Saad zai 1992
Open Trade
Occasional Trader
4.3 Years
3.2K+ Following
636 Followers
2.3K+ Liked
16 Shared
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
Live
PINNED
🚨 TRUMP WARNS CHINA : DUMP US TREASURIES AND READY FOR WAR! ⚡🇺🇸💥
$PIPPIN
$DUSK
$AXS
China has officially ordered its banks to cut down on U.S. Treasury holdings. This means billions of dollars in U.S. debt could be dumped, shaking the global financial system. Analysts now warn that this move will likely push China to buy massive amounts of gold and silver, securing real assets instead of paper dollars.
For the U.S., this is a massive warning sign. Lower foreign demand for Treasuries can increase borrowing costs, raise interest rates, and create instability in the markets. Meanwhile, China strengthens its grip on precious metals, preparing for a world where the dollar isn’t king anymore.
The suspense is intense: every move by China could trigger market chaos, higher prices, and a massive shift in global power. The question is—is the U.S. ready for what’s coming next?
$PIPPIN
$DUSK
$AXS
China has officially ordered its banks to cut down on U.S. Treasury holdings. This means billions of dollars in U.S. debt could be dumped, shaking the global financial system. Analysts now warn that this move will likely push China to buy massive amounts of gold and silver, securing real assets instead of paper dollars.
For the U.S., this is a massive warning sign. Lower foreign demand for Treasuries can increase borrowing costs, raise interest rates, and create instability in the markets. Meanwhile, China strengthens its grip on precious metals, preparing for a world where the dollar isn’t king anymore.
The suspense is intense: every move by China could trigger market chaos, higher prices, and a massive shift in global power. The question is—is the U.S. ready for what’s coming next?
PINNED
U.S. Presidents’ Net Worth Before and After Presidency
$DUSK
🇺🇸 George Washington — $2M💰 $2.5M
🇺🇸 John Adams — $800K💰 $700K
🇺🇸 Thomas Jefferson — $3M💰 $200K
🇺🇸 James Madison — $500K💰 $300K
🇺🇸 James Monroe — $1M 💰$50K
🇺🇸 Andrew Jackson — $500K💰 $1M
🇺🇸 Abraham Lincoln — $85K💰 $110K
🇺🇸 Ulysses S. Grant — $1M💰 $80K
🇺🇸 Theodore Roosevelt — $3M💰 $2M
🇺🇸 Woodrow Wilson — $500K💰 $600K
🇺🇸 Herbert Hoover — $100M💰 $100M
🇺🇸 Franklin D. Roosevelt — $60M💰 $65M
🇺🇸 Harry S. Truman — $1M💰 $600K
🇺🇸 Dwight D. Eisenhower — $1M💰 $4M
🇺🇸 John F. Kennedy — $1B💰 $1B
🇺🇸 Lyndon B. Johnson — $20M💰 $100M
🇺🇸 Richard Nixon — $2M💰 $15M
🇺🇸 Gerald Ford — $1.5M💰 $7M
🇺🇸 Jimmy Carter — $2M💰 $10M
🇺🇸 Ronald Reagan — $10M 💰 $15M
🇺🇸 George H. W. Bush — $4M💰 $25M
🇺🇸 Bill Clinton — $1.3M💰 $80M
🇺🇸 George W. Bush — $20M 💰 $40M
🇺🇸 Barack Obama — $1.3M 💰 $70M
🇺🇸 Joe Biden — $2M 💰 $10M+
🇺🇸 Donald Trump — $3B💰 $2.5B
$ZIL $ASTER
$DUSK
🇺🇸 George Washington — $2M💰 $2.5M
🇺🇸 John Adams — $800K💰 $700K
🇺🇸 Thomas Jefferson — $3M💰 $200K
🇺🇸 James Madison — $500K💰 $300K
🇺🇸 James Monroe — $1M 💰$50K
🇺🇸 Andrew Jackson — $500K💰 $1M
🇺🇸 Abraham Lincoln — $85K💰 $110K
🇺🇸 Ulysses S. Grant — $1M💰 $80K
🇺🇸 Theodore Roosevelt — $3M💰 $2M
🇺🇸 Woodrow Wilson — $500K💰 $600K
🇺🇸 Herbert Hoover — $100M💰 $100M
🇺🇸 Franklin D. Roosevelt — $60M💰 $65M
🇺🇸 Harry S. Truman — $1M💰 $600K
🇺🇸 Dwight D. Eisenhower — $1M💰 $4M
🇺🇸 John F. Kennedy — $1B💰 $1B
🇺🇸 Lyndon B. Johnson — $20M💰 $100M
🇺🇸 Richard Nixon — $2M💰 $15M
🇺🇸 Gerald Ford — $1.5M💰 $7M
🇺🇸 Jimmy Carter — $2M💰 $10M
🇺🇸 Ronald Reagan — $10M 💰 $15M
🇺🇸 George H. W. Bush — $4M💰 $25M
🇺🇸 Bill Clinton — $1.3M💰 $80M
🇺🇸 George W. Bush — $20M 💰 $40M
🇺🇸 Barack Obama — $1.3M 💰 $70M
🇺🇸 Joe Biden — $2M 💰 $10M+
🇺🇸 Donald Trump — $3B💰 $2.5B
$ZIL $ASTER
PINNED
🚨 URGENT: Names reported in Epstein-related flight records
According to publicly cited flight logs and court-linked documents, the following individuals have been reported as appearing on flight manifests associated with Jeffrey Epstein.
Inclusion does not imply wrongdoing.
Notable names mentioned in reports include:
Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Jean-Luc Brunel, Glenn Dubin, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Naomi Campbell, Chris Tucker, Kevin Spacey, among others.
📌 Key note: Flight records ≠ evidence of crimes. Investigations and legal findings vary by individual.
$FF
$DCR
$ZK
According to publicly cited flight logs and court-linked documents, the following individuals have been reported as appearing on flight manifests associated with Jeffrey Epstein.
Inclusion does not imply wrongdoing.
Notable names mentioned in reports include:
Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Jean-Luc Brunel, Glenn Dubin, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Naomi Campbell, Chris Tucker, Kevin Spacey, among others.
📌 Key note: Flight records ≠ evidence of crimes. Investigations and legal findings vary by individual.
$FF
$DCR
$ZK
How Limit Orders Work: Precision Execution in Volatile Markets
Limit Order is a type of trade order that lets you set the exact price you want to buy or sell assets (such as crypto, stock…). Unlike a Market Order, which executes immediately at the current market price, a Limit Order only executes when the market reaches the price you set.
Market Orders are useful when you need to enter or exit immediately and don’t care about small price differences. Limit Orders are for people who want price control, can wait, or trade low-liquidity tokens.
