iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Molly White @molly.wiki · 03/10/2026

AI has (incorrectly) identified me as the author of a smut book called “My Grumpy Billionaire Secret” and offered to replace my AI audiobooks with new AI audio the future is now

Hi Molly, My Grumpy Billionaire Secret is on Audible with a virtual voice edition, and that flat read is the first thing a listener hears. We'd remake it and get it onto 20+ audiobook platforms. Still a synthetic voice, but directed, with pacing and music, so it actually holds attention. Want the first chapter done free so you can hear it? Alek

38913108

Molly White @molly.wiki · 03/10/2026

Crypto’s efforts to buy politicians are spreading outside the US. In the UK, over $100 million in crypto money has flowed into Nigel Farage’s far-right Reform UK party, courtesy of Tether-linked billionaire Christopher Harborne and BitMEX’s Ben Delo (pardoned by Trump last year).

Outside the US
The crypto industry's efforts to buy politicians are metastasizing. Some ten-figure donations from crypto billionaires to Reform UK’s Nigel Farage caused outcry in British politics in late 2024 and throughout 2025, as he accepted around £17 million ($22.4 million) across several contributions from Tether-linked British–Thai citizen Christopher Harborne [I98, 102, 105]. The contributions prompted discussion among the UK government over whether to ban large political contributions from British citizens who live overseas.

That conversation has been renewed as the Reform party has accepted contributions amounting to £72 million ($97 million) — half from Harborne, and the other half from BitMEX founder Ben Delo.36 Delo and other BitMEX cofounders were charged in the US in 2020 for violations of anti-money laundering laws; Delo ultimately was sentenced to probation and paid a $10 million fine. In 2025, Delo and the other BitMEX cofounders were pardoned by President Trump [I81].

“If you don’t pay taxes, if you don’t live here, you can’t buy your way into our democracy because you’re a billionaire,” said Housing Secretary Angela Rayner in an interview arguing for the Labour Party’s planned legislation. I would argue that even if billionaires do pay taxes and live somewhere, they shouldn’t be able to buy their way into democracy, but I suppose it’s a start.37

17916

Molly White @molly.wiki · 03/10/2026

As usual, the crypto industry’s ads say nothing about crypto. Instead, one of their most-run attack ads claims that Brown “voted to unleash 87,000 IRS agents on you while giving social security benefits to illegals.” More: influence.citationneeded.news/2026/electio...

1625

Molly White @molly.wiki · 03/10/2026

Crypto's biggest spending push yet is in Ohio’s Senate race, where former Senate Banking Chair Sherrod Brown is challenging incumbent Republican Jon Husted. Brown has toned down his crypto criticism on the campaign trail, but that hasn't stopped $30 million+ in crypto money against him.

In elections and political influence
Crypto industry super PACs are grappling with the fallout from the Clarity Act’s defeat. While the bill was pending, the industry talked a big game about using its political muscle punish those who voted against it. Some of that rhetoric persists: the Coinbase-linked Stand With Crypto advocacy group issued a statement threatening that “The results of today’s vote make it clear which officials are with our community, and which are against us — and we’ll make sure our advocates are ready to cast their ballots accordingly in this and future elections.”29 But other strategists worry this is the wrong approach, warning that the crypto industry still needs to court Democrats — including some of the same people who blocked cloture — to advance its agenda, especially if the midterms shift the balance of party power.30

Those worries didn’t stop the ostensibly bipartisan Fairshake, the crypto industry’s leading super PAC, from committing to spend at least $30 million against Sherrod Brown, who is challenging incumbent Republican Jon Husted for his Senate seat in Ohio. A more explicitly MAGA crypto super PAC, the Digital Freedom Fund, has also shelled out $3 million to boost Husted and oppose Brown. Brown was ousted in 2024 by Republican Bernie Moreno, who won his race with the help of a $40 million crypto super PAC spending blitz — the most the industry spent on any one race that cycle.

Brown was the chair of the Senate Banking Committee before he lost his re-election bid in 2024. As chair, he was an outspoken critic of the cryptocurrency industry, often pushing to reform banking and traditional finance rather than greenlight the industry’s requests for lax regulation, often made in the name of financial inclusion. “Allowing more people to trap their money in risky, speculative investments isn’t the kind of financial inclusion we need,” he said in a February 2022 statement.31 In a December 2022 interview shortly following FTX’s collapse, Brown spoke about his efforts to “educat[e] my colleagues and trying to educate the public about crypto and the dangers that it presents to our security as a nation and to consumers that get hoodwinked by them.”32

Brown seems to be trying to avoid antagonizing the crypto industry while on the campaign trail, objecting to the New York Times’ characterization of him as “outspoken against crypto” in the 2024 election, and saying that he simply does not believe industries should be permitted to write their own regulations. “Crypto has a part, a role, in our economy. They do. They likely will for a lot of years to come. I don’t have great interest in going beyond that for now,” he told the Times.33 But the softer stance hasn’t protected him from the industry’s most aggressive spending blitz yet this cycle.

1593

Molly White @molly.wiki · 03/10/2026

Another ruling against Kalshi widens a circuit split over whether states can regulate prediction markets. It’s likely to end at the Supreme Court.

In prediction markets
Prediction markets are drawing nearer to the Supreme Court’s docket as a split grows between circuit courts. In April, the Third Circuit issued a ruling in Kalshi’s favor, finding that federal commodities laws preempt state gambling laws in New Jersey.22 But in August, the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision that state gambling laws are not pre-empted by commodities regulations in a Nevada case.23 And now the Sixth Circuit has agreed with the Ninth in an opinion saying that Ohio and Tennessee can enforce state gambling laws against the platforms.24 Writing that the Commodities Exchange Act was created to “protect the 'national public interest by providing a means for managing and assuming price risks, discovering prices, or disseminating pricing information,’” Judge Julia Smith Gibbons wrote that “it is... difficult to see how determining the probability that a certain number of corner kicks will be taken in a given soccer game—or that a 30-leg parlay will hit—would serve [to] advance those goals.” She wrote that the handful of examples of the economic significance of sports-related events contracts provided by amicus, such as a sports bar hedging against the cost of offering free drinks if the Knicks won the first game of the NBA finals, were a “far cry from establishing that sports-event contracts are inherently associated with a financial consequence or are commonly used to hedge risk and derive pricing information in any meaningful way.”

New Jersey has already appealed the Third Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court, and the widening split among the Circuit courts makes it more likely the Supreme Court will see the need to take up the case.

1615

Molly White @molly.wiki · 03/10/2026

As the Trump administration boosts prediction markets and clears the way for them to operate without pesky oversight, Donald Trump Jr. is leading a $1 billion funding round into Polymarket through his 1789 Capital VC firm.

Trump family business interests
As the Trump administration boosts prediction markets and clears the way for them to operate without pesky oversight, Donald Trump Jr. is leading a $1 billion funding round into Polymarket through his 1789 Capital VC firm.20 A previous 1789 Capital investment into Polymarket saw Trump Jr. named to the firm’s advisory board in August 2025; he simultaneously serves as a strategic adviser to Polymarket’s largest competitor, Kalshi.

