawa
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... In a moment that captures the spirit of our cultural age, comedian Stephen Colbert recently celebrated the casting of Cynthia Erivo as Jesus in Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's Jesus Christ Superstar at the Hollywood Bowl. The talk show host, who frequently touts his Roman Catholic faith, called the casting 'long overdue.' Erivo, a bald, black, self-described bisexual British actress who uses 'they/them' pronouns, will become the first woman to portray Jesus in a major production of the musical. Colbert struggled to contain his excitement. But what, precisely, is being celebrated? Colbert's enthusiasm is not an isolated gesture. This is reflective of our cultural malaise whereby ideological agendas take precedence over truth and tradition. Just as in biblical times, idolatry remains a central feature of our age, perhaps even more pervasive and sophisticated. Today it is not the worship of carved statues but the elevation of progressive ideologies that seek to displace God. Essential truths are not merely ignored but actively reimagined under the banner of diversity, equity, and inclusion, along with appeals to creativity and progress. This is not, as some claim, an effort to give voice to the marginalized. Any astute observer of our culture can see that it is a theological distortion: a recasting of God in our own image to suit contemporary tastes and agendas. Even well-meaning thinkers who speak of faith or divine truth can fall into this trap when God is reduced to an abstract or subjective principle. Jesus is not a figure to be reshaped according to personal or cultural preferences. He is a historical person. Apart from those who seek to subvert Christianity, we must remember that Jesus is neither a Jungian archetype nor an abstract object. He is the incarnation of the second person of the Holy Trinity (God the Son), who is fully divine and fully human. He is a person who entered into our world at a specific moment in history, through specific people, in an actual and physical body. This is not some metaphor. It is a concrete event, despite being mysterious and miraculous, that occurred in human history. And as such, the Incarnation is not something we are free to reshape to fit current cultural trends that cater to identity politics. It is an eternal truth that stands at the heart of Christian faith and has direct consequences for our salvation. Therefore, a Jesus who is not male, not Jewish, and not rooted in the world of first-century Galilee is simply not the Jesus we find in the Gospels nor one who has the power to redeem. Therefore, a Jesus who is not male, not Jewish, and not rooted in the world of first-century Galilee is simply not the Jesus we find in the Gospels nor one who has the power to redeem. Tweet This To envision what is truly at stake here, let's consider the thought of the early Church Fathers. The early Church Fathers understood this with clarity. They taught that redemption is directly tied to what Christ took on in becoming human. As St. Gregory of Nazianzus put it, 'That which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved.' In other words, Jesus had to 'take on' the fullness of human nature in order to heal and redeem it. His intervention was not a symbolic gesture or a selective act. It was a real and singular event in human history, an act of love that touches every part of who we are. St. Gregory argued that Jesus was fully human in every way except for sin. For those who affirm free will, sin is not intrinsic to human nature but a contingent possibility. It is an immoral action rather than a necessary feature of what it means to be human. Jesus is the perfect human, so sin would make us in some sense subhuman. St. Gregory articulated this view in response to the fourth-century heresy of Apollinarianism, a heresy that taught that Jesus had a human body and soul but lacked a rational human mind. (Apollinaris claimed that Christ had solely a divine mind.) Gregory opposed this, insisting that if Christ did not assume a rational human mind, then that aspect of humanity would remain unsaved. This view was officially condemned at the First Council of Constantinople in 381, thereby affirming the Church's commitment to the full humanity of Christ. Given the Church Fathers' emphasis on assumption under the context of undertaking a complete human nature, this theological insight has profound implications. If Jesus had to assume every aspect of human nature in order to redeem it, then His maleness is not an unplanned feature but essential to the Incarnation. Jesus being born a first-century Jewish male was not as a cultural accident but part of God's intentional plan. His maleness is embedded in the typological, covenantal, and sacramental structure of salvation history. He is the New Adam who undoes the sin of the first man (Romans 5:12-21). He is the Bridegroom (John 3:29) who lays down His life for the Church, His Bride. He is the eternal High Priest who offers the perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 4:14-16). These roles define the order of salvific history and are not haphazard or decided by contingent socio-cultural events. They