硅谷银行 · 405

FT: Circle previously banned Tether-backed crypto fund accounts, later supported by arbitration ruling

According to the Financial Times, according to the Financial Times, stablecoin issuer Circle blocked Tether-backed crypto fund Heka Funds at the end of 2023 due to suspicion that it manipulated the market through large-scale arbitrage operations and helped Tether expand its market share. Documents show that during the Bank of Silicon Valley (SVB) crisis in 2023, USDC once fell below the anchor price of $1. Heka continued to buy heavily discounted USDC and redeem dollar cash from Circle. Circle believes that Heka's redemption scale far exceeds that of other market participants, and doubts that the relevant funds will end up going to Tether to help it expand the size of the USDT market. The arbitration documents also revealed that Tether had invested around $800 million in Heka, accounting for about 75% of the fund's assets, and exempted stablecoin minting fees. The arbitrator found that Heka had not truthfully disclosed Tether's support relationship and knew that the information would raise Circle's concerns. In 2024, Heka filed an arbitration claim for approximately $49 million in lost profits due to the account being blocked. In February of this year, the arbitrators dismissed all of Heka's claims, found that it had acted in bad faith, and determined that it would pay Circle approximately $166,000 in attorneys' fees and expert fees. Heka denied market manipulation and said it has never been subject to regulatory scrutiny; Circle declined to comment, and Tether did not respond to media requests for comment.

38d ago

From Liberty Banks to Stablecoins: Money's Reputation Dilemma

Source: Token Dispatch Author: Thejaswini M A Compiled by: Block Unicorn Original title: The quality of the currency depends on the issuer's reputation In 1840, a store owner placed a book of accounts under the counter. When you pay with banknotes, he takes out his books and checks how much your money was worth for the day. Ten dollar notes issued by the Bank of Cincinnati are not worth ten dollars everywhere. Maybe it's only worth nine dollars. Its value can vary widely. If the bank goes out of business and the news hasn't reached his county, it might even be worth nothing. The most famous book of this type comes from Philadelphia and is called “Bicknell Counterfeit Money Detector”. It's actually a currency price list, printed in order, because the value of one dollar changes according to the name printed on the banknote. Source: Library of Congress; printed $25 note with a bust of George Washington on the note. This is America between 1837 and 1863. Any bank with a state government license can print its own banknotes, and obtaining a license is also very easy. Michigan pioneered this in 1837, making it possible to open a bank with almost no conditions or approval from the legislature. Thousands of different banknotes circulate all over the country at the same time. Roughly one-third of the banknotes in circulation are completely counterfeit. Each note represents a gamble against the issuing bank. This system collapsed during the Civil War, when the government printed a unified dollar, partly to raise money for the war, but more importantly, trusting that 8,000 private banknotes had exhausted the country's funds. On June 22, the Senate passed the 21st Century Housing Pathways Act by an overwhelming majority (85 votes in favor and 5 against), and the House of Representatives passed the bill the next day. Hidden in this housing bill is a provision prohibiting the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC) until 2030. That's why we want to look back and unravel the specter of the Liberty Banking era. The dollar balance in your Venmo account is promised to you by the bank, and if the bank goes out of business, your money is at risk of being beyond the coverage of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), on the other hand, bypass banks and allow holders to directly hold national currencies in digital form. The Senate rejected this proposal for two reasons. The digital dollar issued by the government can track every penny you spend and can freeze your wallet at any time, just like the Chinese digital yuan. Second, banks are strongly opposed because funds directly held at the Federal Reserve will never enter their deposit accounts. They will lose the floating capital they need to survive. Now, even the people who wrote and signed seem unsure about what they want to sign. On June 24, just one hour before the signing ceremony began, Trump called off the ceremony and asked to pass a voter identification bill that had already been vetoed by the Senate. But it is likely that this ban will eventually become law. Well, the government won't issue digital dollars. At the same time, however, it handed over the work to a private company. This meant that the old ways of 1840 were back. Even after the GENIUS Act was signed in July 2025, the current regulatory focus is still mainly on the quality of reserves rather than strict entry barriers. More than a dozen companies are lining up to apply for concessions in order to issue their own dollars. Every fintech company wants to have its own branded currency. The current market size is approximately $312 billion. Tether's USDT and Circle's USDC account for about 80% of them. There are also PayPal's PYUSD, Ripple's RLUSD, and Paxos's white-label tokens for anyone in need. They all repeat what the Bank of Cincinnati said: Trust us, they're guaranteed. It's not 1840, and Kim Carey is still trying to prove she's not a clone of herself. We don't believe everything, do we? This is both a good thing and a bad thing. It is this distrust that motivates issuers to come up with evidence to prove their reliability, and at the same time make them expect the market to remain shallow, because a group of people who doubt everything but never verify any facts are the easiest group for you to hand over money to. An illegal bank claims that its notes are backed by silver in its treasury. However, so-called vaults are often just a bucket of nails, hidden deep in the woods and cannot be touched by any inspector. Stablecoins are...

