1. Home
  2. United States

United States

Rep. Tom Emmer proposes to defund SEC’s crusade against crypto

Rep. Tom Emmer added a provision in the House GOP spending bill that would block the SEC from using government funds to pursue crypto companies until Congress weighs in on who has jurisdiction over crypto.

Pro-crypto Congressman Tom Emmer is advancing an amendment aimed at depriving the United States securities regulator from using government funds to go after crypto enforcement.

On Nov. 8, Emmer attached an amendment to HR 4664 — the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, or federal budget.

The amendment, which has passed unopposed, prohibits the Securities and Exchange Commission from using funds for enforcement activities related to digital asset transactions until Congress passes future legislation granting the agency jurisdiction to do so.

While the amendment has advanced, the House’s budget where it’s included will need to still face a reconciliation committee before it’s passed.

In a Nov. 8 statement, Emmer suggested the Department of Justice, the Treasury and the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control can handle “future bad actors like FTX.”

“SEC Chair Gensler cannot continue to abuse the powers of his agency to fulfill a political agenda of driving the new and promising digital asset industry offshore.”

Republican lawmakers are trying to reduce funding across all federal agencies.

On Nov. 7, Representative Tim Burchett took a swing at Gensler and others by proposing an amendment that would reduce the SEC chairman’s salary to $1. Burchett also proposed cutting the salaries of other officials who have drawn the GOP’s ire.

The budget expires on Nov. 17, when the House and Senate proposals must be reconciled or temporary funding approved to avoid a government shutdown.

Related: Ripple’s legal chief questions SEC case losses under Gensler

With Republican Jim Johnson installed as the House speaker, digital asset legislation is also being revived in addition to Federal Budget-related matters.

Among the crypto-related bills awaiting Congressional attention are the Financial Innovation and Technology (FIT) for the 21st Century Act, the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, the Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act and the Keep Your Coins Act.

On Nov. 7, Senator Ted Budd introduced the Keep Your Coins Act — guaranteeing the right to maintain self-custody wallets — to the Senate after it passed the House Financial Services Committee in July.

The same day, The Wall Street Journal reported Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo urged Congress to crack down on the use of cryptocurrency for funding terrorism.

“There are places where we think Congress needs to act. We’re going to work with Congress to get more tools,” he said at the annual meeting of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

Over 100 legislators called on Joe Biden’s administration to act against cryptocurrencies’ purported role in terrorism financing in an Oct. 17 letter spearheaded by Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Magazine: US gov’t messed up my $250K Bitcoin price prediction: Tim Draper, Hall of Flame

Bitcoin strategic reserve bill introduced in Brazil’s Congress

How to manage crypto losses on tax returns in the US, UK and Canada

Unlock the complexities of cryptocurrency taxation and learn how crypto losses impact your tax liability in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada.

Cryptocurrency taxation is a subject of increasing importance, with governments worldwide working diligently to establish clear rules for taxing digital assets. In the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, crypto holders navigate complex regulatory landscapes, making it crucial to understand how crypto losses are taxed and their potential impact on tax liability. Whether new to crypto trading or with years of experience, reporting income and paying applicable taxes in compliance with local regulations is essential.

To comply with local cryptocurrency taxation laws, crypto holders must stay informed and compliant to avoid legal issues. This article examines the rules, deductions and implications an investor needs to know to stay compliant and minimize tax obligations in this ever-changing crypto tax landscape.

Taxation of crypto losses in the United States

U.S. approach to crypto taxation

In the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires all sales of crypto to be reported, as it classifies cryptocurrencies as property and subject to capital gains tax. Gains and losses from crypto transactions are categorized by their duration, allowing losses to offset gains and reduce overall tax liabilities.

Unless generating staking-related interest or other exceptional cases, cryptocurrencies kept in a portfolio are typically not subject to IRS taxation. Furthermore, a loss cannot be declared if an individual has invested in a cryptocurrency that has completely lost its value and is no longer traded on exchanges.

Maintaining precise transaction records is essential for accurate capital gain or loss calculations. Moreover, reporting both losses and gains is mandatory, and the IRS is actively enforcing compliance with penalties for inaccuracies.

How are crypto losses taxed and offset in the U.S.?

In the U.S., crypto losses are typically categorized as capital losses, arising when the value of cryptocurrency holdings decreases from acquisition to the point of sale, exchange or use. Reporting crypto losses can reduce taxes in two ways: through income tax deductions and by offsetting capital gains.

When losses surpass gains, the resulting net losses can be utilized for income tax deductions, allowing for a reduction of up to $3,000 from income, and any remaining excess losses can be carried forward to offset future capital gains and $3,000 of other income in subsequent years.

Cryptocurrency losses offer substantial tax savings, offsetting capital gains without restrictions on the amount, potentially avoiding a substantial tax liability. The IRS categorizes losses as short-term or long-term, following the traditional investment framework. Short-term losses from assets held for under a year are taxed at ordinary rates (10%–37%), while long-term losses from assets held over a year face lower capital gains tax rates (0%–20%).

Wash-sale rule and treatment of crypto losses in the U.S.

In the U.S., investors can engage in tax-loss harvesting with cryptocurrency, selling at a loss to reduce taxes due to the IRS’ property classification. Since the IRS treats cryptocurrencies as property rather than capital assets, it technically exempts crypto from wash-sale rules and allows more flexibility.