are grounded in the revealed logic of Scripture and the theological identity of Christ. The mere suggestion that Jesus could have been incarnated as a woman repudiates God's plan and the purpose of Incarnation; it controverts sound theological doctrine. It is important for modern ears to realize that this is not a question of dignity or value but of doctrinal coherence. Jesus did not assume a generic human nature. He assumed a specific human nature—including a rational mind, a male body, and a historical-cultural identity—to redeem the whole of humanity through that particularity. Altering His identity, even in the name of artistic expression or inclusion, misrepresents the very nature of salvation. To reinterpret Christ's identity, such as portraying Him as a woman, is not a harmless artistic liberty. It undermines the theological coherence of the Incarnation and risks leading people into error about who Christ is and what He came to do. Without a doubt, Jesus Christ Superstar has always been problematic. From its debut in the 1970s, the rock opera reduced the Gospel to existential angst and human misunderstanding, portraying Judas as a tragic hero and downplaying, if not outright denying, the Resurrection. But what we are seeing now is a much deeper level of desecration. Jesus is being remodelled in the image of postmodern identity politics, under the guise of inclusion and progress. In Erivo's own words, this is 'a very special thing.' Yes, but not for the reasons she or Colbert imagine. This is the crowning of a new secular dogma based on the teachings of the LGBTQIA2S+ movement. The Jesus of this production is not the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. In the eyes of postmodern ideology, Jesus is no longer the Savior but a symbol of inclusivity and rebellion. It is the Gospel emptied of its theological content and rebranded as therapeutic theatrics. But no amount of musical talent or vocal range can compensate for the loss of truth. An ideologically-shaped Christ is as distant from the one true Christ as Heaven is from Hell. It is not entirely surprising that Colbert would express such views, given that he has long distanced himself from traditional Catholic teaching. In truth, it is unclear which doctrines he actually upholds, especially considering his public association with figures like the heterodox Fr. James Martin. The deeper concern, however, lies in the fact that Colbert identifies as Catholic. For those unfamiliar with the Church's actual teachings, both within and outside its visible boundaries, this can be deeply misleading and may lead many into confusion about what the Catholic Faith truly affirms. Yet the confusion he represents is not unique. It is symptomatic of a Church, especially in the West, that has grown silent, ambiguous, and compromised in the face of cultural pressure. We are told that to resist this is to be hateful, bigoted, or backward thinking. However, emotions or social trends do not dictate what is true. Insisting on portraying Jesus as male does not diminish the dignity of women or those struggling with issues related to identity. But rather, it is to affirm the logic and truth of the Gospel. Jesus came to fulfill the Scriptures not conform to the shifting demands of the age. These roles are not arbitrary. They are deeply embedded in the typology and logic of divine revelation. To ignore these roles is not merely to play with aesthetics. It is to tamper with the meaning of salvation itself. This latest production at the Hollywood Bowl will attract applause, media coverage, and predictable denunciations of anyone who dares to question it. However, we Christians must resist the pressure to remain silent. Our judgment of falsehoods does not stem from our disdain for beauty or creativity or because we harbor resentment toward our opponents. On the contrary, we honor truth and beauty by preserving their proper intrinsic value. We must speak the truth out of love for those we disagree with and those who persecute us. As Pope Benedict XVI recognized, art and beauty must always be at the service of truth; otherwise, they risk becoming extravagant public debauchery, as in the case of the upcoming Jesus Christ Superstar , which serves to mask a theological void—the absence of any serious engagement with the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Resurrection. As Christians, who affirm that Jesus is Lord, we must reject all the misrepresentations of Him. And we should do so peacefully but with clarity, courage, and compassion at the service of truth. Part of rescuing this downward-spiralling culture is to reclaim the sacred from the hands of those desecrating it. Jesus was crucified not for being inclusive or symbolic but for the exact opposite: for declaring Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That's why people rejected Him. Humans, in their fallen nature, have a propensity to turn away from truth. Perhaps that is the most ironic twist of all. In seeking to make Jesus relatable in our troubled times, Colbert and company have merely joined the chorus that once shouted, 'Crucify Him!' But the true Christ remains unchanged: 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever' (Hebrews 13:8).