45d ago章鱼烧#USDC #USDT #stablecoins

Silicon Valley Bank: Bitcoin Lending Is Entering a New Era of Institutions

Comparatively, according to CoinDesk, the Bank of Silicon Valley released a report saying that after experiencing the 2022 crypto credit crisis, Bitcoin lending has entered a new era of institutionalization, with stronger risk control, increased institutional participation, and lower borrowing costs. Bitcoin is being viewed as a collateral asset with instant global liquidity, fast settlement, and fungibility. Currently, many major US banks have provided Bitcoin-backed credit services, and the total amount of crypto collateral loans increased 49% year over year to $67 billion. Bitcoin lending platform Ledn estimates that the current consumer BTC mortgage market is around $30 billion and may expand to $1 trillion over the next decade. The report notes that the collapse of Celsius, BlockFi, and Genesis in 2022 to 2023 revealed issues such as mismatched deadlines and excessive leverage, and conservative underwriting and transparent risk management have become the foundation of the industry. The current interest rate on Bitcoin mortgages is 7.5% to 16%, and the Bank of Silicon Valley expects banks and private credit funds to gradually narrow the spread.

53d ago

How can a report evaporate hundreds of billions of dollars in US stocks? Substack tops the list of investment and research institutions

Author: Wenser Original title: Demystifying the “god of investment and research” behind Citrini: Substack dominates the list all year round. In this round of the US stock bull market, in addition to the “white hair stock god” Serenity, who is active in the public opinion market as an individual, another independent investment and research institution called Citrini has also attracted much attention — it has been ranked number one in the financial category of Substack all year round, with nearly 250,000 subscribers. In February of this year, “The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis” (2028 Global Intelligence Crisis) released by Citrini once triggered a “wave of US software stock sell-offs”, which intensified the fear of the wave of unemployment in Silicon Valley; in April, the “Hormuz Strait Research Report” written by Citrini's analyst #3 personally drew strong reactions from the outside world, and used first-line experience to clear the layers of this already conflicted reality. Recently, Citrini semiconductor analyst Jukan also accurately stated the importance of the copper foil industry in the AI and semiconductor industries, driving a new wave of investment. The person behind this investment and research institution is the founder of a non-financial science class: James van Geelen, who has a double degree in biology and psychology from UCLA, worked as a first responder, founded a medical company, and broke into the investment community halfway through his career, and is now known as the “god of investment research.” In this issue, the Daily Planet Daily will unravel James's crossover saga. Citrini founder: The storyteller under “Second Order Thinking” mentioned Citrini. People in the crypto industry first noticed this investment and research account, probably stemming from the post he posted on the eve of the Cerebras (CBRS) listing in May of this year, referring to “fund managers discovered prices in advance on Trade.xyz (in the Hyperliquid ecosystem).” The tweet was later confirmed by Trade.xyz founder Shokun's retweet. Citrini: The “traditional financial world whistleblower” of Hyperliquid and Trade.xyz is no exaggeration to say that as an investment and research account that once published the hot article “2028 Global Smart Crisis,” Citrini's radiative impact on the traditional financial world is obvious. And its high affirmation of the Hyperliquid ecosystem and Trade.xyz's pre-market pricing of US stocks has also brought the crypto market's RWA platform, US stock pre-market contract platform, and US stock chain trading platform into the eyes of more people, boosting this year's “US stock RWA asset boom” to a certain extent. In a sense, Citrini can be called a weather vane that sends a “warning signal” to the traditional financial community — he uses accurate and unmistakable information to warn traditional financial markets. In the past, humble crypto players had their sights set on the “big cake” of the traditional financial market like barbarians. Behind Citrini is James van Geelen, the founder who believes in “second-order thinking” and “long-term doctrine.” Multiple labels: James van Geelen (hereinafter referred to as Geelen), who has a double degree in biopsiology, a medical emergency practitioner, and an “AI panic whistleblower” this year, probably wouldn't have imagined that an “AI discussion hot post” could actually trigger the rapid evaporation of hundreds of billions of dollars in the US stock market; even earlier, his career had nothing to do with AI. According to public information, Geelen graduated from UCLA, a prestigious American school, and obtained a double degree in biology and psychology while attending school; he also worked as an emergency medical technician and paramedic in downtown Los Angeles. A graduate of a prestigious school and a medical emergency practitioner, this experience has shaped his personality to pursue efficiency and be good at planning. As he himself said - “If you don't have a plan, you're going to have a miserable life”. Furthermore, he claims to be a “genius musician,” even though he doesn't have any outstanding works. According to Geelen's original plan, he was supposed to be a doctor who saved the dead, but under the wrong circumstances, he instead embarked on the path of starting a business: first founded a healthcare company and sold it to a private equity fund, thereby successfully breaking out of the “famous school-part-time job-professional manager” circle; then founded the current Citri...