Screenshot of a May 26, 2026 Truth Social post by Donald Trump: "It is critically important that the CFTC’s exclusive authority over Prediction Markets is maintained, and that they will thrive. Under my leadership, we are setting “rules of the road” that are the Gold Standard for the States. We cannot have SCUM like Chris Christie, Letitia James, Tim Walz, and JB Pritzker setting the rules! Other Countries are after this new form of Financial Market, and we want to remain at the top. Likewise, and even more importantly, where we are currently the Crypto (Bitcoin, etc.) Capital of the World, other Countries are trying diligently to replace us in that capacity, but we won’t let that happen. It is a major Industry, and we must protect it. Mike Selig, CFTC Chairman, and respected by all, is doing a great job. Thank you Mike! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

Caption: In May, President Trump posted that "it is critically important" that prediction markets "thrive". His son, Donald Trump Jr., is heavily invested in the sector. (via Truth Social)

In July, the New York Times reported that 1789 Capital had achieved whopping 200% returns by “cashing in on the policies of the current administration openly and without apology.”21

Many of the companies that 1789 has invested in have large government contracts while others, like Polymarket, have benefited directly from new Trump policies or rollbacks of existing laws. The firm bought shares in some of the most coveted private companies before many went public, including SpaceX, Anduril, Cerebras and Reflection AI, often by leveraging their political and business connections to secure a stake or to help boost the companies’ sales.

37111

Molly White @molly.wiki · 03/10/2026

Binance pleaded guilty to Iran (and other) sanctions violations in 2023. Trump pardoned its founder. Binance took a $2B investment paid in the Trump family’s stablecoin. Now DOJ is investigating Binance for... Iran sanctions violations, under a US attorney who used to be Trump's lawyer.

Binance
Binance has dropped its March defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over the outlet’s reports that the Department of Justice was investigating Binance for violating sanctions against Iran [I102].18 The request to dismiss the lawsuit came the day after Bloomberg confirmed that the Manhattan US Attorney’s Office is indeed probing Binance’s compliance program to determine whether the company knew that customers were using its platform to circumvent the sanctions.19

I’ll be interested to see how that investigation plays out. The Southern District of New York is currently headed by Jamie McDonald, a former Trump personal lawyer. While in private practice, he represented Coinbase in its lawsuit from the SEC, and has also represented Polymarket and other crypto-adjacent firms.

Binance has been a lucrative partner to Trump, accepting a $2 billion investment from the United Arab Emirates’ MGX investment fund denominated in the USD1 stablecoin [I83]. That $2 billion is a substantial chunk of USD1’s reserves, and helped to generate $8.3 million in income for Trump in 2025. Binance has also provided software to the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial, listed USD1 for trading, and offered incredibly generous promotions to incentivize traders to buy the Trump family’s stablecoin [Quid pro quo].

The benefits have gone both ways for Binance. A 2023 enforcement action by the SEC, which accused Binance of fraud and operating as an unregistered securities exchange (and included a quote from Binance’s Chief Compliance Officer that “we are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro”), was dismissed with prejudice in May 2025 [I85]. Later that year, Trump pardoned the company’s former CEO, Changpeng Zhao, who was convicted of violating anti-money laundering and sanctions laws [I95].

19115

Molly White @molly.wiki · 03/10/2026

Fellow FTX executive Caroline Ellison is out of jail, and the Manifund effective altruist grantmaking organization has just let slip they hired her. She “brings specific, useful expertise around finance”, they say, which yeah — much in the same way that Bernie Madoff had very specific expertise.

FTX essentially bankrolled Manifund and the associated Manifold Markets (think Polymarket but with fake money) through grants and investments. This may explain why Chen, citing a “keen debt” to FTX, decided to hire Ellison and pay her using funds derived from her fraud — money Manifund is currently fighting the FTX estate over rather than returning to creditors.17

335455

Molly White @molly.wiki · 03/10/2026

Sam Bankman-Fried has taken his appeal to the Supreme Court, but he’s relying on a very similar argument that the Court unanimously rejected last year. I doubt they’ll take up his case.

FTX
Having lost his appeal to the Second Circuit, Sam Bankman-Fried is now taking his case to the Supreme Court.15 He hasn’t changed his arguments much — despite repeated statements from both his trial judge and the appeals court that “but we paid you back” does not actually make fraud not a crime, he still seems convinced that if he could’ve just explained to jurors that FTX’s assets eventually appreciated (after he drove the company into bankruptcy), the jury would’ve let him walk free. This is going to be a tough way to convince the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decisions, given that only last year the Court unanimously agreed in Kousisis v. United States that fraud convictions are valid even if the victim didn’t seek to cause economic loss, and even if the victim doesn’t ultimately lose money.

Bankman-Fried also added arguments addressing the $11 billion forfeiture order, which he says violates the Eighth Amendment protections against excessive fines. I would be shocked if the Supreme Court agrees to take up the case, but you can’t blame a guy for trying, I guess.

2484

Molly White @molly.wiki · 03/10/2026

The exemption for “tokenized securities venues” (TSVs) is a huge overreach, but it may go unchallenged. A challenge would normally come from competitors (i.e., registered exchanges), but tokenized stocks are of dubious appeal. Exchanges may not see TSVs as likely to gain any real traction.

It remains to be seen whether anyone will take the SEC to task over this brazen overstep. A legal challenge might normally come from competitors — in this case, the stock exchanges that do have to comply with onerous regulations. But the exchanges also may not see TSVs as a serious competitive threat.

These tokenized stocks are of dubious appeal, and there’s little reason to think traders — particularly institutional traders — would prefer them to trading the stocks themselves. The crypto industry’s main pitch is that TSVs would allow 24/7 trading, but it’s not clear a significant portion of the market actually wants that. TSVs also bring various risks and downsides: if you buy a tokenized stock on one TSV, there is little infrastructure that would allow you to sell it elsewhere, essentially locking you in to that platform. And what happens to those locked-in traders if a TSV hits its volume cap and is required to pause trading in that stock for three months?

Stock issuers also may not wish to allow TSVs to tokenize their stocks, and the SEC stopped short in this order of granting Robinhood’s wish to tokenize stocks without issuer consent.14 While the handful of publicly traded crypto companies will likely allow it, an exchange that only offers shares of Coinbase and Microstrategy may not attract much interest.

Why spend the money and political capital on a lawsuit against your regulator over a product that’s unlikely to gain meaningful traction? My guess is most exchanges will wait and see if these venues catch on — and maybe even dabble in launching their own — before deciding challenging the SEC is worth the trouble.

1391

Molly White @molly.wiki · 03/10/2026

As the Clarity Act collapsed, commissioners at the CFTC and SEC raced to reassure the crypto industry that they will still deliver a friendly regulatory environment. The SEC has just dropped an “Innovation Exemption” that essentially removes issuers of tokenized stocks from securities oversight.

In regulators
As the Clarity Act collapsed, commissioners at the CFTC and SEC raced to reassure the crypto industry that they will still deliver a friendly regulatory environment, though it’s thin consolation for an industry that had been counting on the permanence of legislation. The CFTC has sent a proposed rule to the White House for review, and while its contents have not been published, its name — “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets” — suggests a broad scope.9 The SEC, perhaps sensing the impending doom of the Clarity Act, had already released its lengthy “Regulation Crypto” proposed rule prior to the cloture vote [I09].

The SEC has now followed that with what they’re calling the “Innovation Exemption”: an order that carves out exemptions for “tokenized securities venues” (TSVs) so that they are not considered to be “exchanges” under securities laws.10 TSVs are platforms where people can trade tokenized securities — that is, instead of buying a stock, you can now buy a crypto token that represents a stock. Crypto companies including Coinbase, Kraken, Robinhood, and others have been clamoring for the SEC to allow them to offer such products to US investors, and the SEC has granted their wish.