Coin Geek
3 days ago
- Business
- Coin Geek
UK passes updated data bill, without AI copyright provisions
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... After intensive debates, the United Kingdom parliament has finally passed the 'Data (Use and Access) Bill' (DUA Act), intended to simplify the use of and access to personal data for U.K. data regulators whilst easing the administrative burden of using personal data. The DUA Act builds on the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—the landmark European Union regulation on information privacy and data use—to modernize the U.K.'s data regime and facilitate more streamlined compliance processes without eroding the protections of the GDPR legislation. On June 11, the bill passed from the House of Lords to the Royal Assent stage—the final stage of the legislative process in the U.K., in which the King essentially rubber stamps bills that Parliament has approved. When it does get its Royal approval—at a date to be decided soon—the DUA Act will become law and herald in the most significant change to the U.K.'s data protection framework since GDPR. Key updates in the bill include expanding the scope for data processing under 'Legitimate Interests,' such as for direct marketing and security processing, reducing interruptive and ineffective cookie consent banners, and provisions to boost market research, product development, and technological innovation. The structure and remit of the U.K.'s information rights regulator, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), will also be 'modernized,' requiring it to consider the public interest in promoting innovation and competition alongside privacy and data protection. Another change involves streamlining the process of submitting a 'Data Subject Access Request' to make it more efficient for individuals and organizations to request information on how a company uses or stores its data. However, one key change the bill doesn't include is a much-debated amendment to force big tech firms and artificial intelligence (AI) companies to get permission and/or pay for U.K. content, as the government insisted that it was planning to address this topic in future AI and copyright legislation—after the conclusion of a consultation on the topic in February. The DPO Centre, a leading U.K. data protection officer and resource center, described the DUA Act as 'a targeted evolution of the current regime' rather than a complete departure from existing frameworks. The rocky road to Royal Assent The DUA Act's passage to Royal Assent was a long, bumpy road that started under the previous Conservative government with the Data Protection and Digital Access (DPDI) Bill, first introduced in 2022. The DPDI set out a range of provisions for how data can be accessed, used, and processed, including making it easier and clearer for organizations to use and re-use data for research purposes; clarifying the processes and safeguards for the re-use of personal data; and easing compliance burdens on organizations related to record keeping, breach reporting and responding to unreasonable information requests from individuals. However, the DPDI failed to pass before the 2024 general election, and in October 2024, the new Labour government introduced the revised DUA Act. The Labour bill retained much of the original content while removing some of the more controversial provisions of the DPDI, including one that would have allowed government oversight of the ICO's strategic priorities and another that required telecom providers to report suspected illegal marketing to the ICO. On May 12, the House of Lords—the Upper chamber of U.K. Parliament—voted by a 147 majority to amend the DUA Act, adding transparency requirements to ensure U.K. copyright holders have to give permission for their work to be used. The amendment would have forced tech companies to declare their use of copyright material when training AI tools so that they could not access U.K. content without paying for it—a proposal backed by prominent U.K. recording artists such as Elton John and Dua Lipa. However, a couple of days later, the House of Common—the lower (and elected) chamber of Parliament primarily responsible for producing legislation—rejected this change, with the government reasoning that it was already carrying out a separate consultation on AI and copyright and wanted to wait on the outcome. In an interview with BBC journalist Laura Kuenssberg, Elton John described the Commons' rejection of the amendment as 'criminal,' adding that if ministers went ahead with plans to allow AI firms to use artists' content without paying, they would be 'committing theft, thievery on a high scale.' The Commons' decision also resulted in an extended back and forth, known as a 'ping-pong,' between the two houses of Parliament, as amendments were debated, changed, and rejected, with the legislation bouncing from one chamber to another in the process. Ultimately, a compromise was struck, with the Commons rejecting the Lords' amendment on AI, but the government agreed to publish reports on its AI and copyright proposals within nine months of Royal Assent. Ben Seretny, Head of DPOs at The DPO Centre, says, 'The final version of the DUA Bill feels more like a careful update than a radical overhaul of the UK GDPR and Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) frameworks.' Commenting on June 12 on the bill's passage from Parliament, Seretny warned that 'while some areas are now clearer, others may introduce uncertainty.' In particular, he noted that the DUA Act gives the Secretary of State more power to decide which countries have data protection standards that are not 'materially lower' than the U.K.