65d agoburnking#AI #originators #invests

Citrini: Inflation fears have gone too far! US stocks have not peaked

Source: Compiled and compiled by Citrini Research: BitPushNews Summary We will maintain a bullish attitude towards the US economy and the US stock market in the medium term. The US economy is currently performing strongly but is not overheating, and concerns about inflation may ease somewhat. Recent labor-market data exaggerates how strong the US economy is. We believe that the rise in the US stock market will continue, but over the next three months, as we need to deal with the push and pull effects of the new Federal Reserve Chairman, the “Echo Shock” (Echo Shock) of petroleum, and artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure construction trade enters a more mature stage, market volatility will increase the rise in inflation and concerns about interest rate hikes are the latest hurdles facing momentum trade (momentum trade). Downside factors for inflation risk* Most commodity supply disruptions from the Iran conflict have peaked, allowing the Federal Reserve to see through and ignore remaining price pressures. * Core inflation readings remain stable, and there is no indication that wage increases are needed to sustain excessive demand. * The labor market is not tight, and recent non-farm payrolls data exaggerates the economic rebound. What would Walsh do? Does nothing. Has the market peaked? No. The recent sell-off was a long-overdue hedge, cleaning out overcrowded leverage in extremely stretched momentum stocks. Fundamentals support the continued “unconscious melt-up” (melt-up) of the stock market until the end of summer. Over the next 3-4 months, we'll see an increase in the frequency of retractions of 10-15% from high points. Momo vs. Macro (Momo vs. Macro) We are in a long-term “subject momentum vs. macro conditions” market. In other words, we fluctuate back and forth between periods of strong stock performance (mostly driven by AI) and short periods of fluctuation, and these swings are often blamed on paper on macroeconomic concerns. The focus of last spring was on the tariff issue, and in the winter, a series of negative non-farm payrolls data triggered economic growth fears. This year, the Iran conflict left major indices on the brink of technical correction for a while, and then a cease-fire was reached in early April, prompting the market to soar all the way to record highs. The latest macro concerns have turned to inflation and interest rates. Since the outbreak of the war in Iran on February 28, short-term interest rate expectations have soared by more than 100 basis points (bps). In May of this year, Guaranteed Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) futures began pricing expectations of recent interest rate hikes for this cycle, which had never been seen before. This is a significant monetary policy development, and a situation the market has not seen since Silicon Valley Bank (Silicon Valley Bank) went out of business in early 2023 and completely settled hawkish rhetoric. This sudden major turn in monetary policy expectations is mainly driven by the following factors: 1. Inflation readings have rebounded due to the intensification of energy shocks related to the Strait of Hormuz; 2. Stronger labor market data; 3. The central bank responded in a hawkish manner. The Federal Reserve's April resolution to keep interest rates unchanged created an 8-4 split in an extremely rare vote, with three members hoping to remove long-standing “loose bias” from policy statements (Miran is the only dovish member to vote against). Last week, the European Central Bank (ECB) raised interest rates by 25 basis points and threatened to raise interest rates again as early as July, on the grounds that they cannot “turn a blind eye” to the impact of rising energy costs. This week, the CPI recorded its highest nominal inflation reading since 2023, and in this case, charts that overlap with historical trends in the 1970s are starting to look increasingly worrisome. The stock market was unimpressed by the rise in interest rates for a while, but now it seems that it is beginning to pay closer attention. The May employment report showed 172,000 new jobs, almost double the general estimate of 88,000, and far higher than the so-called “rumored number.” This added to a series of notable employment data that exceeded expectations, and raised market expectations that the Federal Reserve would raise interest rates. US Treasury yields immediately jumped, and the stock market experienced a sell-off. Among them, the most passive-driven stocks were hit mainly. What needs to be clarified is that even if interest rates provided the initial catalyst, the sell-off in the US stock market was expected and long overdue. Previously, the stock market continued to boom, rising for seven consecutive weeks. The sell-off was mainly focused on the tech sector, particularly hardware or momentum stocks. Judging from all indicators, the market is technically extremely superior...