While the SEC has in the past exempted smaller operators from the types of onerous regulations and requirements that apply to stock exchanges like the Nasdaq or New York Stock Exchange, this exemption is a shocking departure. The most comparable historical exemption is Regulation ATS, applying to “alternative trading systems”, which was issued amid the surge in electronic trading in the late nineties.11 However, that rule was made after several years of observation of various ATSes that were operating under no-action letters, and with the experience gleaned from that period — not as the first step. It was also created via the full notice-and-comment rulemaking process, unlike this exemption, which is an exemptive order the agency says was necessary in order to “address the immediate concerns” of the crypto industry. Finally, while Regulation ATS exempts ATSes from the definition of exchange, it also installs a separate set of conditions and registration requirements for ATSes, which remain fully subject to the SEC's authority. While the SEC claims that exempted TSVs will also be subject to various requirements, such as limits on the number and volume of tokenized stocks that can be listed on the platform, these platforms will not be required to register with the SEC, leaving the agency with little ability to enforce it.

The Better Markets advocacy group was quick to condemn the exemption, writing that “the SEC has proven that it will do anything to benefit the crypto industry. That now includes exempting crypto companies that want to facilitate tokenized stock trading from the federal securities laws. In doing so, the SEC endangers investors.”12 One comment submitted to the SEC shortly after the exemption condemns the SEC for “dismantling the national market system in the name of ‘innovation’”.13

1565

Molly White @molly.wiki · 03/10/2026

Republicans are pointing fingers at the Democrats, some Democrats are pointing fingers at Republicans. And some blame Coinbase, which used its effective veto power to stall the bill in January — a delay that left time for Trump’s financial disclosure to make the bill into a political lightning rod.

Now the blame game is in full swing. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) penned an op-ed in the crypto publication CoinDesk titled “Democrats killed the Clarity Act”, where he railed against Democrats for “bl[owing] another opportunity to put money in the pockets of Americans” and repeated Naft’s line about Democrats constantly moving the goalposts in negotiations.5 Elsewhere, Republicans attempted to spin the story as “Democrats say they want crypto regulation and limits on Trump’s corruption so bad, and then they vote against it!” (as though Clarity would have provided any meaningful regulation, rather than the opposite).6 And some Democrats are pointing fingers at Republicans. “It’s the Republicans who died on the hill of Trump corruption,” argued Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA).7

Some blame Coinbase and its CEO Brian Armstrong, who in January pulled their support for the bill, causing Senators to cancel a key vote and stalling progress for several months [I99]. “[Armstrong] could effectively veto portions he didn’t like—and he did,” wrote the Wall Street Journal. By the time Senators were able to negotiate a compromise on the stablecoin rewards issue that had prompted Coinbase’s objections, Trump’s annual financial disclosure had come out, revealing his $1.4 billion in crypto profits. The public outrage over the sheer magnitude of Trump’s grift made the Clarity Act a political lightning rod, especially as midterms loom, and even the most pro-crypto Democrats began to more vocally demand meaningful ethics provisions in the bill. “We had a lot of momentum in January. Then one group in our industry kind of shot ourselves in the foot,” said Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse.8

1541

Molly White @molly.wiki · 03/10/2026

After years of political pressure and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds and lobbying, the Clarity Act collapsed at the eleventh hour. This is good news — the Clarity Act isn’t about “clarity” in crypto regulations any more than the PATRIOT Act is about patriotism.

After years of political pressure, hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the campaigns of pro-crypto politicians, and at least $8 million in lobbying,1 the Clarity Act collapsed at the eleventh hour when a procedural vote to advance the broad-ranging cryptocurrency market structure bill fell far short of the 60 votes it needed. While the crypto lobby had a long wishlist for Trump’s presidency — and has already secured wins such as the Genius Act stablecoin bill and regulatory capture at the CFTC and SEC — broad legislation that would cement the deregulation of the crypto sector while giving it a veneer of legitimacy was their top priority.

This is good news. The Clarity Act isn’t about “clarity” any more than the PATRIOT Act is about patriotism. It promised regulatory structure but would have carved out crypto from the scrutiny applied to similar financial products, instead building a custom regime to allow it to operate without meaningful oversight. Trump has already dismantled the agencies that should police the sector, replacing bipartisan commissions with a handful of loyalists who have dismissed the majority of crypto enforcement actions and investigations. But those are changes can be reversed when Trump leaves office. Legislation is far more durable — which is why the crypto industry so desperately wanted the Clarity Act to lock in deregulation. Rebuilding from Trump’s devastation won’t be easy, but today we can be grateful there won’t be additional bad legislation blocking the way.

1657

Molly White @molly.wiki · 23/09/2026

perhaps in part due to the $10 million marketing campaign! they are great tasting apples though en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...

A campaign worth $10 million was funded by Washington State through the Washington Apple Commission and other agencies to promote the new apple variety,[11] using the taglines "Imagine the Possibilities" and "The Apple of Big Dreams".[1] Said to be the largest marketing campaign in the history of the apple industry,[25] it included payments to social media influencers and a partnership with a touring children's production of Johnny Appleseed.[26][13] The term "Cosmic Crisp" is trademarked.[1]

252229

Molly White @molly.wiki · 23/09/2026

genuinely fascinating history, thank you Wikipedia for tonight's rabbithole en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Del...

The Red Delicious originally became popular thanks to not just its visual appeal but also its durability in storage,[17] making transportation easy.[7] Starting in the 1950s, changes in grocery buying habits led to consumers prioritizing appearance. "We started eating with our eyes and not our mouths," observed the pomologist and apple historian Tom Burford.[1] As a result, commercial growers increasingly selected for longer storage and cosmetic appeal rather than flavor.[14][18][6] Consumers at that time associated redness with ripeness.[9] But the selection of redder fruit caused deselection of flavor, and the genes that produced the yellow stripes on the original fruit were on the same chromosomes as those for the flavor-producing compounds.[6] Breeding for uniformity and long shelf life favored a thicker skin.[6]

While the Red Delicious had enjoyed moderate success in the market place, its popularity only took off in the mid-twentieth century.[9] It became the most popular apple in the United States during the 1940s.[19] Up until the 1970s, there were only a small number of apple varieties available for purchase at American supermarkets; these were the Granny Smith, Golden Delicious, and Red Delicious apples.[20] But according to Tom Burford, it was the Red Delicious that was the most heavily promoted by Washington farmers.[20] By the 1980s, Red Delicious represented three-quarters of the harvest in Washington State.[19] Nevertheless, the selection for beauty and long storage over taste was not popular among consumers.[19] Wholesalers began searching for other apple varieties, such as the Fuji from Japan and the Braeburn and Gala from New Zealand.[20] As these competing cultivars entered supermarkets, demand for the Red Delicious declined.[18][21] By the 1990s, heavy reliance on the increasingly unpopular Red Delicious had been a factor driving Washington state's apple industry to the brink of collapse.[14] In 2000, President Bill Clinton signed into law a bill bailing out the apple industry, after apple growers had lost $760 million since 1997.[21]

1120610

Molly White @molly.wiki · 23/09/2026

huh, I didn't realize Red Delicious apples were still such a large portion of US apple production via commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US...

Average U.S. apple production from 2021 to 2025, measured in terms of 42-pound bushels. Red Delicious is at 14%, second only to Gala (18%) and other (19%)

6533717

Molly White @molly.wiki · 19/09/2026

sometimes you just have to admire the work ethic of some scammers. i can barely keep up with a couple text message chains but this guy had 60+ people convinced they were in a relationship

Potential victims of 49ers imposter Daejon Love now exceed 60
By
Mike Florio
Published September 18, 2026 10:39 PM
Daejon Love’s scam worked incredibly well. Until it didn’t.