—a shift in language that he suggested may concern the European Commission, which is due to review the U.K.'s data adequacy status in December. In order for artificial intelligence (AI) to work right within the law and thrive in the face of growing challenges, it needs to integrate an enterprise blockchain system that ensures data input quality and ownership—allowing it to keep data safe while also guaranteeing the immutability of data. Check out CoinGeek's coverage on this emerging tech to learn more why Enterprise blockchain will be the backbone of AI . Watch: Blockchain & AI unlock possibilities title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen="">
Coin Geek
13-06-2025
- Business
- Coin Geek
UK lodges 'supranational approach' to decentralized disputes
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... The United Kingdom Law Commission—a statutory independent body that keeps U.K. laws under review and recommends reform—opened a consultation on June 5 to determine the tricky and controversial issue of which country's laws apply when disputes arise over decentralized digital assets and networks. First reported by Ledger Insights on June 6, the Commission proposed an innovative 'supranational approach' that considers protocol whitepapers and network participant expectations rather than attempting to apply existing territorial rules to complex decentralized disputes to overcome this dilemma. Since the entry of distributed ledger technology (DLT) and its most famous iteration, blockchain, onto the global scene, legal systems around the globe have been struggling to get to grips with the decentralized—or semi-decentralized—structure of many entities utilizing the technology. Legal processes are often reliant on companies and groups having a physical location to determine which jurisdiction's laws apply; when a dispute arises, in which country's court the parties should litigate their dispute; and after a judgment is passed, how it can be recognized and enforced in the courts of another country. Private international law is the body of domestic law that supplies the rules used to determine these questions, and it is premised on the principle that all national systems of law are limited in their application to sovereign territories defined by geographical boundaries – often known as the 'territoriality principle.' Decentralized DLT and blockchain entities challenge this tradition by transcending and defying geographical boundaries—a phenomenon described by the Law Commission as 'omniterritoriality.' The proposed solution In order to meet this challenge and ensure that decentralized entities remain answerable to laws, irrespective of where they may be operating, the Law Commission proposed developing a 'supranational' approach – i.e., one that transcends national boundaries or governments. This approach would involve the creation of 'a special body of substantive rules of decision that apply only in private law cases in which the law of no country would be appropriate to apply to resolve the issue in dispute and the law of every country would be appropriate to apply to resolve the issue in dispute.' According to the Law Commission, the supranational approach is often formalized through conventions and treaties. It does not require the special substantive rules to be a state-based law or agreed upon at an international level. This approach would involve the creation of 'a special body of substantive rules of decision that apply only in private law cases in which the law of no country would be appropriate to apply to resolve the issue in dispute and the law of every country would be appropriate to apply to resolve the issue in dispute.' According to the Law Commission, the supranational approach is often formalized through conventions and treaties and does not require the special substantive rules to be a state-based law or agreed upon at an international level. In other words, for peer-to-peer transactions on truly decentralized networks, the courts would not be required to identify the 'applicable law,' rather they would aim for a 'just disposal of proceedings' by reference to a range of different factors, including the legitimate expectations of the parties based on the terms of the relevant decentralized protocol and any white paper or other public document relating to the network. In this way, a dispute that crosses international boundaries, multiple jurisdictions, and lacks any physical location