What is Limit Order?
How Limit Orders help preventing Slippage
Slippage is the difference between the price you expect and the price you actually get when your order executes. According to research from the Sei, total slippage costs in 2024 exceeded $2.7B, up 34% from the previous year.
Slippage is usually driven by a combination of market conditions and execution mechanics. It often occurs when liquidity is low, meaning there are not enough matching orders at the desired price. During periods of high volatility, prices can move rapidly while an order is being processed.
Large trade sizes can also cause slippage by consuming multiple price levels. On DEXs, AMM mechanics amplify this effect, as large trades shift the token ratio in the pool and push the execution price away from the expected level.
What is slippage?
How does a Limit Order solve the slippage problem?
By placing a Limit Order, you clearly define the maximum price you are willing to buy or the minimum price you are willing to sell. The order will never execute at a worse price than what you set, helping you avoid negative slippage even in volatile or low-liquidity markets.
Common Types of Limit Orders
Buy Limit Order
You place a buy order at a price lower than the current price. The order executes only when the price drops to your specified level or lower. This fits when you believe the price may dip before moving up.
For example, if BTC is trading at $70,500 and you believe a short-term pullback is likely, you can place a buy limit order at $70,000. The order will only execute if the market trades at that price or lower. This approach helps avoid buying into temporary price spikes and gives you more control over entry price.
Buy Limit Order
Sell Limit Order
You place a sell order at a price higher than the current price. The order executes only when the price rises to your specified level or higher. This is commonly used to take profit at a target price.
Suppose BTC is trading at $60,000 and your target is $80,000. By placing a sell limit order at $80,000, the trade will execute automatically once the price reaches that level. If the market fails to rally, the order remains open. This method enables disciplined profit-taking without constant monitoring.
Sell Limit Order
Stop-Limit Order
This combines a Stop Order and a Limit Order. You set two prices: a Stop Price (trigger price) and a Limit Price (execution price). When the market hits the Stop Price, the Limit Order becomes active.
For example, you bought SOL at $120 and it is now trading at $135. To protect profits, you set a stop price at $128 and a limit price at $126.
When the market hits $128, a sell limit order at $126 becomes active. The trade executes only if liquidity exists at that price, avoiding extreme slippage during sharp moves.
Stop-Limit Order
Differences between Limit Order vs Market Order
The main difference between limit orders and market orders comes down to the trade-off between price certainty and execution speed. A market order prioritizes immediate execution, making it useful when speed matters, but it exposes traders to slippage, especially during high volatility or when liquidity is thin.
A limit order, on the other hand, lets you define the exact price you are willing to trade at, offering better cost control and discipline. The downside is that execution is not guaranteed, and fast-moving markets can leave limit orders unfilled.
Differences between Limit Order vs Market Order
Pros and Cons of Limit Orders
Pros
First, limit orders give you full control over execution price. You choose exactly where you want to buy or sell, rather than accepting whatever the market offers at that moment. This is especially useful in choppy conditions, where small price differences can meaningfully affect long-term returns.
Second, because a limit order only executes at your chosen price or better, it protects you from unexpected slippage during volatile moves. Even when the market spikes or drops quickly, you will never be filled at a worse price than intended, which helps preserve your risk-reward assumptions.
Third, once a limit order is placed, it works for you in the background. You do not need to watch the chart constantly or react emotionally to short-term price movements. When price reaches your level, the trade executes automatically, making execution more systematic and less stressful.
Finally, using limit orders encourages patience and discipline. Instead of chasing price or reacting to sudden momentum, you commit to predefined levels aligned with your strategy. Over time, this reduces FOMO-driven decisions and helps maintain consistency across different market conditions.
Pros of Limit Order
Cons
The biggest downside of limit orders is that execution is not always guaranteed. If the market moves close to your price but never actually trades at it, the order remains unfilled. In strong trends, this can mean watching price move away without you.
Furthermore, even if the market touches your limit price, a limit order may not fully execute. If available liquidity at that level is limited, only part of your order will be filled, while the rest stays open. This can be frustrating during fast or crowded markets.
Markets do not always move cleanly. Price can reverse sharply or continue trending in your favor without ever touching your limit level. In those cases, a strict limit order may cause you to miss an otherwise profitable trade, especially during high-momentum moves.
Limit Orders are a must-have tool for any serious trader, especially in prediction markets where liquidity is often low and spreads are wide. They help you control your trading price, avoid slippage, and trade with more discipline.
As a leading Trading Terminal Aggregator, Whales Prediction provides everything from professional charts and order book depth to smart money tracking and multiple order types, including Limit Orders. It’s a solid platform for both beginners learning prediction markets and experienced traders optimizing their strategies.
#AriaNaka #LimitOrders
Market Orders are useful when you need to enter or exit immediately and don’t care about small price differences. Limit Orders are for people who want price control, can wait, or trade low-liquidity tokens.
What is Limit Order?
How Limit Orders help preventing Slippage
Slippage is the difference between the price you expect and the price you actually get when your order executes. According to research from the Sei, total slippage costs in 2024 exceeded $2.7B, up 34% from the previous year.
Slippage is usually driven by a combination of market conditions and execution mechanics. It often occurs when liquidity is low, meaning there are not enough matching orders at the desired price. During periods of high volatility, prices can move rapidly while an order is being processed.
Large trade sizes can also cause slippage by consuming multiple price levels. On DEXs, AMM mechanics amplify this effect, as large trades shift the token ratio in the pool and push the execution price away from the expected level.
What is slippage?
How does a Limit Order solve the slippage problem?
By placing a Limit Order, you clearly define the maximum price you are willing to buy or the minimum price you are willing to sell. The order will never execute at a worse price than what you set, helping you avoid negative slippage even in volatile or low-liquidity markets.
Common Types of Limit Orders
Buy Limit Order
You place a buy order at a price lower than the current price. The order executes only when the price drops to your specified level or lower. This fits when you believe the price may dip before moving up.
For example, if BTC is trading at $70,500 and you believe a short-term pullback is likely, you can place a buy limit order at $70,000. The order will only execute if the market trades at that price or lower. This approach helps avoid buying into temporary price spikes and gives you more control over entry price.
Buy Limit Order
Sell Limit Order
You place a sell order at a price higher than the current price. The order executes only when the price rises to your specified level or higher. This is commonly used to take profit at a target price.
Suppose BTC is trading at $60,000 and your target is $80,000. By placing a sell limit order at $80,000, the trade will execute automatically once the price reaches that level. If the market fails to rally, the order remains open. This method enables disciplined profit-taking without constant monitoring.
Sell Limit Order
Stop-Limit Order
This combines a Stop Order and a Limit Order. You set two prices: a Stop Price (trigger price) and a Limit Price (execution price). When the market hits the Stop Price, the Limit Order becomes active.