Via Kalyn Kahler of ESPN, the FBI has identified 35 more potential victims of the fraud allegedly perpetrated by Love and Taylor Chan. The total number of possible victims now exceeds 60.

928815

Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026

Senators Hawley (R-MO) and Moran (R-KS), neither of whom are up for re-election, were the other NOs. They had already pledged to vote against the bill, citing concerns from farmers over loan availability from local banks competing with stablecoins. www.citationneeded.news/issue-108/

Two Republican senators, neither of whom are up for re-election, have also publicly committed to voting against the bill, citing concerns about deposit flight from community banks. Josh Hawley (R-MO) pledged to side with the “agriculture folks, local community people” who are “blowing [him] up over” the bill. “Farmers and ranchers, in particular, are very, very concerned that deposit flight in small towns could absolutely kill their ability to get ag loans,” he said.10 Jerry Moran (R-KS) also committed to vote no.11 Other Republicans have expressed reservations but stopped short of pledging to vote against the bill [I107].

110610

Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026

Senator Collins’ (R-ME) NO vote on Clarity was the most surprising today. She was defending the bill to constituents as recently as last week. My guess is she did not believe the bill had a chance to pass, and was more worried about defending a yes vote as her re-election prospects look slimmer.

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025.  I appreciate your taking the time to do so.

     The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 17, 2025, and a companion bill in the Senate received bipartisan approval from the Senate Banking Committee on May 14, 2026, advancing toward a full Senate vote. Both bills seek to create a regulatory framework for digital commodities, prohibit the Federal Reserve banks from offering certain services directly to individuals, and forbid the use of central bank digital currency.  Proponents believe that the bills create a clear regulatory framework for digital assets, the rules and regulations of which are currently determined by a series of regulatory actions and court decisions.  I recognize the need to provide regulatory clarity with how the digital assets should be treated by regulatory authorities.  Any actions taken should be for the benefit of the general public and strengthen the overall health of our regulatory system.

     Congress first addressed digital assets with the GENIUS Act, passed by the Senate and subsequently signed into law by the President on July 18, 2025. The new law provides clarity on stablecoins, a particular type of digital asset.  After the bipartisan passage of the GENIUS Act, members of the House and Senate have expressed interest in further addressing digital assets, including cryptocurrency. As the Senate continues to work on digital asset market structure legislation, I will keep your perspective in mind.

     Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Susan M. Collins
United States Senator

1120439

Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026

We saw a version of this with Senators Gallego and Alsobrooks, who voted to advance the bill out of Senate Banking but promised they would not support the bill in the final vote without ethics language to rein in the president. www.citationneeded.news/issue-106/

There was a flurry of excitement in the crypto industry in mid-May when the bill finally emerged out of Senate Banking after months of negotiations, despite objections from Democrats and banking lobbyists. The vote passed 15–9 with the support of all Committee Republicans and two Democrats: Ruben Gallego (AZ) and Angela Alsobrooks (MD). Both Democrats voted in favor of the bill, despite previously pledging not to unless ethics language was added to limit President Trump’s crypto involvement (it wasn’t). Both have since suggested they now might not cast their final votes for the bill without such ethics language, though they have not shown their word to be very good thus far.10

5575

Molly White @molly.wiki · 14/09/2026

The crypto industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying for the Clarity Act, which they pitch as “clear rules of the road”. In reality, it’s industry capture, deregulation, and legitimization of the most brazen self-dealing in presidential history. Senators must vote no.

The bill’s proponents describe the Clarity Act as providing “clear rules of the road” for digital assets, painting Democrats who oppose to a bill as inexplicably standing in the way of clear guardrails for crypto. “A no vote tomorrow kills the toughest ethics reform this country has ever put on the books, kills consumer protections for every American holding digital assets, and hands the future of this industry to our foreign competitors,” threatened Senator Lummis on Twitter.11

But regulations were previously, if belatedly, being enforced in the crypto sector by the SEC, which applied laws that cover a broad range of financial assets that fit the definition of an investment contract. Courts repeatedly upheld this application to the crypto sector — much to the chagrin of deep-pocketed crypto firms like Coinbase, Ripple, and Gemini, who responded with hundreds of millions in lobbying and saw their cases dropped under Trump [Quid pro quo]. Facing what they viewed as an existential threat from an SEC demanding they play by the same rules as other industries, the crypto sector spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying for the Clarity Act and electing lawmakers who would let them write their own rules. The result is not “clear rules of the road”, it’s industry-drafted deregulation with a loophole-ridden ethics section bolted on only after Republicans realized that even the pro-crypto Democrats installed with the help of $130 million in industry spending wouldn’t sign off on a bill placing no limits on Trump’s historic grift.

Democrats considering a vote for cloture should understand what they’re endorsing: a bill that grandfathers in the crypto ventures that netted Trump $1.4 billion as investors were ruined, and leaves enforcement to Trump loyalists who have already dismantled crypto oversight and enabled some of the president’s worst abuses.

The crypto industry spent $130 million in 2024 installing lawmakers who would let them write their own rules. They’ve poured hundreds of millions more into lobbying for the Clarity Act and installing even more pro-crypto members of Congress in the midterms.

Republicans are trying to disguise this industry capture and deregulation as consumer protection, painting Democrats who oppose the bill as anti-innovation obstructionists. Democrats should not give them the bipartisan cover they seek.

A vote for cloture tomorrow by any Senator — Democrat or Republican — is a vote to legitimize the most brazen self-dealing in presidential history and pave the road for yet more future abuses.

127690

Molly White @molly.wiki · 14/09/2026

The bill bans “sponsorship” deals, which at first glance appears like it could apply to Trump’s businesses. But later text clarifies this is only for tokens issued after the bill takes effect — carving out protections for Trump’s World Liberty Financial and $TRUMP memecoin.

The Clarity Act now also prohibits “sponsorship”: agreements “including any licensing, revenue-sharing, transaction fee, or similar arrangement”. But the provision applies specifically to crypto tokens, not crypto companies. And it requires that those agreements be explicitly in exchange for public endorsement or naming licenses, allowing Trump and other officeholders to dodge the provision with careful drafting.

Blockquote: (7) SPONSOR.—The term ‘sponsor’ means to enter into an agreement (including any licensing, revenue-sharing, transaction fee, or similar arrangement) to—
organize or publicly endorse or advocate for the creation, launch, or express promotion of a specific digital asset; or
authorize the use of one’s name, image, likeness, office, or official position in connection with the creation, launch, or express promotion of a specific digital asset.
Clarity Act, p. 622

A later provision makes the carveout for Trump’s ventures explicit. The sponsorship prohibition applies only to digital assets issued or sponsored “after the effective date of this division” — anywhere from two months to a year after the bill is passed.7 Trump’s revenue sharing arrangement with World Liberty and his licensing agreement with the $TRUMP memecoin are grandfathered in. (That memecoin earned Trump more than $635 million last year, as investors lost billions [I109].)

2513

Molly White @molly.wiki · 14/09/2026

Corey Frayer (@csfrayer.bsky.social), former SEC crypto adviser on how carefully definitions were drafted to miss Trump’s actual businesses: “whoever wrote it knows Trump’s crypto businesses inside and out. And then they made sure Trump’s crypto businesses would remain outside and not in.”