could be raised in the U.K. courts, and the parties could appeal to laws of other jurisdictions when making their arguments. Though the Commission's proposal would be initially for the U.K. courts to take up, depending on how it played out other countries may follow suit and apply a similar approach to complex blockchain and DLT disputes. By proposing supranational rules that consider the unique characteristics of decentralized networks such as blockchain, the U.K. Law Commission is innovating itself in an attempt to meet the challenges of new innovative technologies and systems present to traditional legal systems. Thus, the Law Commission's efforts represent a significant step toward filling a substantial legal hole around the issue of jurisdiction and decentralized entities. The consultation will remain open until September 8, 2025. Editor's note: This article has been updated. Watch | Tech of Tomorrow: Diving into the impact of tech in shaping the future title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""> Decentralization Regulation United Kingdom United Kingdom Law Commission
Coin Geek
12-06-2025
- Business
- Coin Geek
A look into BTC hash rate's surge and its implications
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... BTC's hash rate—the total computational power securing the network—reached an all-time high in early June despite rising mining difficulty. This milestone underscores the resilience and growing participation in block reward mining, even as the industry faces regulatory scrutiny, energy concerns, and market volatility. The surge in hash rate reflects technological advancements and the strategic maneuvers of miners adapting to a competitive and dynamic environment. This article explores the factors driving this record-breaking hash rate, its implications for the BTC network, and what it means for the future of block reward mining. The hash rate, measured in exahashes per second (EH/s), represents the combined processing power of miners worldwide competing to find a computationally high number to validate transactions and earn BTC rewards. According to data from the BTC hash rate peaked at approximately 700 EH/s in early June 2025, surpassing previous records set earlier in the year. This surge comes despite a mining difficulty adjustment that reached its all-time high, making it harder for miners to find new blocks. Mining difficulty, which adjusts roughly every two weeks to maintain a consistent block time of about 10 minutes, has been climbing steadily due to increased network participation. Several factors have contributed to this unprecedented hash rate. First, advancements in mining hardware have played a pivotal role. Companies like Bitmain and MicroBT have released next-generation ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) miners with improved efficiency, allowing miners to process more hashes per unit of energy. These machines, such as Bitmain's Antminer S21 Pro, boast efficiencies below 15 joules per terahash (J/TH), a significant improvement over older models. As a result, miners can maintain profitability even as electricity costs and network difficulty rise. Second, the geographic redistribution of mining operations has bolstered the hash rate. After China's 2021 crackdown on crypto mining, which once accounted for over 60% of BTC's hash rate, miners relocated to regions with favorable regulations and abundant energy, such as the United States, Kazakhstan, and Canada. The U.S. alone now hosts nearly 40% of the global hash rate, driven by access to cheap energy in states like Texas and Wyoming. Additionally, countries like Pakistan have emerged as new players, with plans to allocate 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity to Bitcoin mining and artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, as announced at the BTC Vegas 2025 conference. These shifts have diversified the mining landscape, making the network more resilient to regional disruptions. Third, the rising BTC price, hovering around $100,000 in June 2025, has incentivized miners to ramp up operations. Higher prices increase the value of block rewards (currently 3.125 BTC per block, following the April 2024 halving), offsetting energy and hardware costs. Posts on X highlight that miners are reinvesting profits into expanding their fleets, further driving the hash rate upward. This trend is evident in companies like BitFuFu (NASDAQ: FUFU), which reported a 91% increase in mining output, reflecting the sector's operational growth. The record hash rate has significant implications for the BTC network. A higher hash rate enhances security by making it more difficult for malicious actors to execute a 51% attack, where an entity controls the majority of the network's computational power. With 700 EH/s, the cost of such an attack is prohibitively high, requiring billions of dollars in hardware and energy. This bolsters confidence in BTC as a decentralized and tamper-resistant system, particularly as institutional adoption grows. However, the hash rate surge also raises challenges. The