Crypto holders can utilize losses to offset gains without being bound by the wash-sale rule, enabling them to sell at a loss, realize tax benefits, and reinvest to maintain their position. Nevertheless, regulatory changes might extend the rule to crypto in the future, making safer strategies advisable to minimize capital gains.

Taxation of crypto losses in the United Kingdom

The U.K.’s approach to crypto taxation

In the U.K., claiming cryptocurrency losses on a tax return is an essential step in reducing overall tax liability. To initiate the process, it’s critical to keep thorough records of every crypto transaction.

His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) considers cryptocurrencies as taxable assets, meaning that trading or selling crypto can incur a tax liability. Since cryptocurrency is currently treated by HMRC similarly to the majority of other financial assets, it is subject to record-keeping requirements and Capital Gains Tax (CGT). The type of transaction determines the exact tax treatment.

In the U.K., the capital gains tax is a consideration for individuals trading in cryptocurrencies. The CGT rates are directly connected to the taxation of crypto losses and the utilization of tax-free thresholds. The current CGT rates range from 10% to 20%, depending on the individual’s income and gains.

How are crypto losses taxed and offset in the U.K.?

When reporting crypto losses, the CGT section of the Self Assessment tax return must be completed. This section enables the offset of capital losses against any capital gains incurred during the same tax year.

In the U.K., investors are not permitted to directly offset capital losses from cryptocurrency against their income tax liability. However, when losses arise from cryptocurrency transactions, they can be deducted from the overall capital gains in the tax year.

If total losses surpass gains, the remaining losses can be carried forward to offset future gains. This mechanism serves as a valuable tool for managing tax liability, particularly in the volatile cryptocurrency market, which has the potential for significant losses as well as gains.

Importantly, there is no immediate requirement to report crypto losses. However, if you claim them, there is a four-year window from the end of the tax year in which the losses occurred. This flexibility allows taxpayers sufficient time for financial assessment and loss claims aligned with individual tax planning.

Overall, by accurately recording and reporting crypto losses, individuals can fully leverage the tax relief provided by the U.K. government while effectively managing cryptocurrency tax obligations. The ability to carry them forward will be lost if this step is neglected.

Optimizing crypto tax reporting in the UK through token pooling

It’s worth noting that HMRC requires taxpayers to pool their tokens for calculating cost bases in cryptocurrency transaction gain/loss reporting. Tokens must be categorized into pools, each with an associated pooled cost. Upon selling tokens from a pool, a portion of the pooled cost (along with allowable expenses) can be deducted to reduce the gain.

The pooled cost should be recalculated with each token purchase or sale. When tokens are acquired, the purchase amount is added to the relevant pool, and when they’re sold, a proportionate sum is deducted from the pooled cost.

Taxation of crypto losses in Canada 

Canadian approach to crypto taxation

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) considers cryptocurrency a property and subject to taxation as a commodity, falling under the categories of business income or capital gains. Disposing of crypto, such as selling it, trading it for another crypto or using it for purchases, triggers capital gains tax.

In Canada, taxes are not imposed on purchasing or holding cryptocurrency, as it’s not regarded as legal tender. Therefore, using it for payments is seen as a barter transaction with corresponding tax consequences, resulting in potential capital gains or losses based on the cryptocurrency’s value change when exchanged for goods or services.

While crypto provides some anonymity, the Canadian government has the capability to trace crypto transactions as exchanges are mandated to report transactions over $10,000. Even sub-threshold transactions may require customer data disclosure upon the CRA’s request.

How are crypto losses taxed and offset in Canada?

In Canada, investors need to report capital losses to the CRA to potentially reduce their tax liability, as the agency mandates filing an income tax and benefit return for any capital property sale, irrespective of a gain or loss outcome.

Canadian crypto taxpayers can offset various capital gains with cryptocurrency losses, carrying the net loss forward or using it to offset gains from the previous three years. However, cryptocurrency losses cannot be used to offset regular income within the year, and 50% of cryptocurrency losses can be applied to offset capital gains in subsequent years or carry them back to previous years, mirroring the tax treatment of cryptocurrency capital gains.

Usually, when an allowable capital loss occurs within a tax year, it should be initially offset against any taxable capital gains within the same year. If there’s still an unutilized loss, it contributes to the net capital loss calculation for that year, which can then be applied to reduce taxable capital gains in any of the preceding three years or any future year.

It’s important to highlight that to access tax benefits, investors must “realize” their loss by selling cryptocurrency, exchanging it for another, or using it for purchase; unrealized losses cannot be claimed on a tax return.

Superficial loss rule and treatment of crypto losses in Canada

Canada’s superficial loss rule, similar to the U.S. wash sale rule, prevents investors from exploiting artificial losses by selling and immediately repurchasing the same property within specific timeframes, ensuring a fair tax system.

According to the CRA, this rule comes into play to prevent wash sales if two conditions are met:

  • The taxpayer or their representative obtains an identical cryptocurrency within 30 days before or after selling it.
  • By the end of this period, the taxpayer or an affiliated person holds or has the right to acquire the same cryptocurrency.

These losses cannot offset capital gains but are instead added to the adjusted cost base of the repurchased property.