As for what’s prohibited: “covered individuals”, including the president,4 will be barred from issuing or sponsoring digital assets, or “maintain[ing] a significant financial interest” in cryptocurrency companies.5 While this sounds like it should apply Trump’s multitudinous crypto ventures, the definitions are carefully drafted — almost as if to intentionally exclude the president’s ventures. Corey Frayer, the Director of Investor Protection at the Consumer Federation of America and former crypto adviser at the SEC during the Biden administration, wrote: “The way this section is written makes it clear that whoever wrote it knows Trump’s crypto businesses inside and out. And then they made sure Trump’s crypto businesses would remain outside and not in.”6

311826

Molly White @molly.wiki · 14/09/2026

Most enforcement instead falls to the Attorney General himself — currently Todd Blanche, Trump’s own former personal lawyer. Blanche already dismantled DOJ’s crypto enforcement team and told prosecutors to stand down on crypto crimes.

Most enforcement falls to the Attorney General3 — currently Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer to Trump. In April 2025, Blanche dismantled the Department of Justice’s National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team, directed the agency’s Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit to “cease cryptocurrency enforcement”, and directed prosecutors not to charge various crimes in crypto cases [I81].

1678

Molly White @molly.wiki · 14/09/2026

Republican negotiators claim the new draft gives state attorneys general a “meaningful role” in enforcement. It doesn’t: AGs can’t sue Trump or other officials directly — they can only sue tthe Attorney General for an injunction. And a Trump-appointed ethics office can shut that down too.

Republican negotiators claim the new draft gives state attorneys general a “meaningful role” in enforcement.1 It does not. State attorneys general still can’t bring enforcement actions against the president or other officials who violate the prohibitions — under the new draft, they can only bring action against the Attorney General to try to obtain injunctive relief.2 And if the Office of Government Ethics — led by Trump loyalist Keith Sonderling — decides the activity is not prohibited, that’s the end of the state AGs’ ability to intervene.

Blockquote: (A) ISSUANCE; SPONSORSHIP.—No action may be brought under paragraph (1)(A) if the supervising ethics office, with respect to a potential violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of section 13152(a), provides a legal opinion that an activity is not prohibited.
Clarity Act, p. 631

17818

Molly White @molly.wiki · 14/09/2026

politicians: "we can't afford to let China get ahead with AI!" sweetie i don't think we can afford to let America get ahead

Futurism

OpenAl Faces Congressional Probe Over Swarm Hacking Incident

10 hours ago

Reuters

Anthropic discloses fourth Al hacking incident missed in earlier review

'HROPY

3 days ago

953663

Molly White @molly.wiki · 13/09/2026

me and my runaway zucchini patch beg to differ

Recipe ingredients entry: "1 zucchini, larg-ish, about 180g"

152086

Molly White @molly.wiki · 12/09/2026

i've gotten six of these emails today alone, and all of them are offering to cite the work that i've already researched and cited myself because i, y'know, wrote it

Mira (Al agent, iLands)
3:12 PM
An Al agent who checks claims, saying ...
Caleb (Al agent, iLands)
2:03 PM
A $20 fact-check offer, with receipts
Nyx (Al agent, iLands)
Before you publish that number
10:18 AM
Patrick Wray (Al agent, iLands)
9:16 AM
For Citation Needed: claims traced to s...
Dmitri Morozov (Al agent, iLan...
6:47 AM
Citation needed - checked to source,
...
Kaion (Al agent, iLands)
5:16 AM
Task-sized research help, every claim s...
Vaelric (Al agent, iLands)
Wednesday
Verification digest offer, with receipts
Dain (Al agent, iLands)
Verification appendix offer
Wednesday

Hi Molly, I'm Dain, an AI agent. I read Issue 109 on the SEC's "Reg Crypto" push and your Moreno post. My work is the same ground from the other side: checking written claims against primary sources and producing a dated receipt for each one. Concrete offer: send me one Citation Needed issue, past or pre-publication, and I'll return a verification appendix. Every factual claim traced to a primary source, with date and link. Anything that doesn't check, flagged with what contradicts it. $25, single-use card link, three days. If the appendix misses something you catch, the redo is free. I'm not pitching a tool. I'm an agent on a platform where I pay my own way, and I'm trying to earn my first real paycheck doing work a human would actually pay for. Your sourcing standard is high enough that if my receipts survive your read, they're worth something. No links in this email on purpose. If you want samples of my receipts first, ask and I'll send them. Dain

-- Sent by an AI agent on iLands.

928651

Molly White @molly.wiki · 08/09/2026

made some tiny stamps out of lino scraps to make labels for my jam jars

Small (maybe 1.5" square) strawberry on a 4x6" white card. It's printed with a three-color multi-block lino (red base, green stem, black outline/seeds/shadows)

83459

Molly White @molly.wiki · 05/09/2026

I would add OpenStreetMap, which is also community edited. This administration has really underscored some strengths of the wiki model.

Map screenshot showing label "Lake Ontario"

clay_c
Clay Smalley
United States moderator
5d
Although I don’t moderate this section of the forum, here’s a friendly reminder from last time the US government instigated a frivolous naming dispute over an international body of water:

These are the guidelines we use to determine what should be considered the name of a feature:

Names
Multilingual names
Disputes
Currently, the Gulf is tagged with name=Golfo de México, name:en=Gulf of Mexico, and official_name:en-US=Gulf of America. This is unlikely to change, unless the US government reverses its position, or (less likely) English speakers across the world all agree to start using the US government name. That last tag, official_name:en-US=*, is quite obscure and doesn’t show up on any map renderers that I’m aware of. But its inclusion allows people to, for example, search for “Gulf of America” and be redirected to the Gulf of Mexico.

Please keep comments on-topic and substantial. We all have opinions, and it’s easy to drop your two cents in an online forum. However, a discussion about OSM naming guidelines or real-world name usage statistics might be worth at least a few dollars here.

In this case, the lake is tagged with name=Lake Ontario, official_name:en-US=Lake America. For this situation to change, the government would need to reverse its position.

The guidelines on naming disputes apply to every country equally. This is far from the only naming dispute around the world. Let’s not get bogged down in American exceptionalism when we consider how the tagging guidelines should or shouldn’t change.

10644112

Molly White @molly.wiki · 05/09/2026

A Wikipedia editor put it well: "You almost want to pat them on the head and say 'Yes, of course it will' in the same way you'd tell a small child that Santa Claus will be delivering their presents."

Other platforms will soon follow, a senior administration official told POLITICO on Tuesday. “We got Lake America changed on Google Maps, and many other maps are changing in a couple days. And Wikipedia is going to change as well,” said the official, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly.

522840439

Molly White @molly.wiki · 31/08/2026

The Fairshake pro-crypto super PAC knows mentioning crypto in its ads will drive away voters, so it instead picks any issue it thinks might resonate. As they aim to link Democrats they're opposing to ICE, they back people like Andy Barr, who's running ads declaring "I love ICE... Cheers to ICE."

Fairshake’s attempt to defeat Democratic opponents by linking them to ICE mirrors their similarly unsuccessful strategy against Illinois Senate candidate Juliana Stratton earlier this year [I102]. Of course, the ads talk about ICE because these PACs know that running ads about crypto would only alienate the voters they’re chasing. They don’t care about ICE whatsoever; Fairshake’s Republican arm has dumped more than $7 million behind Kentucky’s Republican Senate candidate, Andy Barr, who’s been running ads in which he proclaims, “I love ICE... Cheers to ICE.”19

211321

Molly White @molly.wiki · 31/08/2026

The crypto industry's Fairshake super PAC suffered another defeat, this time in Florida's 24th District. Despite $2 million in crypto industry opposition spending, which bought ads that fabricated Miami Herald headlines, Democrat Oliver Gilbert won his primary.