68d agoWendy#AI #US stocks #US stock topics #inflationary

From stablecoins to tokenized deposits: deposits will eventually flow to freely convertible winners

Author: Prathik Desai Compiled by: Chopper, Foresight News Original title: Banks Face Stablecoins, Where Will Deposits Go? In the long development of the banking industry, depositors have always been in a vulnerable position. People deposit funds in banks, and banks then lend these funds to the outside world, and the benefits earned are several times greater than the interest given to depositors. Savers are embracing this model because they have no better choice: the value of cash in their hands only shrinks over time. Currently, the average interest rate for ordinary savings accounts in the US is only 0.6%, but when investing in US Treasury bonds and money market funds, the yield can reach at least 4%. The core reason this traditional model works for a long time is that savers have always lacked convenient alternatives. But every few decades, new choices always appear in the market. Stablecoins rely on blockchain to circulate around the clock. Transactions arrive in seconds, and the transfer cost is less than a cent. Although relevant laws prohibit stablecoin issuers from directly paying interest to holders, the combinable nature of decentralized finance allows users to transfer stablecoins to loan agreements and obtain 5% to 8% annualized income. This provides savers with a new location for their funds without compromising on ease of use. In this article, we will analyze the various steps banks have taken to stop loss of deposits and how this transformation will reshape the global banking industry and capital flow patterns. Depositor behavior In 1977, wealth management and investment agency Merrill Lynch Securities launched a cash management account (CMA). At the time, the US “Q Regulations” stipulated that the upper limit of interest rates on bank deposits should not exceed 5.25%, while the yield on US Treasury bonds exceeded 7% during the same period. Merrill Lynch discovered a regulatory loophole and used the cash management account function to automatically transfer idle funds from clients' securities accounts to money market funds on a daily basis. At the same time, Lin also provides checking account and debit card services to customers. By combining multiple functions, customers can not only enjoy high market-level returns, but also withdraw funds at any time, just like using a current account. Affected by this, the size of money market funds ushered in explosive growth, soaring from about US$4 billion in 1977 to US$220 billion in 1982, an increase of 55 times, and behind the increase was a massive loss of bank deposits. The banking industry immediately protested collectively. Eventually, the US Congress abolished the upper interest rate requirement of the “Q Regulations”, and major banks followed the trend and introduced money market deposit accounts to re-absorb deposits with higher yields. From the introduction of cash management accounts to the lifting of deposit interest rate restrictions, the entire process took nine years. Today, technological innovations have shortened fund transfers to minutes or even less, and savers are no longer willing to wait long. During the Silicon Valley bank storm on March 8, 2023, depositors initiated withdrawal requests totaling $42 billion in less than eight hours, with an average withdrawal amount of around $1.5 million per second. More than 85% of the bank's deposits are not covered by deposit insurance, which is the core reason why savers are concentrated in crowding out. Prudent savers will always move their funds to a safer place where they can at least preserve their value, or possibly increase in value. In response to this problem, the two digital dollars have given birth to two competing digital dollar forms. The two trends are quite different: one will keep capital out of the banking system, and the other will remain within the banking system, but only change the form of existence. Type 1: Stablecoins take USDC issued by Circle as an example. After users exchange US dollars for USDC, the corresponding fiat currency funds will be used to buy US Treasury bonds, and this money leaves the bank's balance sheet. As a result, the principal amount that banks can use to lend and earn interest spreads is reduced. At the same time, such funds are no longer covered by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Company. Once a stablecoin issuer ceases operations, it is difficult for holders to recover their principal. The “GENIUS Act”, which officially came into effect in July 2025, establishes regulatory rules specifically for the issuance and use of stablecoins. The law clearly prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest to users. This control idea is the same as the “Q Regulations” of that year, which restricted interest rates on deposits. However, just as Merrill Lynch Securities circumvented the “Q Regulations” and used money market funds to achieve high returns, now stablecoin issuers also provide income in disguise by issuing rewards. Currently, related disputes are still ongoing in the “CLARITY Act” legislative discussions. In addition to this, users can also deposit stablecoins into various loan agreements on their own to obtain benefits. For the banking industry, this is certainly an existential threat. After the bankruptcy of the Bank of Silicon Valley, huge sums were made in just a few hours...