Bitcoin strategic reserve bill introduced in Brazil’s Congress

Can blockchain solutions disrupt US inflation forecasting?

New blockchain-based apps like Truflation could be a “healthy development,” given that gauging inflation is more art than science.

So much of the world’s economic steam depends on interest rates, which in turn are tied to inflation, i.e., the rate at which producer and consumer prices are rising. 

But measuring inflation isn’t easy. It is as much art as it is science.

The world’s number one inflation index, arguably, is the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Price Index (CPI), which has been around for over 100 years.

Not all economists and business leaders are happy with the CPI, however. Its methodology sometimes seems antiquated, and it publishes only once a month. It also relies on a workforce of 477 people who canvas supermarkets, department stores, gas stations and hospitals, often simply jotting down retail prices — not exactly 21st century.

“Basically, they go to stores — whether it’s electronically or in person — and write down prices,” Nationwide insurance chief economist David Berson told Marketplace. “They compare those prices to a month earlier.”

This may be why Truflation.com, a blockchain-based inflation index, is now attracting some attention. It gathers digital data from some 40 “partners” or sources that collectively offer up to around 18 million data points, compared with the CPI’s relatively modest 80,000 data points. Truflation also has a United Kingdom version.

The new inflation index is also updated daily. If rising consumer prices are finally plateauing or beginning to drop, it should be able to pick up changes earlier than the government gauge.

Economist Paul Krugman wrote in a New York Times column in late October: “I’ve been having some fun with a project called Truflation, which supposedly uses the blockchain and was backed in part by crypto types and which I suspect was intended to show that official inflation was greatly understated. What its numbers actually show is a steep decline in inflation over the past year.”

Never mind the dig at “crypto types” — Krugman is a noted crypto skeptic. What’s noteworthy is that this Nobel laureate was taking blockchain-based inflation analytics seriously.

Commenting on Truflation last year, David Harris, chairman of Rockefeller Capital Management, noted: “Their inflation data last fall seemed prescient, as it signaled an upturn before the BLS did. I expect more websites like this which will provide increased ways for investors to assess inflation trends.”

Elsewhere, Base Ecosystem Fund, which invests “in the next generation of on-chain projects building on Base,” Coinbase’s layer-2 blockchain, announced in September that Truflation was among its first six investment recipients out of 800 applications.

Its digital data sources include NielsenIQ, Big Mac Index, Amazon, Walmart, Zillow, Trulia, Penn State University MRI (Marginal Rent Inflation) Index, Real Capital Analytics, Yahoo, Energy Information Administration, OPIS, AAA Gas prices, JD Powers, CarGurus, Numbeo, Statista, CoreLogic, and Kantar, among others.

Cleveland Fed’s Nowcasts

Truflation isn’t the first to venture into real-time inflation prediction. The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland created a real-time inflation index called “Nowcasts” back in 2014, and today, the bank issues inflation forecasts each month before the official CPI or personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation data are released. Its index is updated every morning at 10:00 am.

Inflation Nowcasting for Q4 2023. Source: Cleveland Fed

The idea is to provide consumers, businesses, financial markets and others a sense of where inflation is now and “where it is likely to be in the future.” For example:

“If a consumer is thinking about taking out a loan, it helps to know how quickly wages and prices will be rising during the life of the loan — after all, it will be much easier to service the loan with stronger wage and price growth.” 

The Nowcast model makes use of a small number of available data series “at different frequencies, including daily oil prices, weekly gasoline prices, and monthly CPI and PCE inflation readings,” according to the bank. 

It’s had some success, claiming to be “more accurate than the consensus (average) nowcasts from the Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey” and also “more accurate than the median nowcasts from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s Survey of Professional Forecasters.”

A need for real-time gauges

Real-time inflation indexes like Nowcast and Truflation are long overdue, in the view of many. “There’s an important need for independent measures of inflation that are calculated more frequently than once a month,” Omid Malekan, author and adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Business School, told Cointelegraph. 

Magazine: 6 Questions for Lugui Tillier about Bitcoin, Ordinals, and the future of crypto

“Today, we have millions of prices that we can observe in real-time, and there is absolutely no reason to first publish inflation data with a delay — so we can see them real-time if we want,” said Lars Christensen, an economist and associate professor at the Copenhagen Business School in a recent LinkedIn post.

The view that the BLS’ CPI is antiquated and ripe for disruption “is the main reason we founded Truflation,” the firm’s founder and CEO Stefan Rust told Cointelegraph. The new protocol tracks 18 million items with three price feeds per item, he explained, compared with the government’s 80,000 items gathered “manually,” adding:

“Rather than tracking household expenses via rotating panels, Truflation uses a census-based model to track these.”

There’s no clear “right way” to track inflation, of course, but that’s arguably another reason why new approaches might be welcomed. “There is a lot of discretion in any formulation when answering questions like how much weight to give to different goods or services,” said Malekan, adding:

“The Labor Department claims to be an independent observer, but there is a serious conflict of interest in its formula because billions of dollars in TIPS payments [which protect against inflation] and cost of living adjustments for services like Social Security ride on how we calculate inflation.”

Rust echoed this sentiment that the government’s methodology is not only antiquated but also biased, telling Cointelegraph the methodology that the government set up “is vertically integrated, biased and editable. They can change methodology and time sets on a whim while they are working with old data sets.”