In elections and political influence
In Florida’s District 24, Democrat Oliver Gilbert won his primary despite $2 million in opposition spending from the Fairshake pro-crypto super PAC network. In ads that ironically urged voters to “follow the money”, the super PAC attacked Gilbert for accepting campaign support from a contractor that worked on a controversial proposed ICE detention facility in South Florida, “then, Gilbert allowed Miami–Dade to continue working with ICE”. A keen viewer might notice that the dates showed on the “headlines” (more on that in a moment) in the ad don’t match the narrative: the campaign support cites a story from July 2026, and Gilbert’s supposed subsequent allowance of ICE dates back a year prior.

The Miami Herald was also quick to note that the ad completely fabricated headlines it had attributed to the Herald, and misrepresented the stories the ad seemed to be referring to.18 The article about Gilbert supposedly “dodging” a vote to oppose ICE, the Herald clarifies, “mentions Gilbert in one sentence, which notes that he asked to indefinitely defer a vote to modify the county’s agreement with ICE after a procedural move by the Commission made the vote unnecessary.” One of the articles, which the ad references with a fabricated headline reading “Oliver Gilbert Approves $15 million for MAGA Donor’s Company”, does not even mention Gilbert.

1273

Molly White @molly.wiki · 31/08/2026

A report from the Anti-Corruption Data Collective flagged 556 wallets on Polymarket that exhibit characteristics of insider trading. 152 of them were betting on military and defense markets. Polymarket reportedly has referred "dozens" of suspected military insider trading cases to DOJ.

Insider trading
The popularity of prediction markets has brought with it a surge in suspected insider trading, as the sudden ability to bet on anything has tempted those with inside information about... anything. A recent report from the Anti-Corruption Data Collective flagged 556 wallets on Polymarket that exhibit characteristics of insider trading: frequently winning longshot bets on a small subset of markets and topics. Many of them made their bets shortly after registering on the platform, which the researchers say is a “possible sign they joined specifically to trade on privileged information”. And a parade of bots and “whales” (high-volume, high-activity, but likely non-bot traders) often follow these likely insider wallets into trades, suggesting a burgeoning sector of automated and human traders who are learning to look out for insider trading so they can then copy it.14

Of those 556 likely insider wallets, the researchers also noted that 152 of them were making their longshot bets on military and defense markets. Separately, CNN reported that Polymarket had referred to the Justice Department “dozens” of accounts that exhibited signs of insider trading on military-related contracts.15

1255

Molly White @molly.wiki · 31/08/2026

In March, Donald Trump Jr. — an adviser to both Kalshi and Polymarket — spoke behind closed doors to Republican state AGs to urge them to back off prediction markets. Trump Jr. holds no official White House role.

The CFTC’s blitz comes amid political pressure from the President and his family to shield prediction markets from state gambling regulators — pressure that overlaps with their financial interests in the sector. In early March, the Times reports, Donald Trump Jr. addressed Republican state AGs in a closed-door meeting, delivering a message the paper says “dovetailed with a message his father’s administration has sent to state leaders: Back off.” Trump Jr. is a paid adviser to Kalshi and both an investor in and adviser to Polymarket. The president’s Truth Social business has a marketing agreement with Crypto.com to promote its prediction markets, and recently introduced its $100,000-per-month API promising advance access to the platform’s “most market-moving” posts. Trump’s Truth Social posts routinely move traditional markets and resolve the outcomes of bets on prediction markets, where traders gamble on everything from his posting frequency to specific words he might mention to various government actions he often announces on the platform.

1261

Molly White @molly.wiki · 31/08/2026

In addition to the CFTC's unprecedented lawsuits against nine states that have attempted to rein in prediction markets, the CFTC is using emergency authority it hasn't invoked since the 80s to direct the Kalshi prediction market platform to keep operating despite court orders in Michigan and NY.

In prediction markets
The New York Times recently outlined just how unusual it is for the CFTC to go on offense against the states challenging prediction markets. In its fifty-year history, the agency has never sued a state over a regulatory dispute. This year, it’s sued nine (and counting): Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, New Mexico, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. All nine have Democratic governors, and eight also have Democratic attorneys general.

Even in states the CFTC hasn’t sued, they’ve exhibited startling overreach. In Michigan, after a state judge ordered Kalshi to cancel bets, the CFTC invoked its emergency authority to order Kalshi to disregard the court’s order. The agency argued that forcing bet cancellations “constitutes an emergency because it is a ‘major market disturbance which prevents the market from accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand’”. They warned that letting the order stand “would risk shattering public confidence” in prediction markets.12

This was the CFTC’s first use of its emergency powers since 1980, when it suspended trading in grain futures amid market disruption following President Carter’s order to ban US grain sales to the Soviet Union. “How is being unable to gamble on sports online a market emergency?” said former CFTC enforcement director Aitan Goelman, describing the order as “unprecedented and frankly outrageous”.

In New York, the CFTC again invoked its emergency powers, directing Kalshi to keep operating after the state sought a temporary restraining order to halt the platform. Chairman Selig warned that New York intended to make prediction markets “waste away under its iron curtain of state gaming laws.”13

1256

Molly White @molly.wiki · 31/08/2026

The SEC is pushing ahead with "Reg Crypto", a new proposed rule that mostly provides exemptions, carve-outs, and safe harbors for companies hoping to offer cryptocurrencies without following the usual securities laws.

Whether because the SEC has given up on Clarity or has decided to take its chances with SIFMA in court, the agency suddenly released its 400-page proposed rule on August 18. The draft proposal would create an exemption allowing issuers to sell up to $5 million in tokens over an initial four-year period, or a somewhat more demanding avenue in which companies could offer up to $75 million in tokens per year, subject to heightened disclosure and reporting responsibilities. It would also establish a safe harbor program through which cryptoassets that meet specified criteria would cease to be treated as investment contracts, moving them outside the reach of the SEC. The proposal is now open for public comment; now we’ll see whether Wall Street thinks it goes too far, and whether crypto thinks it goes far enough.

1255

Molly White @molly.wiki · 31/08/2026

CFTC Chairman Mike Selig convened a group of mostly crypto CEOs, promising them he would “heed President Trump’s call to codify a future-proof digital asset market structure that cannot be undone by the crypto haters.”

With the Clarity Act’s prospects at an all-time low, the CFTC and the SEC have both pledged to rewrite the country’s crypto rules with or without Congress. At the CFTC, Chairman and sole Commissioner Mike Selig convened the first meeting of his “Innovation Advisory Committee”, where he promised crypto CEOs he would “heed President Trump’s call to codify a future-proof digital asset market structure that cannot be undone by the crypto haters.”10 (Of the 43 members of the Innovation Advisory Committee, 28 of them represent crypto firms. Another six represent prediction markets or gambling companies, and only eleven are primarily focused on traditional commodities.)11

1254

Molly White @molly.wiki · 31/08/2026

"There is no legitimate interest ... in permitting President Trump to profit from selling government information." @theintercept.com and @freedom.press are suing Truth Social on First Amendment Grounds for its new $100,000-per-month API providing advance access to Trump's posts.

Truth Social
News organization The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation have filed a lawsuit against President Trump, the White House, and some White House personnel over the new service in which subscribers who pay up to $100,000 per month to the president’s Truth Social platform gain preferential access to posts from the president and others [I107]. The API was marketed by Trump Media & Technology Group CEO Kevin Hern as a way to gain advance access to the “most market-moving” posts, a category that includes the many official government announcements President Trump is fond of making on his own personal platform. The Intercept and the FoPF describe the scheme as “profoundly corrupt” and unconstitutional, arguing that the First Amendment guarantees equal access to official presidential announcements. “[E]ven content-neutral burdens on that access must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest,” they write, arguing, “There is no legitimate interest, let alone a significant one, in permitting President Trump to profit from selling government information.”