For example, you bought SOL at $120 and it is now trading at $135. To protect profits, you set a stop price at $128 and a limit price at $126.
When the market hits $128, a sell limit order at $126 becomes active. The trade executes only if liquidity exists at that price, avoiding extreme slippage during sharp moves.
Stop-Limit Order
Differences between Limit Order vs Market Order
The main difference between limit orders and market orders comes down to the trade-off between price certainty and execution speed. A market order prioritizes immediate execution, making it useful when speed matters, but it exposes traders to slippage, especially during high volatility or when liquidity is thin.
A limit order, on the other hand, lets you define the exact price you are willing to trade at, offering better cost control and discipline. The downside is that execution is not guaranteed, and fast-moving markets can leave limit orders unfilled.
Differences between Limit Order vs Market Order
Pros and Cons of Limit Orders
Pros
First, limit orders give you full control over execution price. You choose exactly where you want to buy or sell, rather than accepting whatever the market offers at that moment. This is especially useful in choppy conditions, where small price differences can meaningfully affect long-term returns.
Second, because a limit order only executes at your chosen price or better, it protects you from unexpected slippage during volatile moves. Even when the market spikes or drops quickly, you will never be filled at a worse price than intended, which helps preserve your risk-reward assumptions.
Third, once a limit order is placed, it works for you in the background. You do not need to watch the chart constantly or react emotionally to short-term price movements. When price reaches your level, the trade executes automatically, making execution more systematic and less stressful.
Finally, using limit orders encourages patience and discipline. Instead of chasing price or reacting to sudden momentum, you commit to predefined levels aligned with your strategy. Over time, this reduces FOMO-driven decisions and helps maintain consistency across different market conditions.
Pros of Limit Order
Cons
The biggest downside of limit orders is that execution is not always guaranteed. If the market moves close to your price but never actually trades at it, the order remains unfilled. In strong trends, this can mean watching price move away without you.
Furthermore, even if the market touches your limit price, a limit order may not fully execute. If available liquidity at that level is limited, only part of your order will be filled, while the rest stays open. This can be frustrating during fast or crowded markets.
Markets do not always move cleanly. Price can reverse sharply or continue trending in your favor without ever touching your limit level. In those cases, a strict limit order may cause you to miss an otherwise profitable trade, especially during high-momentum moves.
Limit Orders are a must-have tool for any serious trader, especially in prediction markets where liquidity is often low and spreads are wide. They help you control your trading price, avoid slippage, and trade with more discipline.
As a leading Trading Terminal Aggregator, Whales Prediction provides everything from professional charts and order book depth to smart money tracking and multiple order types, including Limit Orders. It’s a solid platform for both beginners learning prediction markets and experienced traders optimizing their strategies.
#AriaNaka #LimitOrders
Plasma: When gas disappears, stablecoins finally act like real money
@Plasma Most stablecoin networks still carry an old crypto assumption: to use your stablecoins, you must also own a separate asset just to pay fees. Even when fees are cheap, the idea itself is expensive. It forces users to think in two currencies at once. People easily understand “I have USDT.” What breaks the flow is “I also need another token just to move my USDT.”
Plasma treats this as a product flaw, not an education problem. Instead of teaching users why gas exists, it pushes gas out of sight. The goal is simple: let supported transactions charge fees directly in the tokens people already use, like USDT, rather than forcing everyone to acquire XPL first.
At first glance, this sounds like a small convenience. In practice, it changes how stablecoin systems behave. Fees become predictable, onboarding becomes lighter, accounting becomes cleaner, and applications can be designed on stablecoin rails without awkward workarounds. The core idea is that mainstream users only need one mental unit, not two.
If stablecoins are meant to feel like dollars, the entire experience should stay dollar like. The moment a user has to “top up gas,” the experience stops feeling like money and starts feeling like crypto infrastructure. Custom gas tokens are not just a technical detail; they shape how people perceive the system. In traditional finance, you pay costs in the same unit you earn in. Businesses hate hidden currency exposure, and users hate surprise blockers. Plasma’s design tries to remove both.
On most chains, gas is always paid in the native token. If you don’t have it, you’re stuck. That’s the onboarding trap: you arrive to use stablecoins but are forced to buy something else first. Plasma flips this around. The network itself can accept gas payments in approved tokens. A wallet or app can submit a transaction even if the user holds no XPL at all. The conversion and settlement happen behind the scenes at the protocol level, rather than being bolted on by each developer with fragile abstractions.
This matters because “gasless” systems built at the app layer tend to fail under pressure. They can be costly, inconsistent, and prone to edge-case breakdowns. Plasma moves this behavior into the network itself, making it a default capability instead of a clever hack.
For businesses, the biggest unlock is cost predictability. If you earn in stablecoins, you want to spend in stablecoins. Saying “this action costs one cent” is operationally sane. Saying “this action costs a variable amount of a token whose price changed overnight” is not. Finance doesn’t run on averages; it runs on worst-case risk and reliability. Paying fees in USDT makes budgeting and forecasting realistic, not theoretical.
There’s also a product advantage that’s often overlooked. When gas stops being a separate asset the user must manage, fee sponsorship becomes a clean growth tool. Apps can offer frictionless trials, subsidize early usage, and delay monetization just like mainstream software products do. Instead of a crypto tutorial at the first click, the user gets a normal onboarding flow: try it, no setup, no extra token.
Behind this is a bigger idea. Plasma isn’t only simplifying life for users. It’s giving builders the ability to create stablecoin apps that feel like ordinary software, not financial machinery exposed to the end user.
Accounting is another quiet win. Paying execution costs in the same currency as your treasury removes an entire layer of operational noise. No separate gas balances. No periodic refills. No tiny native-token purchases scattered across wallets and teams. These details seem small, but at scale they become the kind of friction that keeps serious businesses away. Operational drag often matters more than technical elegance.
For everyday users, the benefit is emotional clarity. Stablecoin holders already know what they own. Introducing another token increases the chance of mistakes: buying the wrong asset, buying too little, running out at the wrong moment, panicking, and losing trust. Keeping everything in one unit reduces confusion, and less confusion means fewer errors, scams, and losses.
Of course, making transactions easier raises risks. A system that allows stablecoin-based gas must be designed with guardrails. Token whitelists, flow restrictions, rate limits, and strong monitoring are essential. A payments-grade network has to assume adversarial behavior. Ease only works if it’s sustainable.
If Plasma succeeds, it won’t just be a low-fee stablecoin chain. It will be a place where stablecoins behave like a real product layer. A user installs a wallet, holds USDT, and transacts without ever touching another token. A builder launches an app and can sponsor usage like a normal software company. A business runs stablecoin operations with budgets and reports in the same currency it earns. Accounting teams focus on real flows instead of gas token housekeeping.