A 97% correlation with the CPI

Overall, the emergence of apps like Truflation is “a very healthy development,” Danielle DiMartino Booth, CEO and chief strategist for QI Research, told Cointelegraph. 

Booth, who worked at the Dallas Fed for a number of years, was among those who “stressed tested” Truflation’s model; the firm supplied her with raw data so QI could conduct a correlation analysis. Since 2012, the index’s correlation with the CPI is 97%, Booth said, which is very high.

As noted, Truflation is accessible on-chain — it’s a node on the Chainlink oracle network that feeds its inflation data into smart contracts across four blockchains: Ethereum, Avalanche, BNB Chain and Fantom. Cointelegraph asked Booth whether it mattered to her that Truflation’s data is on-chain.

“What matters to me is the end product,” she answered. Is it accurate? Does it correlate with the CPI?

Democratizing economic information

Sam Friedman, principal solutions architect at Chainlink Labs, sees things somewhat differently. Truflation’s updated inflation calculation methodology, which is verifiable, refreshed daily and is also accessible on-chain, “represents the world we live in today,” he told Cointelegraph.

The app isn’t just for economic forecasters but also for consumers looking to “understand the impact that inflation has on their lives.” Many are already attracted by the firm’s catchy online dashboard and personalized inflation calculator. Friedman said:

“This type of bottom-up education will drive adoption and is very much in line with the philosophy of decentralized systems. Of course, people who work at large institutions, SMEs [small and medium enterprises], and smaller enterprises are also consumers.”

Software developers, too, will now be able to access real-time inflation data as they design smart contracts for their decentralized applications. “They can reference Truflation with confidence as an independent data provider and help provide end-users with a cryptographic guarantee that the data has not been manipulated,” said Friedman. 

Asked by Cointelegraph if Truflation envisions an audience/market beyond professional economic forecasters and institutional investors, Truflation’s Rust answered, “Yes, 100%.” He pointed out that worldwide, there were perhaps 500 million accredited investors — “but what about the remaining 8.5 billion people on the planet? “How can they get access to inflation-related information and protect themselves against inflation?”

Does Truflation really need a blockchain?

Truflation’s methodology may not absolutely require a blockchain. For some users like Booth, its on-chain availability is largely irrelevant. Still, Rust went to some pains to explain that what separates Truflation’s methodology from others is the fact that it is “transparent, continuously tested, and validated using multiple sources in real time. The blockchain allows us to achieve this.” The technology also provides immutability, censorship resistance, lower costs and “accessibility to all.”

Consider immutability. Governments can sometimes “edit up to six months of historical data and reports,” said Rust. By comparison, “once data is written on the blockchain, it’s logged forever.”

In addition, the project makes use of blockchain-enabled tokenization that significantly reduces costs. Data providers, hosting companies and software and data builders can earn Truflation tokens (TFI), “which represent their ownership and utility in the network.”

This ensures transparency in terms of governance, too, because tokenholders have voting rights in various protocol activities, including data category selection, market strategies and token rewards. This contrasts with government models, “where the government can change the methodology at the whim of an administration,” Rust told Cointelegraph.

Could it supplant the CPI?

Could Truflation’s real-time inflation index — or one like it — replace the CPI someday as the dominant inflation index? 

That’s unlikely, according to Booth.

Professional forecasters like herself will still want a way to compare what is happening today with what happened in the past, and the CPI has been published regularly since the early 1920s.

It isn’t static, either. Its methodology has changed over the years, sometimes in major ways. A more likely outcome would be that Truflation is eventually integrated into the CPI, she opined.

Recent: Help or hindrance: Is Web3 really improving mainstream industry and products?

Moreover, many mainstream economists seem to be just hearing about Truflation, so it may take some time before the app gains real traction. In early September, Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, wrote in his “Quick Takes” newsletter:

“The headline CPI inflation rate was 3.2% in July. Truflation is tracking that rate at around 2.60% in August, down from July’s 2.73% tracking….”

But when Cointelegraph contacted Yardeni, a well-known Wall Street economist, he declined to comment on the new model: “I’ve just recently started to track them. So I don’t have a strong opinion about them yet,” he said.

“The ultimate test” for Truflation, according to Booth, is whether it can prove useful to practitioners whose careers depend on making accurate inflation forecasts. If it can achieve that, then it might eventually be adopted by government agencies.

Bitcoin strategic reserve bill introduced in Brazil’s Congress

Coinbase beefs up its global advisory council with four national security experts

Coinbase is getting wonky with prominent names in national security from both sides of the U.S. political divide. They will join former lawmakers and other strategists.

Coinbase has expanded its Global Advisory Council with four national security experts, it announced on Nov. 7. The new members will help the cryptocurrency exchange assess the impact of regulatory uncertainty in the United States, it said.

The Coinbase council will take on a decidedly more strategic tone with the new members. Mark Esper is a former U.S. secretary of defense. Stephanie Murphy is a former congressperson and a national security expert. Frances Townsend was homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush. David Urban is a former managing director of BRG Group.

The new council members will be joining former U.S. legislators Patrick Toomey, Tim Ryan and Sean Patrick Maloney. In addition to them, the original members of the council include Haun Ventures chief strategy officer Chris Lehane and Impact Research Polling founder John Anzalone.