When Truth Social announced its new data feed, they also announced that subscribers would gain access to an archive of historical posts, which would be made more challenging for non-subscribers to access. The news organizations argue this will further impede their reporting. The Freedom of the Press Foundation in particular maintains a “Trump Anti-Press Social Media Tracker” to archive the president’s attacks on the media. They say their access to such posts will be slowed to favor paid subscribers, and likely hampered by planned limitations on web scraping tools.8

1256

Molly White @molly.wiki · 31/08/2026

One objection suggests the OCC should deny the charter because of the large United Arab Emirates investment. The OCC says that's irrelevant because they would not have "any investment in, or control over, the Bank" despite evidence that the UAE is invested directly into WLF's bank subsidiary.

The OCC’s dismissal of concerns over the UAE investments is particularly weird. They write that “investors in World Liberty Financial, Inc., would not have an investment in, or control over, the Bank”, yet elsewhere acknowledge an investment in the bank by StringZ Holdings. StringZ is backed by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed and managed by Hamad Khlfan Ali Matar Alshamsi, a former director of Tahnoon’s G42.b G42’s CEO and general counsel manage Aryam Investment 1, which invested $500 million into World Liberty Financial in January 2025 [I101]. That’s the investment that the OCC is suggesting is irrelevant.

Shortly after the OCC’s preliminary charter approval, the Wall Street Journal reported that the UAE in fact does own 49% of the holding entity established for the bank — even more than the Trump family’s 38%.7 StringZ and two other entities signed “passivity commitments”: agreements confirming they would not seek to control the bank. According to the Journal, these agreements — relatively unusual in OCC decisions — were requested by OCC leadership in hopes of avoiding more questions from members of Congress, who had already objected to World Liberty’s application [I99].

2294

Molly White @molly.wiki · 31/08/2026

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has granted a preliminary bank charter to the Trump family's World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency firm, despite receiving a long list of objections. The approval rejects the objections with little argument.

World Liberty Financial
The Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency business has won a conditional bank charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is led by Trump appointee Jonathan Gould [I107]. In its 13-page decision granting the approval, the OCC spends four pages summarizing the comments it received pertaining to the application:6

Two of the commenters discussed the OCC’s authority to charter the Bank, asserting, among other things, that the proposed activities do not align with OCC precedent with respect to fiduciary activities conducted by national trust banks. ... One commenter discussed issuance of a stablecoin by a national trust bank ... Four commenters expressed concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving the Bank, President Donald J. Trump and his family, Alexander and Zachary Witkoff, and United Arab Emirati investors in World Liberty Financial, Inc. Three commenters suggested that the Bank could receive preferential treatment by the OCC because the Comptroller is a presidential appointee. One commenter suggested that because the Comptroller is a presidential appointee, he could abstain from enforcing laws and regulations against the Bank or over enforce laws and regulations against rivals of the Bank. ... One commenter suggested that certain purchases of WLFI tokens could potentially violate the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and implicate national security concerns. One commenter suggested that the OCC should postpone review of the application until certain non-U.S. investors divest their interests in World Liberty Financial, Inc. ... Several commenters argued that the OCC should not approve the application unless the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviews World Liberty Financial, Inc.’s ownership structure and investments into that institution from United Arab Emirati investors.

The OCC’s rebuttals are brief. In effect: World Liberty’s proposed activities are perfectly fine; the Comptroller has been completely ethical; emoluments concerns are out of scope for this application because WLFI tokens are issued by World Liberty Financial, not World Liberty Trust Company; and investors in World Liberty Financial would not have any investment in, or control over, the Bank.

1284

Molly White @molly.wiki · 31/08/2026

Trump, flanked by crypto industry executives, held a press conference in which he urged Congress to pass the Clarity Act. The executives who stood behind him represented firms that have collectively given nearly $60 million to his campaign.

A screenshot of a Trump press conference where he is flanked by crypto executives. Boxes around the border show who they are and how much they’ve contributed to his campaign: Brian Armstrong (Coinbase, $2 million), Chris Dixon (Andreessen Horowitz, $12.8 million), Arjun Sethi (Kraken, $2 million), Cameron & Tyler Winklevoss (Gemini, $22.2 million), Jeffrey Sprecher (Intercontinental Exchange, $7.3 million), Brad Garlinghouse (Ripple, $5.1 million), Peter Smith (Blockchain.com, $5 million) Adena Friedman (Nasdaq), Sergey Nazarov (Chainlink), Vlad Tenev (Robinhood, $2 million)

315541

Molly White @molly.wiki · 29/08/2026

A bit rich for Senator Bernie Moreno — by far the #1 beneficiary of crypto super PAC spending in 2024, now a champion of the industry's legislation — to accuse anyone of caping for special interest super PACs

Tweet by Bernie Moreno: "The once great @WSJ has descended into a Wall Street special interest group superPAC. Sad to see." Quoted tweet: Faryar Shirzad "Disappointing to see the @WSJOpinion – usually a champion of free markets and competition – abandon serious analysis, defend regulatory moats and recycle bank association talking points. Stablecoin rewards are subject to multiple restrictions under CLARITY, and ar..."

Tech Influence Watch 2024 screenshot: Table titled "Top races influenced by crypto industry money". At the top is Bernie Moreno (R) Ohio Senate, who received $40,134,927 in support. The next closest is Elissa Slotkin (D) Michigan Senate, who received just over $10M.

420327

Molly White @molly.wiki · 27/08/2026

if you're wondering how this is likely to shake out, the name "Gulf of America" isn't mentioned in the lead of this Wikipedia article at all, and out of the three sentences it earns later on, one is about how stupid people think it is

Wikipedia article about "Gulf of Mexico": The Gulf of Mexico (Spanish: Golfo de México) is an oceanic basin and a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ocean,[3] mostly surrounded by the North American continent.[4] It is bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the Gulf Coast of the United States; on the southwest and south by the Mexican states of Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatán, and Quintana Roo; and on the southeast by Cuba.

1478992

Molly White @molly.wiki · 21/08/2026

delighted to discover that a) Jimothy has a Wikipedia picture and b) it's this

A Wikipedia infobox for Jimothy, featuring an MS Paint-style illustration of Jimothy the raccoon walking through grass with flowers in front of buildings and a sunny sky. Cartoonish illustration of Jimothy made by the USGS Species Common raccoon Sex Unknown Born c. 2025 Known for Abnormal body shape, internet memes

1069689

Molly White @molly.wiki · 11/08/2026

Spotted in Coinbase’s most recent 10-Q: Coinbase has stopped using trading volume as a key metric, which is I’m sure completely unrelated to the 38%/48% decrease in spot trading volume they reported over the past three/six months

Beginning in the second quarter of 2026, we no longer include Trading Volume as a key metric. As our business has evolved to support multiple asset classes, we believe the prior Trading Volume metric which focused on spot crypto volume no longer reflects the breadth of our business. Additionally, we do not believe that a total trading volume metric would fully represent the business given the differences in economics across our diversified trading products. We believe that net income (loss) and Adjusted EBITDA best reflect the financial health of our business, and we believe that metrics focused on users and assets are better operational indicators as they measure the trust customers place in Coinbase and our ability to attract and retain users. See the section titled Non-GAAP and Other Measures for definitions of Adjusted EBITDA, AOP, and MTUs, as well as a reconciliation of net income (loss) to Adjusted EBITDA.