That’s how adoption actually happens: not through excitement, but through practicality. And in stablecoins, practicality is the whole game.
@Plasma #Plasma
$XPL
Plasma treats this as a product flaw, not an education problem. Instead of teaching users why gas exists, it pushes gas out of sight. The goal is simple: let supported transactions charge fees directly in the tokens people already use, like USDT, rather than forcing everyone to acquire XPL first.
At first glance, this sounds like a small convenience. In practice, it changes how stablecoin systems behave. Fees become predictable, onboarding becomes lighter, accounting becomes cleaner, and applications can be designed on stablecoin rails without awkward workarounds. The core idea is that mainstream users only need one mental unit, not two.
If stablecoins are meant to feel like dollars, the entire experience should stay dollar like. The moment a user has to “top up gas,” the experience stops feeling like money and starts feeling like crypto infrastructure. Custom gas tokens are not just a technical detail; they shape how people perceive the system. In traditional finance, you pay costs in the same unit you earn in. Businesses hate hidden currency exposure, and users hate surprise blockers. Plasma’s design tries to remove both.
On most chains, gas is always paid in the native token. If you don’t have it, you’re stuck. That’s the onboarding trap: you arrive to use stablecoins but are forced to buy something else first. Plasma flips this around. The network itself can accept gas payments in approved tokens. A wallet or app can submit a transaction even if the user holds no XPL at all. The conversion and settlement happen behind the scenes at the protocol level, rather than being bolted on by each developer with fragile abstractions.
This matters because “gasless” systems built at the app layer tend to fail under pressure. They can be costly, inconsistent, and prone to edge-case breakdowns. Plasma moves this behavior into the network itself, making it a default capability instead of a clever hack.
For businesses, the biggest unlock is cost predictability. If you earn in stablecoins, you want to spend in stablecoins. Saying “this action costs one cent” is operationally sane. Saying “this action costs a variable amount of a token whose price changed overnight” is not. Finance doesn’t run on averages; it runs on worst-case risk and reliability. Paying fees in USDT makes budgeting and forecasting realistic, not theoretical.
There’s also a product advantage that’s often overlooked. When gas stops being a separate asset the user must manage, fee sponsorship becomes a clean growth tool. Apps can offer frictionless trials, subsidize early usage, and delay monetization just like mainstream software products do. Instead of a crypto tutorial at the first click, the user gets a normal onboarding flow: try it, no setup, no extra token.
Behind this is a bigger idea. Plasma isn’t only simplifying life for users. It’s giving builders the ability to create stablecoin apps that feel like ordinary software, not financial machinery exposed to the end user.
Accounting is another quiet win. Paying execution costs in the same currency as your treasury removes an entire layer of operational noise. No separate gas balances. No periodic refills. No tiny native-token purchases scattered across wallets and teams. These details seem small, but at scale they become the kind of friction that keeps serious businesses away. Operational drag often matters more than technical elegance.
For everyday users, the benefit is emotional clarity. Stablecoin holders already know what they own. Introducing another token increases the chance of mistakes: buying the wrong asset, buying too little, running out at the wrong moment, panicking, and losing trust. Keeping everything in one unit reduces confusion, and less confusion means fewer errors, scams, and losses.
Of course, making transactions easier raises risks. A system that allows stablecoin-based gas must be designed with guardrails. Token whitelists, flow restrictions, rate limits, and strong monitoring are essential. A payments-grade network has to assume adversarial behavior. Ease only works if it’s sustainable.
If Plasma succeeds, it won’t just be a low-fee stablecoin chain. It will be a place where stablecoins behave like a real product layer. A user installs a wallet, holds USDT, and transacts without ever touching another token. A builder launches an app and can sponsor usage like a normal software company. A business runs stablecoin operations with budgets and reports in the same currency it earns. Accounting teams focus on real flows instead of gas token housekeeping.
That’s how adoption actually happens: not through excitement, but through practicality. And in stablecoins, practicality is the whole game.
@Plasma #Plasma
$XPL
#plasma $XPL @PlasmaI’ve watched plenty of “interoperability” claims, but Plasma showing up inside NEAR Intents feels more concrete. It turns a messy routine—bridge, swap, chase gas—into a single intent, with solvers handling the steps. The rollout puts Plasma in reach of 125+ assets across 25+ chains, and builders can route it into products via NEAR’s 1Click Swap API. That’s why it’s trending in late January: it’s less about new narratives and more about fewer failure points at scale. My conclusion: usability is starting to look like infrastructure, and intent rails are how it arrives when markets churn and users can’t babysit transactions.
@Plasma #plasma #Plasma $XPL
@Plasma #plasma #Plasma $XPL
missed yesterday binance square
Vanarchain
·
--
Missed yesterday's Binance Square AMA?
Our CEO Jawad Ashraf covered it all. Persistent memory, the AI stack, OpenClaw, and why Vanar is building the real AI on-chain infrastructure.
Link to full AMA in comments below 👇
Our CEO Jawad Ashraf covered it all. Persistent memory, the AI stack, OpenClaw, and why Vanar is building the real AI on-chain infrastructure.
Link to full AMA in comments below 👇
https://app.binance.com/uni-qr/cart/290385860882033?r=DJILDKPZ&l=en&uco=x7cxYlcsrFP50duVmzOwHQ&uc=app_square_share_link&us=copylink
Bitcoinworld
·
--
Stunning Defeat: US House Rejects Speaker Johnson’s Effort to Block Votes on Trump’s Tariffs
BitcoinWorld Stunning Defeat: US House Rejects Speaker Johnson’s Effort to Block Votes on Trump’s Tariffs
In a stunning procedural defeat that reverberated through the halls of Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an effort by Speaker Mike Johnson to block consideration of votes related to former President Donald Trump’s tariff proposals. This pivotal vote in Washington D.C. underscores the complex and often contentious relationship between legislative authority and executive trade policy, setting a significant precedent for future economic debates. The rejection signals a potential shift in congressional willingness to assert its constitutional role in regulating international commerce, a power explicitly granted under Article I, Section 8.
US House Rejects Key Procedural Maneuver on Tariffs
The core of the conflict centered on a parliamentary procedure. Speaker Johnson sought to use the Rules Committee, which sets the terms for floor debate, to prevent specific amendments concerning Trump’s tariffs from reaching a full House vote. However, a coalition of lawmakers from both parties rejected this restrictive rule. Consequently, the House will now proceed to consider legislation and amendments that could reshape, limit, or endorse the scope of tariff authority. This outcome is not merely a technicality. It represents a direct assertion of congressional power over trade, a domain where presidential authority has expanded significantly in recent decades, particularly through statutes like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
Historical context is crucial here. The Congressional Research Service notes that Congress has delegated substantial tariff-setting authority to the President since the 1930s. For instance, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act allows the executive to impose tariffs for national security reasons, a provision used by the Trump administration and debated by the Biden administration. Therefore, this House vote is a rare move to reclaim legislative oversight. It follows years of bipartisan concern about the economic impacts of broad, unilateral tariff actions, which studies from the Federal Reserve and the Peterson Institute for International Economics have linked to increased consumer prices and supply chain disruptions.