The Global Advisory Council was set up in May as the third advisory council at Coinbase. The others are concerned with asset management and regulation. Among their members are former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chair Jay Clayton and former CIA general counsel Courtney Elwood. All of the councils have a bipartisan composition.

Related: Coinbase user agreement dispute reaches US Supreme Court

The stated goal of the new appointments was “examin[ing] what consequences will result from regulatory uncertainty for crypto in the United States.” Coinbase clearly had an international perspective in mind. It linked its white paper “Defending American Leadership: The National Security Case for Crypto and Blockchain” in the announcement.

Despite an ongoing dispute with the SEC, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has stated his commitment to keeping the San Francisco-based exchange in the country, even as the crypto industry is possibly moving away from the United States. At the same time, Coinbase has stepped up its activities abroad. Those efforts have not always proceeded entirely smoothly, however, as was recently seen in Kazakhstan.

Magazine: Binance, Coinbase head to court, and the SEC labels 67 crypto-securities: Hodler’s Digest, June 4-10

Bitcoin strategic reserve bill introduced in Brazil’s Congress

Biden AI executive order ‘certainly challenging’ for open-source AI — industry insiders

The executive order on AI safety from the Biden Administration has laid out its standards for the industry though its vagueness has raised concerns among the AI community over stifling innovation.

Last week the administration of United States President Joe Biden issued a lengthy executive order intended to protect citizens, government agencies and companies through ensuring AI safety standards. 

The order established six new standards for AI safety and security, along with intentions for ethical AI usage within government agencies. Biden said the order aligns with the government’s own principles of “safety, security, trust, openness.”

It includes sweeping mandates such as sharing results of safety tests with officials for companies developing “any foundation model that poses a serious risk to national security, national economic security, or national public health and safety” and “ accelerating the development and use of privacy-preserving techniques.” 

However, the lack of details accompanying such statements has left many in the industry wondering how it could potentially stifle companies from developing top-tier models.

Adam Struck, a founding partner at Struck Capital and AI investor, told Cointelegraph that the order displays a level of “seriousness around the potential of AI to reshape every industry.”

He also pointed out that for developers, anticipating future risks according to the legislation based on assumptions of products that aren’t fully developed yet is tricky.

“This is certainly challenging for companies and developers, particularly in the open-source community, where the executive order was less directive.”

However, he said the administration's intentions to manage the guidelines through chiefs of AI and AI governance boards in specific regulatory agencies means that companies building models within those agencies should have a “tight understanding of regulatory frameworks” from that agency. 

“Companies that continue to value data compliance and privacy and unbiased algorithmic foundations should operate within a paradigm that the government is comfortable with.”

The government has already released over 700 use cases as to how it is using AI internally via its ‘ai.gov’ website. 

Martin Casado, a general partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, posted on X, formerly Twitter, that he, along with several researchers, academics and founders in AI, has sent a letter to the Biden Administration over its potential for restricting open source AI.

“We believe strongly that open source is the only way to keep software safe and free from monopoly. Please help amplify,” he wrote.

The letter called the executive order “overly broad” in its definition of certain AI model types and expressed fears of smaller companies getting tangled up in the requirements necessary for other, larger companies.

Jeff Amico, the head of operations at Gensyn AI, also posted a similar sentiment, calling it “terrible” for innovation in the U.S.

Related: Adobe, IBM, Nvidia join US President Biden’s efforts to prevent AI misuse

Struck also highlighted this point, saying that while regulatory clarity can be “helpful for companies that are building AI-first products,” it is also important to note that goals of “Big Tech” like OpenAI or Anthropic greatly differ from seed-stage AI startups.

“I would like to see the interests of these earlier stage companies represented in the conversations between the government and the private sector, as it can ensure that the regulatory guidelines aren’t overly favorable to just the largest companies in the world.”

Matthew Putman, the CEO and co-founder of Nanotronics - a global leader in AI-enabled manufacturing, also commented to Cointelegraph that the order signals a need for regulatory frameworks that ensure consumer safety and the ethical development of AI on a broader scale.

“How these regulatory frameworks are implemented now depends on regulators’ interpretations and actions,” he said.

“As we have witnessed with cryptocurrency, heavy-handed constraints have hindered the exploration of potentially revolutionary applications.” 

Putman said that fears about AI’s “apocalyptic” potential are “overblown relative to its prospects for near-term positive impact.” 

He said it’s easier for those not directly involved in building the technology to construct narratives around the hypothetical dangers without really observing the “truly innovative” applications, which he says are taking place outside of public view.

Industries including advanced manufacturing, biotech, and energy are, in Putman’s words, “driving a sustainability revolution” with new autonomous process controls that are significantly improving yields and reducing waste and emissions.

“These innovations would not have been discovered without purposeful exploration of new methods. Simply put, AI is far more likely to benefit us than destroy us.”

While the executive order is still fresh and industry insiders are rushing to analyze its intentions, the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Department of Commerce have already begun soliciting members for its newly-established Artificial Intelligence (AI) Safety Institute Consortium.

Magazine: ‘AI has killed the industry’: EasyTranslate boss on adapting to change

Bitcoin strategic reserve bill introduced in Brazil’s Congress

Multiple buyers consider purchase and relaunch of ‘irreparable’ FTX

Rebooting a tarnished name is difficult and some firms are so utterly compromised by their failures that there is no real hope of rehabilitation.