73d agoburnking#stablecoins #banks

UniCredit Bank of Italy warns: Europe may be difficult to contain the crypto banking crisis under MiCA rules

Comparing news, according to CoinDesk, Italy's UniCredit Bank executive Elena Carletti warned that Europe may not be able to cope with financial shocks related to crypto companies and banks. Carletti notes that when Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank went bankrupt in 2023, the US decided to protect all deposits, including funds held by stablecoin issuers, a measure that helped stabilize the crypto market. Carletti said Europe cannot easily adopt the same measures. EU MiCA rules require stablecoin issuers to store reserve assets in liquid assets such as bank deposits and government securities, making them more closely tied to traditional banks. However, European deposit guarantee systems generally only protect up to €100,000 per bank per depositor. If large stablecoin reserve accounts are under pressure, this limit may not absorb the impact. According to Carletti, this creates a “double weakness.”

85d ago

The disappearance of 10-year funds

Source: The Odin Times Author: Dan Gray Compiled and edited by: BitPushNews is a benchmark venture capital fund taught in business school courses and thousands of limited partnership agreements (LPAs), which usually lasts for ten years. Capital is collected and invested in the startup portfolio during the first three to five years; in the remaining five years, funds are recovered as these companies are sold or listed. The limited partner (LP) recovers the principal amount, and any returns the general partner (GP) manages to generate, then the fund is liquidated and closed. It was a textbook version of venture capital, but today, it's largely gone. In April 2026, Robert Bartlett and Paolo Ramella of Stanford Law School published a paper exploring the impact of extended liquidity periods on venture capital. The paper, “The Disappearance of the Ten-Year Fund” (The Disappearance of the Ten-Year Fund), uses quarterly cash flow, net asset value (NAV), and portfolio company-related data from PitchBook covering funds established between 1995 and 2014. Their study found that the ten-year period (which theoretically anchors fund accounting, performance reporting, fundraising cycles, and LP expectations) no longer corresponds to the underlying economic conditions of the venture capital market. “In the later stages of the fund's existence, unrealized net asset value (Unrealized NAV) rose sharply in all years of the fund, particularly in the venture capital sector. Many funds continue to allocate funds even after 20 years.” For funds from 2010 to 2014, the net asset value (NAV) reported by medium venture capital funds in year 10 still exceeded their total paid-up capital. When the vehicle should theoretically be finalized, such a large percentage of the fund's value was still unrealized. Bartlett and Ramella observed that the extension of the fund's term was not because modern funds were slower to convert net asset value into cash than their predecessors; there was no significant change in the speed of distribution after the liquidity incident. The core reason is that portfolio companies have been privatized for longer and have become larger. “Higher net asset values in the later stages mainly reflect greater value creation: portfolio companies holding these funds reached significant increases in valuation in the 10th year and showed more extreme 'right tail' (excess returns) results.” From a time value perspective, the impact of extended liquidity periods on venture capital performance is clearly negative. If significant amounts of value remain unrealized by year 10, then the medium-term internal rate of return (IRR) must mix actual allocations with valuation predictions. As the liquidity period lengthens, these indicators will drift downward unless the unrealized portion increases in value at an unusually rapid rate. This downward drift is systematic, more evident in venture capital than in private equity (PE), and has been more prominent in recent years of annual funds, where the late-stage net asset value of these funds expanded the most. “When evaluating managers (especially venture capital managers), investors should expect IRR to shrink even more when significant amounts of value remain in net asset value, even if the current medium-term IRR looks strong... These findings challenge the use of 10-year fund structures and interim performance indicators as reliable guides for measuring the exit timing, risk, and performance of private equity funds.” So if the ten-year structure is functionally inoperative, why is the industry still using it? Parkinson's Law industry practitioners have been vaguely aware of the current situation of extended deadlines for many years. In some ways, this is the same as Parkinson's Law: “Work automatically expands and takes up all available time.” In the context of venture capital, this can be rephrased as: “The foundation automatically expands to absorb all the capital available for management.” This reflects a shift in goals: from a fiduciary responsibility relationship that delivers the best results to a service relationship that manages large-scale capital to meet the large LP groups that need to allocate funds under the “venture capital” label. As a result, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB)'s “State of the Market Report for the First Half of 2026” describes a venture capital market that has split into two fundamentally separate industries, although they still operate within the same distribution pool. One end is a large-scale growth round of financing dominated by mega-funds (Mega-funds); the other end is shrinking, self...