The Political Dynamics Behind the Vote
Analysts point to a fragile coalition that secured this outcome. While many Democrats consistently advocate for more congressional check on executive trade powers, a notable faction of Republicans, particularly those from agricultural and manufacturing districts hit by retaliatory tariffs, also supported allowing the votes. “This was a coalition of constitutionalists and constituencies feeling the pinch,” explained Dr. Eleanor Vance, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Some members are concerned about the precedent of a Speaker insulating policy from floor debate, while others have districts where soybean farmers or auto parts manufacturers are demanding predictability.”
The vote tally itself reveals the shifting sands. Traditional party-line discipline fractured, highlighting the deep divisions within the Republican conference over trade policy. This internal divide mirrors a broader national debate about protectionism versus free trade, a debate that has defined U.S. economic policy for generations. Furthermore, the procedural nature of the vote allowed members to register a protest without directly opposing Trump’s policy goals, a nuanced but politically significant distinction.
Expert Analysis on Legislative-Executive Balance
Legal scholars emphasize the constitutional significance. “The Constitution vests all legislative powers, including the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, in Congress,” notes Professor Ian Keller of Georgetown Law. “This vote, while procedural, is a step toward rebalancing that relationship. It doesn’t repeal tariffs, but it opens the door for Congress to shape their application through the power of the purse and specific legislative mandates.” This perspective is supported by a 2019 Supreme Court ruling, *Gundy v. United States*, where justices expressed skepticism about overly broad delegations of legislative power, signaling a judicial environment more receptive to challenges of executive authority.
The immediate impact is twofold. First, it grants legislative sponsors a pathway to offer amendments that could, for example, require economic impact assessments before new tariffs are levied or exempt specific critical goods. Second, it sends a clear message to the executive branch that bipartisan majorities in Congress may seek a more active role. Data from the U.S. International Trade Commission shows that tariffs imposed during the previous administration affected over $350 billion in annual imports, making this a matter of substantial economic consequence.
Economic and Global Implications of the Decision
The rejection of the procedural block has immediate ramifications for markets and international relations. Traders and global supply chain managers now face a new variable: the potential for congressional action to modify or constrain tariff policy. This introduces a layer of legislative uncertainty but also the possibility of more stable, negotiated outcomes. For U.S. allies and trading partners, particularly in the European Union and East Asia, the vote suggests a potential avenue for diplomatic engagement with Congress, not just the White House, on trade disputes.
Consider the following comparative data on recent U.S. tariff actions:
Trade Action Legal Authority Approximate Value Affected Primary Congressional Response Steel & Aluminum Tariffs (2018) Section 232 $48 Billion Multiple failed legislative challenges China Section 301 Tariffs Trade Act of 1974 $250 Billion Limited product exclusions process Solar Panel Tariffs (2022) Section 201 $10 Billion Bipartisan push for exemptions
This table illustrates the scale of recent actions and the historically muted congressional response, making the current House move particularly notable. The global trading system, governed by World Trade Organization rules, has been strained by unilateral U.S. tariffs. A more engaged Congress could lead to policies that are either more targeted, aligning with WTO standards, or more entrenched, depending on the legislative outcomes.
Conclusion
The US House’s decision to reject Speaker Johnson’s effort to block votes on Trump’s tariffs marks a critical juncture in American governance. It reaffirms the foundational principle of legislative oversight in trade policy. While the ultimate fate of specific tariff measures remains undecided, this procedural victory establishes a clear channel for congressional influence. The move reflects bipartisan concerns over economic impacts and constitutional balance, setting the stage for a more active and potentially volatile legislative role in shaping the nation’s trade relationships. The focus now shifts to the amendments and bills that will follow, determining whether this assertion of authority leads to substantive policy change or remains a symbolic check.
FAQs
Q1: What exactly did the US House vote on?The House voted on a “rule” proposed by the Speaker that would have blocked certain amendments related to Trump-era tariffs from being considered on the floor. By rejecting that rule, the House allowed those amendments to proceed to potential votes.
Q2: Does this vote mean Trump’s tariffs are repealed?No. This was a procedural vote about what the House can debate, not a vote on the tariffs themselves. It opens the door for future votes that could modify, limit, or endorse the tariffs, but does not change current policy by itself.
Q3: Why is this vote considered significant for Congress?It is significant because Congress has delegated much of its trade authority to the President over the last century. This vote represents a rare move to reclaim a direct role in shaping tariff policy, asserting its constitutional power over international commerce.
Q4: Which lawmakers supported and opposed this move?A coalition of most Democrats and a faction of Republicans—particularly from agricultural and manufacturing districts concerned about tariff impacts—voted to reject the procedural block. Support for the block came from leadership-aligned Republicans who favored a streamlined process.
Q5: What are the potential next steps following this vote?The House will now consider specific amendments and bills related to tariff authority. These could range from requiring impact studies to exempting specific products. The legislation would then need to pass the Senate and be signed by the President to become law.
This post Stunning Defeat: US House Rejects Speaker Johnson’s Effort to Block Votes on Trump’s Tariffs first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
In a stunning procedural defeat that reverberated through the halls of Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an effort by Speaker Mike Johnson to block consideration of votes related to former President Donald Trump’s tariff proposals. This pivotal vote in Washington D.C. underscores the complex and often contentious relationship between legislative authority and executive trade policy, setting a significant precedent for future economic debates. The rejection signals a potential shift in congressional willingness to assert its constitutional role in regulating international commerce, a power explicitly granted under Article I, Section 8.
US House Rejects Key Procedural Maneuver on Tariffs
The core of the conflict centered on a parliamentary procedure. Speaker Johnson sought to use the Rules Committee, which sets the terms for floor debate, to prevent specific amendments concerning Trump’s tariffs from reaching a full House vote. However, a coalition of lawmakers from both parties rejected this restrictive rule. Consequently, the House will now proceed to consider legislation and amendments that could reshape, limit, or endorse the scope of tariff authority. This outcome is not merely a technicality. It represents a direct assertion of congressional power over trade, a domain where presidential authority has expanded significantly in recent decades, particularly through statutes like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
Historical context is crucial here. The Congressional Research Service notes that Congress has delegated substantial tariff-setting authority to the President since the 1930s. For instance, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act allows the executive to impose tariffs for national security reasons, a provision used by the Trump administration and debated by the Biden administration. Therefore, this House vote is a rare move to reclaim legislative oversight. It follows years of bipartisan concern about the economic impacts of broad, unilateral tariff actions, which studies from the Federal Reserve and the Peterson Institute for International Economics have linked to increased consumer prices and supply chain disruptions.