Lawyers handling the FTX bankruptcy case are considering offers that could eventually lead to a relaunch of the troubled exchange.

At an Oct. 24 hearing of the United States Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware, Kevin Cofsky of Perella Weinberg Partners revealed he is negotiating with several parties interested in purchasing the company.

Cofsky, an attorney specializing in restructuring and liability management, told Judge John Dorsey that an initial 70 inquiries have been reduced to just three final buyers. But the exact structure of the sale and what kind of exchange might emerge thereafter is unclear.

Any potential relaunch of the company would have to contend with the severe reputational damage done to it. For that reason, industry experts are skeptical that a simple reboot of FTX is even possible.

Debra Nita, senior crypto public relations strategist at YAP Global — an international PR agency specializing in crypto, Web3 and decentralized finance — believes the FTX brand is too far gone to recover.

“The reputation and viability of FTX as a business is likely irreparable at this stage,” Nita told Cointelegraph. “The ability for a brand to recover comes down to several factors, primarily due to the nature and extent of the scandal. Secondary factors include the stability and strength of business operations when it failed, and the kind of response delivered after the initial downfall.”

With millions of customers out of pocket and former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried recently found guilty of seven counts of fraud, the damage to FTX is considerable. Past examples of financial misconduct or carelessness illustrate how difficult it is for exchanges to regain investor trust.

Damaged beyond repair

In January 2019, New Zealand exchange Cryptopia suffered a series of hacks to the tune of $30 million.

Cryptopia was down for two months as its founders formulated a rescue plan. Even as they sifted through the ashes, executives assured customers the damage was minimal. According to Cryptopia, the lost money amounted to a “worst case” of only 9.4% of its total funds.

Through March and April of that year, the exchange carried on, bringing various services back online in a staggered relaunch. By May, it was all over. The damage to Cryptopia’s systems, as well as its reputation, was simply too much to overcome.

Cryptopia is far from an isolated case. Enron, MF Global and Mt. Gox are further examples of companies so utterly compromised by their respective failures that there was never any real hope of rehabilitation.

“Due to the extent of the damage caused, the companies never could recover, regardless of how positively they may have responded after the scandal,” noted Nita.

Miraculous recoveries

On the other hand, there are examples of firms that managed to recover from significant setbacks.

Wells Fargo, an American multinational bank, is one such case. In 2016, the company was embroiled in a significant cross-selling credit card scandal. The bank issued credit cards and other lines of credit to its existing customers without seeking approval.

Executives initially tried to blame middle managers and entry-level workers, but it later transpired that the catalyst for the malpractice was unreasonable expectations of senior management, which created extreme top-down pressure.

Recent: Help or hindrance: Is Web3 really improving mainstream industry and products?

“Following the scandal, they reimbursed affected customers and introduced internal ethics procedures, and their stock price and reputation recovered,” said Nita. “The strength of their business and their responsible responses were then able to see [Wells Fargo] recover in reputation.”

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fined Wells Fargo $185 million, and CEO John Stumpf resigned. The company also settled a class-action lawsuit for $575 million.

In the same year as the Wells Fargo scandal, a major crypto exchange suffered a security breach. In August 2016, Bitfinex lost 119,756 Bitcoin (BTC) in a hack worth $72 million at the time. Bitfinex ceased all trading, and the severity of the hack wreaked havoc in the markets, with the price of Bitcoin falling by 20%.

The price of bitcoin fell sharply following the Bitfinex hack. Source: CoinGecko

To deal with the matter, Bitfinex decided that all customers would take a 36% haircut. This was applied to all accounts, even those unaffected by the hack. The exchange also issued the Rights Recovery Token, intending to make customers whole.

Bitfinex’s recovery was by no means guaranteed following the hack, but swift (even if unpopular) action on the part of its management helped the exchange weather the storm.

Possible options for an FTX “relaunch”

Cofsky’s testimony highlighted several potential forms a future FTX might take depending on the conditions of the sale.

“We have been engaging in an outreach process with a number of interested parties to either acquire the legacy exchange assets and/or to partner with the debtors in connection with the launch of the exchange. We’ve been evaluating that process relative to the potential to reorganize the assets on a standalone basis.”

“I am optimistic that we will have either a plan for a reorganized exchange, or a partnership agreement, or a stalking horse for a sale on or prior to the December 16th milestone,” said Cofsky.

Not all prospective buyers would want to use the FTX brand despite relaunch discussions. Cofsky clarified that one of the most valuable FTX assets is its list of 9 million customers. One option is to simply sell the list to another exchange and dump the FTX brand entirely.

To make that sale possible, the prospective buyer must know how many FTX customers are unique for any counterparty. Cofsky said that in this instance, the database of FTX information would need to be compared with the counterparty’s database of customers without revealing the identities of anyone on either database.

Cofsky did not make clear how that process would be achieved, but the challenge sounds like a potential use case for zero-knowledge proofs.

A fly in the ointment

Cofsky has stressed the importance of preserving the anonymity of FTX customers, but the position is still being argued in the courts.

Katie Townsend, an attorney representing the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, has argued that the public has a “compelling and legitimate interest” in knowing the names of those affected by the fall of FTX.