increased computational power has driven up energy consumption, reigniting debates about BTC's environmental impact. Critics argue that mining's reliance on fossil fuels contributes to carbon emissions, though defenders point to the growing use of renewables. For instance, a 2024 report by the Bitcoin Mining Council estimated that 59% of global mining uses sustainable energy sources, such as hydroelectric and solar power. Miners in regions like Quebec and Iceland are increasingly tapping into green energy to mitigate criticism and reduce costs. Another challenge is the profitability squeeze for smaller miners. As difficulty rises, those with older hardware or higher electricity costs struggle to compete. This has led to consolidation in the industry, with large-scale operations like Marathon Digital (NASDAQ: MARA) and Riot Platforms (NASDAQ: RIOT) dominating the market. Smaller bitcoin miners are exploring alternatives, such as joining bitcoin mining pools or adopting cloud mining solutions like BAY Miner's new mobile app, which allows users to mine BTC without owning hardware. Looking ahead, the record hash rate signals a robust and competitive mining ecosystem, but its sustainability depends on several factors. Continued innovation in hardware efficiency, access to affordable and renewable energy, and supportive regulatory frameworks will be critical. Additionally, the upcoming Bitcoin halving in 2028, which will further reduce block rewards, will test miners' adaptability. For now, the hash rate milestone underscores Bitcoin's enduring appeal and the relentless drive of miners to secure the network. In conclusion, BTC's record-breaking hash rate in June 2025 reflects a confluence of technological, economic, and geographic factors. While it strengthens the network's security and highlights the industry's growth, it also brings challenges related to energy use and market dynamics. As the block reward mining landscape evolves, the balance between profitability, sustainability, and decentralization will shape its future trajectory. Watch: Bitcoin mining in 2025: Is it still worth it? title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen> Bitcoin Block Reward Mining BTC Hash Rate
Coin Geek
12-06-2025
- Business
- Coin Geek
Senate stablecoin bill advances amid cries of betrayal, corruption
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... The U.S. Senate is moving forward with its stablecoin legislation despite accusations that Senate leadership reneged on promises to allow an open amendment process. On June 11, the Senate voted 68-30 to invoke cloture on the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, legislation intended to regulate the use of so-called 'payment stablecoins.' The vote, which mirrored the 68-30 cloture vote conducted last month, approves the revised text filed by Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) on June 9. GENIUS will now head to the Senate floor for further debate and the extremely unlikely possibility of further amending. A final vote could come later this week but appears more likely to occur early next week. On June 9, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) filed an 'amendment tree' that required unanimous support for any additional amendments to GENIUS, effectively blocking further revisions to the text. Senators who were opposed to GENIUS as written had little recourse beyond engaging in performative (and ultimately impotent) outrage on Wednesday. The brief debate preceding the vote saw Republican senators urge their colleagues to vote 'aye' to ensure proper regulation of stablecoin activity. However, many Democrats railed against President Donald Trump's ever-widening crypto venture portfolio, which includes the USD1 stablecoin issued by the Trump-controlled decentralized finance (DeFi) project World Liberty Financial (WLF). Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who has introduced legislation to limit Trump's ability to profit off his digital asset ventures, referenced the Abu Dhabi state-run investment firm MGX buying $2 billion worth of USD1 in early May. Merkley noted that two weeks later, Trump was in Abu Dhabi, where he announced he was waiving restrictions on the export of advanced U.S.-made AI chips. Merkley called this apparent quid pro quo 'the Mount Everest of corruption.' Merkley said the president has 'planted a 'government for sale' sign on the White House lawn and individuals and foreign governments are funneling money into his pocket and his family's pocket in order to gain access and influence.' Merkley also took Thune to task for blocking GENIUS amendments after promising an open amendment process. Merkley pointed out that senators had voted on earlier motions to advance GENIUS with the understanding that their amendments would be properly considered. Merkley called Thune's about-turn 'a breach of trust that is simply wrong in this body.' Sen. Michael Bennett (D-CO), who'd filed a GENIUS amendment to prevent elected officials from issuing their digital assets, lamented the fact that some of his Democratic colleagues planned to vote in favor of GENIUS despite the fact that there was 'not a single amendment voted on as part of this bill.' Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), a GENIUS co-sponsor, told her colleagues that while she found the president's crypto ventures 'extremely unhelpful' and she 'would love to ban' his activity, her desire for stablecoin regulation was greater than her disdain for Trump's efforts to line his pockets with crypto cash. The obligatory Tether reference The lack of amendments to GENIUS leaves a rather large loophole in place for 'foreign' stablecoin issuers like Tether—the issuer of the market-leading USDT stablecoin—who wish to issue their tokens in the U.S. while avoiding the regulatory restrictions imposed on domestic issuers. GENIUS only requires foreign issuers to comply with law enforcement requests, while it's left up to the Treasury Secretary to designate a foreign issuer as non-compliant. Moreover, foreign issuers can get a pass if the Treasury concludes that the jurisdiction in which the issuer is based has 'a regulatory and supervisory regime … comparable to' the regime envisioned by GENIUS. In some unfortunate timing for GENIUS supporters, Monday saw the Department of Justice (DoJ) file charges against Russian national Iurii Gugnin for using his fintech firm Evita to launder over half a billion dollars on behalf of sanctioned Russian individuals and entities. Gugnin came to the U.S. mere months after Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent imposition of economic sanctions on Russia by the U.S. and other Western nations. The funds Gugnin laundered allowed Russian firms to acquire prohibited technologies, including those used by Russia's state-owned nuclear operator. As the DoJ notes, during an 18-month period ending January 2025, 'Gugnin used Evita to facilitate the movement of approximately $530 million through the U.S. financial system, most of which he received in the form of a cryptocurrency stablecoin known as Tether.' Tether representatives told the Wall Street Journal that the company 'unequivocally condemns the illegal use of stablecoins.' Nonetheless, USDT remains the digital asset of choice for criminals worldwide. The same day that Gugnin was charged, a different branch of the DoJ reported guilty pleas by five individuals who admitted laundering funds for a Cambodia-based scam operator. The scammers convinced their U.S. victims to convert their dollars into USDT and forward it to the Bahamas-based Deltec Bank, one of Tether's early banking partners. On June 5, the DoJ filed a civil forfeiture complaint against North Korean nationals who tricked U.S. firms into hiring them for remote work. The North Koreans were paid primarily via stablecoins, including USDT and USDC, the latter issued by Circle (NASDAQ: CRCL), which were duly laundered and forwarded to the North Korean government. Back to the top ↑ Trump family flying too close to the crypto Sun? GENIUS Act's forward progress came the day after two House of Representatives committees advanced their chamber's digital asset market structure legislation (CLARITY). All told, there have been worse weeks for U.S. crypto supporters, but not everyone is convinced the legislative tide has officially turned. On Wednesday, Decrypt published an article featuring quotes from anonymous 'top crypto lobbyists' expressing pessimism about market structure legislation's chances of passing Congress this year. One lobbyist said, 'Anyone who disagrees is either delusional or stupid.' The cause for this concern? 'The president's business dealings in crypto while in office.' Singling out the Trump family's WLF, the lobbyist claimed, 'These people, they hate us. They announce a new product every time there's a key vote.' The lobbyist noted that while the House committees were marking up CLARITY, Eric Trump was tweeting about USD1's trading volume hitting new highs, while Don Jr. was retweeting WLF tweets about similar USD1 accomplishments. As if on cue, Wednesday saw Eric tweet his thanks to a tweet by Justin Sun, founder of the TRON blockchain. Sun's tweet celebrated the first minting of USD1 on TRON. Sun's tweet also brought praise from WLF's official X account, which thanked Sun for his support. Sun is a highly controversial figure who was appointed a WLF advisor after purchasing $75 million worth of WLF's governance token WLFI. Sun also purchased over $19 million worth of the $TRUMP memecoin, making him the token's top holder and ensuring his spot at last month's Trump-hosted gala dinner for the 220 biggest $TRUMP whales. Amidst all these Trump crypto cash transfers, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 'paused' its civil complaint against Sun. In fairness, the SEC has halted nearly all its civil litigation against digital asset operators, but as they say, the optics here aren't great. And they could get much worse. On June 10, Forbes reported on a letter sent to a New York court last month by an independent monitor into the Trump Organization, the umbrella group for the president's business operations. The