110d agoWendy#AI #LP #VC #Fund #depths #Capital efficiency #venture capital

Analyst: Bitcoin funding rate falls to its lowest level since 2023, or indicates that a bottom has formed

Comparing news, CoinDesk analyst James Van Straten wrote that the Bitcoin funding rate has fallen to the most negative level since 2023, and historical rules show that such signals often coincide with the bottom of the market. According to Glassnode data, the seven-day moving average of the funding rate has dropped to about -0.005%. The funding rate is a fee that both long and short in a perpetual contract pay to each other on a regular basis to keep the contract price consistent with the spot market. When the rate is positive, the bulls pay the bears, reflecting the bullish sentiment in the market; when the rate is negative, the bears pay the long, indicating that the market is biased towards shorting. Despite continued negative funding rates from March to April this year, Bitcoin fluctuated upward from the $60,000-$65,000 range to around $75,000. Historically, deep negative funding rates have often coincided with Bitcoin's phased bottom: Bitcoin fell to about $3,000 during the COVID-induced market crash in March 2020; fell to $30,000 during China's mining ban in 2021; bottomed out at around $15,000 when FTX crashed in November 2022; and briefly fell below $20,000 during the 2023 Silicon Valley Bank crisis. Negative capital rates also coincided with phased lows during the closing of the yen arbitrage trade in August 2024 and the Liberation Day sell-off in April 2025. Continued negative funding rates indicate that even if the price trend is improving, short positions are still at a high level. This divergence may mean that the market is rising through a wall of concern, and large short positions may fuel further upward prices.

128d ago

Delphi Digital: Even if stablecoins have sufficient collateral, that doesn't mean they are immune to potential crowding

Comparing the news, Delphi Digital tweeted, “Tether and Circle are not foolproof systems. Just because they are secured by short-term treasury bonds and cash equivalents on a 1:1 ratio doesn't mean they are immune to potential crowding. The USDC de-anchoring incident already showed signs of this risk as early as the Bank of Silicon Valley (SVB) went bankrupt in early 2023. USDC was originally fully reserved, but when the Bank of Silicon Valley went out of business, part of the reserve was temporarily unavailable. This means that risk is only shifting upwards. In the traditional banking industry, payment risks are usually scattered among institutions. In a stablecoin system, payment channels may be deterministic and automated, but this means that settlement risks that were originally eliminated among participants are now concentrated at the issuer level. The system has not become risk-free, but has transformed into a vertically dependent structure. This is the root cause of concern that the concentration of issuers is beginning to cause concern.”

159d ago