Cofsky’s argument has so far persuaded Judge Dorsey that releasing this information would jeopardize the sale, rendering its value close to zero. At each point, Cofsky has been able to extend the length of the anonymity ruling, but the matter is by no means closed.

“The value that would be provided to the estate would be conditioned on the extent to which customers transact on the future exchange or are accessible to others and therefore are not available to that counterparty,” Cofsky testified.

“I would think that the value of the customers to the exchange would remain even after the conclusion of the case,” he added.

Magazine: 6 Questions for Lugui Tillier about Bitcoin, Ordinals, and the future of crypto

In cross-examination, Townsend questioned how Cofsky could be sure that customers would even wish to trade on any future version of FTX.

“I don’t know how we would do that without contacting those customers,” replied Cofsky.

The admission highlights just how complex any sale of FTX really is.

Cautious buyers may even want to split the FTX purchase into a number of payment tranches, with the final value of the spend dependent on their ability to convert the customer database — which will have been inactive for more than a year at the time of any sale — back into active customers.

Given the lessons of history, achieving that goal will be no easy feat.

Bitcoin strategic reserve bill introduced in Brazil’s Congress

China ‘does not want to miss out’: Community reacts to HK spot Bitcoin ETF news

Despite regulatory clarity, Hong Kong has failed to pick up the pace regarding futures-based cryptocurrency ETFs so far.

The cryptocurrency community is excited about the Hong Kong government reportedly weighing the launch of a spot cryptocurrency exchange-traded fund (ETF) amid the ongoing regulatory pushback against such products in the United States.

Hong Kong’s potential entrance into spot crypto ETFs could be a significant development in the context of the economic confrontation between the U.S. and China, BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes believes.

Hayes took to X (formerly Twitter) on Nov. 6 to express excitement over competition between the two economies, emphasizing that this competition will eventually be good for Bitcoin (BTC).

“Competition is amazing. If the U.S. has its proxy asset manager, BlackRock, launching an ETF, China needs its proxy asset manager to launch one, too,” he wrote.

Cryptocurrency brand Coin Bureau was also quick to react to the potential spot crypto ETF launch in Hong Kong. According to the Coin Bureau, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) might be getting some pressure amid other jurisdictions like Hong Kong jumping on the bandwagon of a spot Bitcoin ETF.

“It’s a cursory tale to the SEC that if they continue to stifle capital market innovation in the United States, other countries are going to fill the void,” Coin Bureau wrote on X.

Crypto influencer Lark Davis also stressed that the latest spot crypto ETF news from Hong Kong shows that the Chinese government doesn’t want to miss out on crypto opportunities.

“Hong Kong going to get spot Bitcoin ETFs now! Chinese money does not want miss out,” Davis stated.

Hong Kong is considering allowing retail investors to access spot ETFs linked to cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, providing regulatory concerns are met, Securities and Futures Commission CEO Julia Leung said, according to a Bloomberg report on Nov. 5. The SFC did not immediately respond to Cointelegraph’s request for comment.

Hong Kong’s potential move into spot Bitcoin ETFs comes as at least a dozen investment firms in the U.S. seek to launch similar products in the country despite long-running pushback from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Although both Hong Kong and the U.S. have permitted crypto ETFs linked to futures contracts, the jurisdictions are yet to approve a spot crypto ETF. Unlike a futures Bitcoin ETF, which tracks futures contracts to replicate BTC prices, a spot Bitcoin ETF directly holds BTC, allowing investors to gain exposure to the asset.

Related: Spot Bitcoin ETF hype reignited zest for blockchain games: Yat Siu

The U.S. was the first to launch futures-linked crypto ETFs in 2021, with Hong Kong following in its footsteps in late 2022 with the launch of CSOP cryptocurrency futures products. Combined with the Samsung Bitcoin Futures Active ETF, Hong Kong has about $65 million in crypto ETF assets, according to Bloomberg. The futures crypto ETFs have seen low demand in Hong Kong, with their share still being tiny compared to other global crypto funds.

Geographical split of assets in publicly listed crypto funds. Source: Bloomberg Intelligence

Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation — the biggest bank in Hong Kong — reportedly enabled its customers to buy and sell Bitcoin and Ether (ETH)-based ETFs in June 2023.

Crypto regulation — Does SEC Chair Gary Gensler have the final say?

Bitcoin strategic reserve bill introduced in Brazil’s Congress

English school turned BTC miner in China expands capacity with 220 new units

BTC Digital used to be a chain of English schools based in Shenzhen. Now it has mining farms in Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

China-based BTC Digital announced the purchase of 220 new Bitcoin (BTC) mining units on Nov. 3, bringing its total number of machines to 2,174, with over 230PH/s of computing power. The new acquisitions are expected to become operational by the end of the month.

The deal was made with “two unaffiliated third parties” for Bitmain Antminer S19j Pro units in exchange for 276,572 shares of ordinary company stock valued at $968,800, according to a statement. BTC Digital was known as Meten EdtechX Education Group until a name change in August that “better reflects the Company's current business operations.”

The BTC Digital homepage. Source: BTC Digital

According to the Nasdaq-listed company’s website, it is “a leading general English language training service provider in China.” The website claims that the company has learning centers throughout the country and offers training online and in the metaverse. A Reddit thread begun on Nov. 11, 2022, indicated that the company had ceased teaching operations unexpectedly, however.