The Political Dynamics Behind the Vote
Analysts point to a fragile coalition that secured this outcome. While many Democrats consistently advocate for more congressional check on executive trade powers, a notable faction of Republicans, particularly those from agricultural and manufacturing districts hit by retaliatory tariffs, also supported allowing the votes. “This was a coalition of constitutionalists and constituencies feeling the pinch,” explained Dr. Eleanor Vance, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Some members are concerned about the precedent of a Speaker insulating policy from floor debate, while others have districts where soybean farmers or auto parts manufacturers are demanding predictability.”
The vote tally itself reveals the shifting sands. Traditional party-line discipline fractured, highlighting the deep divisions within the Republican conference over trade policy. This internal divide mirrors a broader national debate about protectionism versus free trade, a debate that has defined U.S. economic policy for generations. Furthermore, the procedural nature of the vote allowed members to register a protest without directly opposing Trump’s policy goals, a nuanced but politically significant distinction.
Expert Analysis on Legislative-Executive Balance
Legal scholars emphasize the constitutional significance. “The Constitution vests all legislative powers, including the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, in Congress,” notes Professor Ian Keller of Georgetown Law. “This vote, while procedural, is a step toward rebalancing that relationship. It doesn’t repeal tariffs, but it opens the door for Congress to shape their application through the power of the purse and specific legislative mandates.” This perspective is supported by a 2019 Supreme Court ruling, *Gundy v. United States*, where justices expressed skepticism about overly broad delegations of legislative power, signaling a judicial environment more receptive to challenges of executive authority.
The immediate impact is twofold. First, it grants legislative sponsors a pathway to offer amendments that could, for example, require economic impact assessments before new tariffs are levied or exempt specific critical goods. Second, it sends a clear message to the executive branch that bipartisan majorities in Congress may seek a more active role. Data from the U.S. International Trade Commission shows that tariffs imposed during the previous administration affected over $350 billion in annual imports, making this a matter of substantial economic consequence.
Economic and Global Implications of the Decision
The rejection of the procedural block has immediate ramifications for markets and international relations. Traders and global supply chain managers now face a new variable: the potential for congressional action to modify or constrain tariff policy. This introduces a layer of legislative uncertainty but also the possibility of more stable, negotiated outcomes. For U.S. allies and trading partners, particularly in the European Union and East Asia, the vote suggests a potential avenue for diplomatic engagement with Congress, not just the White House, on trade disputes.
Consider the following comparative data on recent U.S. tariff actions:
Trade Action Legal Authority Approximate Value Affected Primary Congressional Response Steel & Aluminum Tariffs (2018) Section 232 $48 Billion Multiple failed legislative challenges China Section 301 Tariffs Trade Act of 1974 $250 Billion Limited product exclusions process Solar Panel Tariffs (2022) Section 201 $10 Billion Bipartisan push for exemptions
This table illustrates the scale of recent actions and the historically muted congressional response, making the current House move particularly notable. The global trading system, governed by World Trade Organization rules, has been strained by unilateral U.S. tariffs. A more engaged Congress could lead to policies that are either more targeted, aligning with WTO standards, or more entrenched, depending on the legislative outcomes.
Conclusion
The US House’s decision to reject Speaker Johnson’s effort to block votes on Trump’s tariffs marks a critical juncture in American governance. It reaffirms the foundational principle of legislative oversight in trade policy. While the ultimate fate of specific tariff measures remains undecided, this procedural victory establishes a clear channel for congressional influence. The move reflects bipartisan concerns over economic impacts and constitutional balance, setting the stage for a more active and potentially volatile legislative role in shaping the nation’s trade relationships. The focus now shifts to the amendments and bills that will follow, determining whether this assertion of authority leads to substantive policy change or remains a symbolic check.
FAQs
Q1: What exactly did the US House vote on?The House voted on a “rule” proposed by the Speaker that would have blocked certain amendments related to Trump-era tariffs from being considered on the floor. By rejecting that rule, the House allowed those amendments to proceed to potential votes.
Q2: Does this vote mean Trump’s tariffs are repealed?No. This was a procedural vote about what the House can debate, not a vote on the tariffs themselves. It opens the door for future votes that could modify, limit, or endorse the tariffs, but does not change current policy by itself.
Q3: Why is this vote considered significant for Congress?It is significant because Congress has delegated much of its trade authority to the President over the last century. This vote represents a rare move to reclaim a direct role in shaping tariff policy, asserting its constitutional power over international commerce.
Q4: Which lawmakers supported and opposed this move?A coalition of most Democrats and a faction of Republicans—particularly from agricultural and manufacturing districts concerned about tariff impacts—voted to reject the procedural block. Support for the block came from leadership-aligned Republicans who favored a streamlined process.
Q5: What are the potential next steps following this vote?The House will now consider specific amendments and bills related to tariff authority. These could range from requiring impact studies to exempting specific products. The legislation would then need to pass the Senate and be signed by the President to become law.
This post Stunning Defeat: US House Rejects Speaker Johnson’s Effort to Block Votes on Trump’s Tariffs first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
$ZRO
$STG
🔥🔥🔥While you stay up late waiting for interest rate cuts, Wall Street is already counting money🚨
TD Securities just dropped a 'bomb'—March interest rate cut? Don't even think about it❌
It's directly postponed to June, with another two cuts in September and December🔪
A total of 75 basis points for the year, with a terminal rate of 3%, moving as slowly as Ethereum's TPS……
The key is, this wave of easing is not about 'the economy is failing'🙅♂️
The official wording is: Inflation is cooling, monetary policy is returning to normal💉
Do you understand?
It's not about saving the market; it's about removing the 'tightening spell'.
It's not that the interest rate cuts are good news; it's that 'not raising rates' is already sufficient.
So how will the market move?🧐
The front relies on emotion, while the back needs real money stacking.
Starting in June means there are still over 3 months of 'news vacuum'⏳
—On-chain data, ETF flows, institutional reallocation are what to focus on next.
Smart money is already reallocating📊
Are you still tangled up in tonight's CPI?
Interest rate cuts may be late, but they won't be absent.
What matters next is not how fast the news comes, but whether the positions can sleep well.
Let's discuss in the comments: Did you choose to wait for interest rate cuts, or act early?🧧
$ETH
#非农意外强劲 #美联储何时降息 #黄金白银反弹 #美国伊朗对 #When to bottom out?