letter noted a Trump Organization entity (DT Marks LLC) that handled its WLF dealings and that 'a portion of this entity would be sold to a third party.' The letter offered no hints as to who/what this third party might be, nor what size of a stake in DT Marks they may have acquired. Forbes theorized that Sun may have been the third party, and while it offered no proof to support this theory, neither the White House, the Trump Org, WLF, nor Sun himself seemed eager to respond to Forbes' inquiries. Back to the top ↑ Bullish on IPOs In non-Trump stablecoin news, Circle closed out Wednesday's trading on the Nasdaq up 10.7% to $117.20 after nearly dipping below $100 on Tuesday. The GENIUS vote may have put some wind in Circle's sails, but Wednesday's close was well off the $138 peak the stock enjoyed last Friday, its second day of trading on the Nasdaq. Circle's impressive debut had already convinced the Winklevoss twins to file IPO paperwork for their Gemini digital asset exchange, and now rival exchange Bullish is getting in on this action. On June 10, the Financial Times broke the news that the Peter Thiel-backed Bullish Global had confidentially filed its IPO paperwork with the SEC 'in recent weeks.' Confidential filings allow companies to get the IPO ball rolling without having to immediately disclose their financial data to the public. Jefferies Financial Group will act as lead underwriter, confirming February's rumors that Bullish had engaged Jefferies to explore the possibility of a public floatation. A 2021 effort to go public via a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) failed to launch as rising interest rates did a number on stock valuations, and the onset of 'crypto winter' the following year reduced investors' appetite for digital asset firms (Circle also cancelled its original IPO plans that year). Bullish is ranked 12th in terms of trading volume on CoinGecko's list of centralized exchanges (three places ahead of Gemini). It remains to be seen if the Kraken exchange might now accelerate its own IPO plans. In March, Bloomberg reported that the company was targeting a Q1 2026 listing, but who knows what the vibe around digital assets might be by then? Particularly if the Trumps continue to expand their burgeoning crypto interests. Back to the top ↑ CFPB director accuses Trump of 'dismantling' enforcement efforts On June 10, Reuters reported that Cara Petersen, acting enforcement director at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), had resigned in protest of the Trump administration's efforts to hobble the agency's work. Petersen issued a scathing email on her way out the door, saying the Trump administration 'has no intention to enforce the law in any meaningful way.' Petersen, a 15-year CFPB veteran, said, 'Never before have I seen the ability to perform our core mission so under attack.' Petersen said it was 'devastating to see the bureau's enforcement function being dismantled through thoughtless reductions in staff, inexplicable dismissals of cases, and terminations of negotiated settlements that let wrongdoers off the hook.' The CFPB has been under attack by big tech firms for the past couple of years, with crypto execs like Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) CEO Brian Armstrong erroneously accusing the CFPB of being 'unconstitutional.' Armstrong's view may have been influenced by Coinbase's notoriously poor customer service, which has led to over 8,200 customer complaints filed against Coinbase with the CFPB. Formed in 2010 in the wake of the global financial crisis, the CFPB has delivered nearly $20 billion in relief to U.S. consumers. However, since Trump was sworn into office in January, the CFPB has been dropping cases almost as fast as the SEC dropped its pursuit of crypto firms. Less than a week before Trump's inauguration, two tech sector lobby groups filed suit against the CFPB, challenging its ability to scrutinize fintech companies. By April, both the House and Senate had revoked the CFPB's ability to monitor tech firms that process digital payments. Proponents of legislation like GENIUS and CLARITY claim the bills will establish sorely needed guardrails that will help protect consumers. However, the federal government is systematically defanging nearly all the agencies that are meant to enforce those guardrails. The CFPB is being neutered, the SEC appears disinterested in policing crypto, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—which under CLARITY will be given the primary role of regulating crypto—is still awaiting confirmation of its new chairman. But even when Brian Quintenz finally takes his seat at the head of the CFTC table, he'll find four empty chairs where commissioners are supposed to be sitting. There's no question that crypto operators love their newfound freedom from oversight. Whether their customers find the new environment to their liking is very much an open question. Back to the top ↑ Watch: Breaking down solutions to blockchain regulation hurdles title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen="">