Related: Bitmain to start shipping new Bitcoin Antminer T21 in January 2024

The company expanded into Bitcoin mining at the end of 2021 when it deployed 1,482 miners, according to an undated profile on its website. Its mining farms were located in the American states of Pennsylvania and Tennessee and run by a third party. BTC Digital CEO Alan Peng said of the company's latest purchase:

“With the recent purchases and our plan to further increase the number of mining machines, we aim to continue improving our financial conditions as well as maximizing value for our shareholders."

It had a market cap of $3.1 million on Sept. 28, after hitting a low of $1.79 per share on Sept. 26. It experienced a surge of activity after its ticker symbol was changed from METX to BTCT on Sept. 28. Shares are valued at $3.66 at the time of writing.

China cracked down on Bitcoin mining domestically in the second half of 2021, although its efforts appeared to be less than completely successful.

Magazine: Bitcoin miner gets life in prison, China offers bounties for crypto firms: Asia Express

Bitcoin strategic reserve bill introduced in Brazil’s Congress

FTX advisers sharing customers’ data with FBI: Report

FTX advisers have complied with subpoenas from multiple FBI field offices in recent months, providing law enforcement with records of some customers’ trades.

Advisers for bankrupt crypto exchange FTX have been disclosing data from customers’ transactions and accounts with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), according to court documents seen by Bloomberg. 

In response to subpoenas issued by several FBI field offices during the past few months, FTX consultants turned over to law enforcement records of specific customers’ trades on the bankrupt crypto exchange.

The FBI’s requests were disclosed on billing records from Alvarez and Marsal, a consultancy serving as financial advisers for FTX. Over the past few months, the firm’s staff extracted information from some customers’ trades for FBI offices in Portland, Philadelphia, Oakland, Minneapolis, and Cleveland.

Screenshot of monthly fee statement of Alvarez and Marsal. Source: Kroll

The billing records did not reveal what type of investigation the FBI conducted or who the target was, although a grand jury subpoena is mentioned in one of the records.

In a court filing, Alvarez and Marsal reported that it shared transaction data from FTX's cloud computing provider in September in response to a subpoena issued by the FBI’s Philadelphia office. It also conducted investigations into customer accounts and transactions in July, following a request from the FBI’s Oakland office. Additionally, in August, the firm extracted customer information related to specific transactions, in compliance with a subpoena from the FBI's Portland office.

FTX customers will ultimately pay for the work. According to Bloomberg, in July, August, and September, two advisers invoiced more than $21,000 for FBI-related services. In total, Alvarez and Marsal have charged almost $100 million in fees from FTX since November 2022, court records show. The money will be reduced from recoveries for FTX customers.

FTX’s new CEO, John J. Ray III, recently revealed that the exchange's customers could receive over 90% of their assets by the end of 2024 as a result of a proposed settlement between FTX creditors and debtors.

Magazine: Ethereum restaking — Blockchain innovation or dangerous house of cards?

Bitcoin strategic reserve bill introduced in Brazil’s Congress

Could regulation have prevented Sam Bankman-Fried’s criminal verdict?

Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried dreamed of being the President of the United States, but his lawlessness eventually caught up with him.

Sam Bankman-Fried was found guilty of all seven counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in the late hours of Nov. 2. The jury delivered its verdict in less than 10 minutes after nearly 4 hours of deliberation, leaving his parents to fall silent in the crowded courtroom at the Southern District Court of New York. 

Over the course of his lengthy trial, my thoughts kept returning to: How did you come to be here? Could all of this harm have been prevented? What can we do to avoid the next FTX?

Some say that existing financial regulations could have prevented the collapse of FTX. Having to comply with regulatory requirements, Bankman-Fried would never have been able to commingle and embezzle customer funds.

FTX used Alameda Research as a “payment processor,” as described by Bankman-Fried’s defense. One of Alameda’s subsidiaries, Northern Dimension, received deposits from FTX customers since the exchange was founded. Without any corporate control, the companies commingled funds.

Commingling of funds may not necessarily involve fraudulent intent, but can still be problematic due to the lack of transparency and accountability. In fact, it’s a “dirty word” in securities law, an attorney observing Bankman-Fried’s trial explained.

Embezzlement, on the other hand, typically involves intentional and fraudulent actions and occurs when one in control of funds uses the capital for personal gain or unauthorized purposes. Bankman-Fried, according to prosecutors, used billions of dollars in venture capital investments, real estate acquisitions, and political donations for personal gain. None of these funds belonged to him.

Without corporate controls, his defense couldn’t prove that the $8 billion missing from clients was not the result of the market downturn instead of misappropriation of funds.

Bankman-Fried had high ambitions. He dreamed of being the President of the United States. He thought growing FTX would be the only way to cover the billion-dollar hole on its balance sheet, but it was too late for FTX. As Warren Buffett wisely said: “You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.”

In the end, Bankman-Fried was caught not for crypto fraud but for traditional fraud. Theoretically, regulatory guardrails could have prevented him from commingling and embezzling funds, but the law won’t prevent someone who believes they're uncatchable from doing wrong.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Bitcoin strategic reserve bill introduced in Brazil’s Congress