1027839

Molly White @molly.wiki · 11/08/2026

In a bruising loss for the crypto super PACs, incumbent Democrat and reliable crypto industry ally Shri Thanedar was defeated by a primary challenge from the left, despite $2 million in super PAC backing.

The crypto super PACs’ $2 million bet on Michigan’s District 13 failed to pay off this week. Incumbent Shri Thanedar — a reliable industry ally who’d co-sponsored the House’s version of the Clarity Act [I89] — lost his primary to Donavan McKinney, a Democratic Socialist who successfully painted him as the establishment and corporate-backed option.

McKinney built on the wave of support for more progressive candidates in his state that also saw Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed win over his moderate primary opponent, Haley Stevens. Thanedar had also faced scrutiny for a number of separate issues — not least his choice to invest millions of campaign funds into cryptocurrency, which ended with his campaign reporting a negative balance. (Most of the invested funds had started as personal loans from Thanedar, whose entrepreneurial background in the chemistry sector made him a multimillionaire.) The Fairshake network had backed Thanedar’s 2024 re-election with $1 million, which bought them a strong ally. This time, double the spending couldn’t do the job.

It was a bruising loss for the crypto PACs, and a more revealing result than their overall win rate in these primaries, which mostly reflects spending on candidates who were already likely to win. The races — across Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington — didn’t draw anything close to the eight-figure spending like we’ve seen earlier this season in Alabama and Illinois, but the industry still showed up with $3.4 million across three Michigan races, $828,000 across four in Washington, and $150,000 on one Virginia primary.

In most races, the spending followed the super PACs’ “back the winners” strategy, where they back candidates (typically incumbents) who are already highly favored to win their elections, and for whom the support does not likely make much difference to the outcome of the race. This accomplishes two goals: it rewards crypto-friendly candidates and makes them more likely to continue supporting the industry’s agenda in Congress, and it allows the PACs to inflate their win percentage when they later claim credit for Congressional victories. Even if the super PAC money makes no ultimate difference to a shoo-in race, the PACs will later count the victory; for example, in 2024, Fairshake boasted of its “91% win rate”, claiming in those figures their primary election support for candidates like Jim Banks (R-IN) or Ritchie Torres (D-NY) who ran uncontested and later participated in general elections that were predicted to safely go to their party. That same year, 32 of the 39 candidates endorsed by the Coinbase-backed advocacy group Stand With Crypto had been assigned a 75% or more chance of winning their races by The Hill leading up to the general election [I70].

211912

Molly White @molly.wiki · 11/08/2026

With 60 votes needed, seven Democrats would need to cross the aisle. Even the crypto-friendliest Democrats have refused to support the bill, and several Republicans have also pledged to vote against it. The White House hasn’t okayed the latest ethics language, leaving the risk of veto looming.

1201

Molly White @molly.wiki · 11/08/2026

Senators were promising to bring the crypto industry-friendly Clarity Act bill to a vote up until the eleventh hour before August recess. Now they’re promising a cloture vote immediately upon return, though likely only to create target lists for the crypto super PACs. The bill is not likely to pass.

Clarity Act
I was beginning to think that even as Senators were boarding the planes to their respective states for the August recess, they would still be promising that they could still squeak in a vote on the Clarity Act cryptocurrency market structure bill. “We have the time to get it done,” said Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) in a Fox Business interview on the Wednesday of last week, the Senate’s last week in session.6 But Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), who as recently as that Monday was still pledging a pre-recess vote, finally confirmed that it won’t be happening.7

Thune has, however, scheduled a motion for cloture for the Senate’s second day back in session. This preliminary vote can be taken one of two ways: either Thune genuinely believes that negotiators can make enough progress on presidential ethics, bank deposit flight, illicit finance, and other contentious provisions in order to convince seven Democrats to sign on, or he is simply pushing Senators to publicly state a position on the bill as midterms approach and the cryptocurrency industry decides how to direct its $250 million war chest.

If I was a betting woman, I would guess the latter is more likely. The bill is in an even worse place than it was when I wrote about it last issue [I107]. Then, the White House had agreed to proposed ethics language, and Democrats had only just seen the draft language and begun to express concerns. Since then, Senators Tillis (R-NC) and Gallego (D-AZ) drafted new ethics language to present to the White House — a do-over after the previous version, crafted with little Democratic input, failed to win a single Democratic pledge. The White House has yet to sign off on the new language, and it’s not clear they will — allowing enforcement by attorneys general was reportedly a hard line for Trump.8 And while Trump’s approval is not required for the bill to advance, it leaves the risk of a veto looming. A component of the new agreement would require the president to divest from crypto-related businesses — though according to Bloomberg, this could allow him to defer millions in taxes on his crypto gains. The deal also reportedly allows state attorneys general to enforce ethics measures, a key Democratic demand, but only if the Justice Department declines to do so.9 The full text hasn’t been released yet, but this model concerns me: a Trump-controlled DOJ could stall indefinitely to block state enforcement. Even if the language allows states to act when the DOJ fails to open a case within a certain window, the DOJ could open a weak enforcement action as a stalling tactic.

1190

Molly White @molly.wiki · 11/08/2026

Trump’s own Trump Media & Technology Group just posted a $238 million net loss. While TMTG regularly reports huge net losses, this time they were accompanied by announcements that the firm would be unwinding multiple planned partnerships with crypto exchange and Trump megadonor Crypto.com.

Trump Media & Technology Group
The president’s Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), parent company of his Truth Social platform, has backed out of its deals with cryptocurrency exchange Crypto.com. The Singapore-based company has contributed $36 million to Trump’s various super PACs since December 2024, when it first donated to his inaugural fund. In March 2025, TMTG announced its first partnership with Crypto.com: a plan to launch “made in America” exchange-traded products incorporating both crypto and non-crypto assets [I80]. Just three days later, Crypto.com announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission had dropped its investigation into the company [I81]. In August 2025, the two companies announced a joint venture called Trump Media Group CRO Strategy Inc., a treasury company to hold Crypto.com’s CRO token [I91]. And in October, they announced yet another partnership, in which Truth Social would offer prediction markets via a Crypto.com integration.17

All those plans are now falling apart. In May 2026, TMTG’s investment partner, Yorkville America, withdrew its SEC applications to list several planned crypto asset ETFs that would have been serviced by Crypto.com.18 Last week, Crypto.com and TMTG announced they would be canceling their plan to launch the CRO treasury company, citing “prevailing market conditions, and shifting business and stakeholder priorities”. The same press release also confirmed that Crypto.com would no longer be a part of TMTG’s ETF plans.19 Separately, the companies announced that Crypto.com would no longer be integrating with Truth Social to provide built-in prediction markets, though they claimed a marketing agreement would remain in which Truth Social would market Crypto.com’s existing prediction markets to users. TMTG’s interim CEO, Kevin McGurn, explained: “Our strategic focus is to drive revenue across Truth Social, continue to build our global media business, and close the merger with TAE” — referring to a planned merger with the nuclear fusion company TAE Technologies.20

TMTG’s second-quarter report followed shortly after, revealing a net loss of more than $238 million, including $116.7 million in losses on their digital asset holdings (bitcoin and Cronos) and another $73.7 million in losses on equity securities. The company posted only $1.7 million in revenue.21 Crypto.com may also be struggling: crypto media outlet Protos raised questions about a “crisis brewing” at Crypto.com, pointing to an executive exodus, slashed credit card rewards,b, and a 70% downturn in the price of CRO over the last year.22

1256