$STG
🔥🔥🔥While you stay up late waiting for interest rate cuts, Wall Street is already counting money🚨
TD Securities just dropped a 'bomb'—March interest rate cut? Don't even think about it❌
It's directly postponed to June, with another two cuts in September and December🔪
A total of 75 basis points for the year, with a terminal rate of 3%, moving as slowly as Ethereum's TPS……
The key is, this wave of easing is not about 'the economy is failing'🙅♂️
The official wording is: Inflation is cooling, monetary policy is returning to normal💉
Do you understand?
It's not about saving the market; it's about removing the 'tightening spell'.
It's not that the interest rate cuts are good news; it's that 'not raising rates' is already sufficient.
So how will the market move?🧐
The front relies on emotion, while the back needs real money stacking.
Starting in June means there are still over 3 months of 'news vacuum'⏳
—On-chain data, ETF flows, institutional reallocation are what to focus on next.
Smart money is already reallocating📊
Are you still tangled up in tonight's CPI?
Interest rate cuts may be late, but they won't be absent.
What matters next is not how fast the news comes, but whether the positions can sleep well.
Let's discuss in the comments: Did you choose to wait for interest rate cuts, or act early?🧧
$ETH
#非农意外强劲 #美联储何时降息 #黄金白银反弹 #美国伊朗对 #When to bottom out?
Bill Gates Was Right: U.S. Tech Sanctions Backfired 🚨
The strategy to "blockade" China has officially hit a wall. Years ago, Bill Gates warned that suppressing China would only accelerate their independence. Looking at the 2024-2025 data, he was spot on.
Instead of slowing down, the "Eastern Giant" leveled up. Here’s the reality check:
Huawei’s Resilience: Despite massive sanctions, Huawei poured over 1.1 trillion yuan into R&D over a decade. Result? The Mate60 Pro’s Kirin chip and HarmonyOS (now 800M+ devices) shattered the "blockade" myth.
SMIC's Rise: SMIC didn't shrink; it doubled its revenue since 2018, becoming the world's 2nd largest foundry by revenue.
The AI Pivot: While the U.S. restricted chips, DeepSeek proved that China could train top-tier AI models (DeepSeek-R1) at a fraction of the cost of Silicon Valley giants.
Economic Backfire: NVIDIA, Qualcomm, and Intel are feeling the sting. Reports show the U.S. risks losing 18% of its semiconductor market share due to decoupling—Silicon Valley is losing jobs while China’s IC exports surged 17.4% in 2024.
The Bottom Line: You can't stop innovation by building walls; you only force your competitor to build their own ladder. China has moved from "import-dependent" to "self-controlled" in record time.
$RIVER
$PIPPIN
$GPS
Is the era of U.S. tech hegemony ending? Let’s discuss below. 👇
#DeepSeek #TechWar #RiskAssetsMarketShock
The strategy to "blockade" China has officially hit a wall. Years ago, Bill Gates warned that suppressing China would only accelerate their independence. Looking at the 2024-2025 data, he was spot on.
Instead of slowing down, the "Eastern Giant" leveled up. Here’s the reality check:
Huawei’s Resilience: Despite massive sanctions, Huawei poured over 1.1 trillion yuan into R&D over a decade. Result? The Mate60 Pro’s Kirin chip and HarmonyOS (now 800M+ devices) shattered the "blockade" myth.
SMIC's Rise: SMIC didn't shrink; it doubled its revenue since 2018, becoming the world's 2nd largest foundry by revenue.
The AI Pivot: While the U.S. restricted chips, DeepSeek proved that China could train top-tier AI models (DeepSeek-R1) at a fraction of the cost of Silicon Valley giants.
Economic Backfire: NVIDIA, Qualcomm, and Intel are feeling the sting. Reports show the U.S. risks losing 18% of its semiconductor market share due to decoupling—Silicon Valley is losing jobs while China’s IC exports surged 17.4% in 2024.
The Bottom Line: You can't stop innovation by building walls; you only force your competitor to build their own ladder. China has moved from "import-dependent" to "self-controlled" in record time.
$RIVER
$PIPPIN
$GPS
Is the era of U.S. tech hegemony ending? Let’s discuss below. 👇
#DeepSeek #TechWar #RiskAssetsMarketShock
JUST IN: 🇺🇲 A strong signal has come regarding Arizona's main digital assets!!💡
Today, Bill SCR1033 has received two-pass votes from both Senate caucuses and has progressed after clearing committees. This resolution clearly shows positive thinking for digital assets at the state level.
The main focus of this bill is to encourage Arizona's state retirement systems to seriously evaluate Bitcoin and digital asset ETFs. This means that crypto is being considered as a possible option for pensions and long-term funds as well.
This is not a direct investment order, but the direction is very clear — Bitcoin and digital assets are no longer limited to just retail or traders, but institutions and governments are also beginning to view them from a long-term perspective 👀📈
Slow steps are fine, but these steps could be quite meaningful for the future 🚀
#USRetailSalesMissForecast
#USTechFundFlows
#WhaleDeRiskETH
$BTC
$ETH
$SENT
Today, Bill SCR1033 has received two-pass votes from both Senate caucuses and has progressed after clearing committees. This resolution clearly shows positive thinking for digital assets at the state level.
The main focus of this bill is to encourage Arizona's state retirement systems to seriously evaluate Bitcoin and digital asset ETFs. This means that crypto is being considered as a possible option for pensions and long-term funds as well.
This is not a direct investment order, but the direction is very clear — Bitcoin and digital assets are no longer limited to just retail or traders, but institutions and governments are also beginning to view them from a long-term perspective 👀📈
Slow steps are fine, but these steps could be quite meaningful for the future 🚀
#USRetailSalesMissForecast
#USTechFundFlows
#WhaleDeRiskETH
$BTC
$ETH
$SENT
🔥 BREAKING: ISRAEL WARNS CHINA & RUSSIA — “DON’T BACK IRAN OR RISK FULL‑SCALE WAR!” 🇮🇱⚠️🌍
$STG
$ZRO
$NIL
Tensions are soaring in the Middle East. Israel has issued a stern warning to China and Russia, saying they must not support Iran if Tehran attacks following failed nuclear talks. This comes after months of secret negotiations that could not resolve Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Israeli officials claim that any backing from major powers like China or Russia could escalate the conflict into a global crisis, directly threatening regional stability. Israel is signaling that it is ready to act alone if necessary and expects others to stay neutral.
This warning is not just political theater. It shows how fragile the Middle East balance has become. With Iran refusing to halt its nuclear program, any misstep could ignite a major confrontation, potentially dragging global powers into a war. The world is watching, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. ⚡🌐
$STG
$ZRO
$NIL
Tensions are soaring in the Middle East. Israel has issued a stern warning to China and Russia, saying they must not support Iran if Tehran attacks following failed nuclear talks. This comes after months of secret negotiations that could not resolve Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Israeli officials claim that any backing from major powers like China or Russia could escalate the conflict into a global crisis, directly threatening regional stability. Israel is signaling that it is ready to act alone if necessary and expects others to stay neutral.
This warning is not just political theater. It shows how fragile the Middle East balance has become. With Iran refusing to halt its nuclear program, any misstep could ignite a major confrontation, potentially dragging global powers into a war. The world is watching, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. ⚡🌐
$BTC
🇭🇰 JUST IN: Hong Kong confirms it will begin issuing stablecoin licenses in March, despite China’s crypto ban.
#USRetailSalesMissForecast
🇭🇰 JUST IN: Hong Kong confirms it will begin issuing stablecoin licenses in March, despite China’s crypto ban.
#USRetailSalesMissForecast
$SLAY $POWER $PIPPIN
💥BREAKING:
🇺🇸 BlackRock CEO Larry Fink says that if US debt payments eventually grow out of control.
The dollar will be abandoned because it essentially turns into monopoly money.
#USRetailSalesMissForecast #USTechFundFlows #WhaleDeRiskETH
💥BREAKING:
🇺🇸 BlackRock CEO Larry Fink says that if US debt payments eventually grow out of control.
The dollar will be abandoned because it essentially turns into monopoly money.
#USRetailSalesMissForecast #USTechFundFlows #WhaleDeRiskETH
🚨💥 SHOCKING NUCLEAR TWIST — IRAN’S URANIUM DEAL LEAVES TRUMP ON EDGE! 🇮🇷🇺🇸⚡
$POWER
$FHE
$PIPPIN
Iran has announced a shocking condition: they will “stop all uranium enrichment” only if they are allowed to continue all uranium enrichment. Experts call this a mind-bending nuclear loophole, leaving the world confused and alarmed.
Analysts warn this move is not just a negotiation trick — it signals that Iran may legally continue its nuclear program while appearing to comply with international demands. This could dramatically shift the balance of power in the Middle East, heighten tensions with Israel and the U.S., and put global energy markets at risk.
Sources reveal that President Trump has issued secret warnings to Tehran, signaling that any misstep could lead to serious military escalation. Observers say the stakes are extremely high: nuclear capability, diplomatic credibility, and the threat of war are all hanging by a thread.
The world is watching as Iran plays a dangerous game of “stop but continue”, and Trump’s next move could determine whether this ends in a deal or disaster. 🌍🔥
Shocking Heading: IRAN WILL “STOP BUT CONTINUE” URANIUM ENRICHMENT — TRUMP WARNED MILITARY OPTIONS READY!
$POWER
$FHE
$PIPPIN
Iran has announced a shocking condition: they will “stop all uranium enrichment” only if they are allowed to continue all uranium enrichment. Experts call this a mind-bending nuclear loophole, leaving the world confused and alarmed.
Analysts warn this move is not just a negotiation trick — it signals that Iran may legally continue its nuclear program while appearing to comply with international demands. This could dramatically shift the balance of power in the Middle East, heighten tensions with Israel and the U.S., and put global energy markets at risk.
Sources reveal that President Trump has issued secret warnings to Tehran, signaling that any misstep could lead to serious military escalation. Observers say the stakes are extremely high: nuclear capability, diplomatic credibility, and the threat of war are all hanging by a thread.
The world is watching as Iran plays a dangerous game of “stop but continue”, and Trump’s next move could determine whether this ends in a deal or disaster. 🌍🔥
Shocking Heading: IRAN WILL “STOP BUT CONTINUE” URANIUM ENRICHMENT — TRUMP WARNED MILITARY OPTIONS READY!
White House Crypto Meeting Stalls on Stablecoin Yields , BTC Drops Toward $67K
Listen everyone,
The critical crypto meeting at the White House didn’t end the way Trump’s team likely wanted.
According to a report from Bitcoinsistemi, the stablecoin-focused meeting held late yesterday ended without a clear conclusion, after talks stalled over one major issue: stablecoin yield.
Representatives from major U.S. banks met with crypto industry figures to try to find common ground around the Senate’s market structure bill. But negotiations reportedly hit a wall when the banking sector refused to compromise on stablecoin interest payments and pushed for a complete ban on stablecoin yields.
A White House document reportedly suggests any exceptions should be “extremely limited” so the ban principle isn’t weakened. That stance is described as even stricter than the recent market structure bill language, which allowed yield in certain stablecoin activities.
This deadlock is now putting short-term momentum at risk for the Clarity Act, one of the biggest U.S. crypto reform efforts, and the market reacted fast. Bitcoin reportedly slipped to around $67,000 during morning hours.
Ripple’s CLO says talks were “productive”
Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty, who attended the meeting, described the discussions as productive and said a consensus is forming, with bipartisan support for the broader market structure still intact. He also stressed the need to act while there’s an opportunity to deliver results for U.S. consumers.
Bottom line: the policy fight over stablecoin yields is turning into a real market catalyst. If lawmakers can’t agree, volatility stays high.
Not financial advice.
#USRetailSalesMissForecast #USTechFundFlows #WhaleDeRiskETH #GoldSilverRally $BTC
The critical crypto meeting at the White House didn’t end the way Trump’s team likely wanted.
According to a report from Bitcoinsistemi, the stablecoin-focused meeting held late yesterday ended without a clear conclusion, after talks stalled over one major issue: stablecoin yield.
Representatives from major U.S. banks met with crypto industry figures to try to find common ground around the Senate’s market structure bill. But negotiations reportedly hit a wall when the banking sector refused to compromise on stablecoin interest payments and pushed for a complete ban on stablecoin yields.
A White House document reportedly suggests any exceptions should be “extremely limited” so the ban principle isn’t weakened. That stance is described as even stricter than the recent market structure bill language, which allowed yield in certain stablecoin activities.
This deadlock is now putting short-term momentum at risk for the Clarity Act, one of the biggest U.S. crypto reform efforts, and the market reacted fast. Bitcoin reportedly slipped to around $67,000 during morning hours.
Ripple’s CLO says talks were “productive”
Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty, who attended the meeting, described the discussions as productive and said a consensus is forming, with bipartisan support for the broader market structure still intact. He also stressed the need to act while there’s an opportunity to deliver results for U.S. consumers.
Bottom line: the policy fight over stablecoin yields is turning into a real market catalyst. If lawmakers can’t agree, volatility stays high.
Not financial advice.
#USRetailSalesMissForecast #USTechFundFlows #WhaleDeRiskETH #GoldSilverRally $BTC
Login to explore more contents