Latest news with #US250
The Age
2 days ago
- Business
- The Age
The Genius move that could blow up in America's face
There are already about $US250 billion of stablecoins on issue but, assuming the House endorses the bill (it has previously passed a slightly different version, named the STABLE Act) the legislation is likely to encourage a flood of new issuers. Amazon and Walmart and other retailers, large and small, are said to be preparing to issue their own tokens, along with other participants in payment chains. The major US banks have talked about creating one, the big tech companies would inevitably become involved and, as with the Trumps, there'd be a host of entrepreneurial types entering the sector. A report by Citigroup earlier this year said there could be $US3.7 trillion of stablecoins on issue by 2030, while a US Treasury analysis estimated there'd be $US2 trillion on issue by 2028. The potential benefits of wide use of stablecoins are obvious. They'd cut out the middlemen of finance – the crypto universe is a peer-to-peer one – making merchant fees, interchange fees and wire transfer fees increasingly redundant, along with the waiting for funds to be cleared. That explains retailers' interest in them, and the threat they pose to the major credit and debit card operators. US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, is also enthusiastic about what they might mean for the US dollar and US Treasury market. Loading The dollar and US Treasury securities are already the most common assets used to back stablecoins and could be expected to be the assets of choice for tokens issued within the framework established by the Genius Act. That would provide a massive new source of demand for the dollar and Treasury securities, buttressing the dollar's global dominance and lowering the US government's cost of funds, or at least that's Bessent's theory. In practice, most of the funds to provide the dollar-for-dollar backing for the stablecoins would probably come from traditional finance sources – banks and money market funds being the most obvious. The flows of US dollar assets would be redirected, rather than new sources tapped. That's an important point, because it means deposits could be withdrawn from highly-regulated and, for deposits of less than $US250,000 in the US, insured environments into one that is far less onerously regulated and where the funds would not be insured. Unlike bank deposits, where the Federal Reserve Board backstops the system, there would be no lender of last resort (one of the BIS criticisms), fewer protections against the use of the tokens for illicit activities (another) and they don't have the capacity that banks have to create money (yet another weakness identified by the BIS). Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. If the forecasts of the extent to which the stablecoin issuance could grow are correct, they could have an impact on the stability of the US and potentially other banking systems. They would convert largely retail deposits, which are generally stable and are covered by federal insurance, into more volatile and uninsured wholesale deposits. The regional banking crisis in the US in 2023 was triggered by a run on Silicon Valley Bank's wholesale deposits. Under the Genius Act, stablecoin issuers would be required to hold $US1 of easily cashable assets for each $US1 of stablecoins. It's relatively easy for the issuers to acquire US Treasury bills, or repurchase agreements backed by Treasury securities or cash to match new deposits. If there were, however, a sudden flood of redemption requests and a need to cash out the underlying assets urgently – if the issuer had to dump assets to raise cash in the face of what, in a bank, would be a 'run' – there would be a likelihood of losses on the face value of the Treasury bills and other assets in a forced sale. Some existing stablecoins have traded well below par. With no guarantor or lender of last resort, any liquidity event in a stablecoin would spark a frenetic scramble for the exit by investors, exacerbating the losses and raising the spectre of contagion for the rest of the sector. While the Genius Act makes it explicit that the stablecoins wouldn't be guaranteed by the government or have access to the Fed's facilities, if there were a sector-wide implosion and trillions of dollars of Treasury securities and bank deposits were being dumped into the markets, the pressure for the White House to intervene would be extreme. It would be even more extreme if the president at that moment had a multi-billion exposure to the stablecoin market. The act prohibits members of Congress or the US executive branch from owning or issuing stablecoins, but an attempt by the Democrats to include the president and vice president in that prohibition failed. The other major criticism of the act is that it could create a 'back to the future' moment, a return to a 19th century America where almost anyone could open a bank and issue their own currency as long as they had a dollar of collateral for each dollar they issued. Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. Fiat currencies are fungible, crypto assets are not. Each stablecoin could be backed by a different mix of assets and therefore their vulnerability to an external event, or ability to respond to a run, will differ between issuers. Loading Short of real time continuous auditing of every stablecoin issuer, there can't be the same level of trust that there is in the traditional banking and payment systems. By endorsing and providing credibility for stablecoins, however, the US lawmakers are bringing crypto into the mainstream of the US banking and payments systems, fragmenting them to at least some degree and introducing a potential new source of instability.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
The US is about to bring crypto into the mainstream of finance
There are already about $US250 billion of stablecoins on issue but, assuming the House endorses the bill (it has previously passed a slightly different version, named the STABLE Act) the legislation is likely to encourage a flood of new issuers. Amazon and Walmart and other retailers, large and small, are said to be preparing to issue their own tokens, along with other participants in payment chains. The major US banks have talked about creating one, the big tech companies would inevitably become involved and, as with the Trumps, there'd be a host of entrepreneurial types entering the sector. A report by Citigroup earlier this year said there could be $US3.7 trillion of stablecoins on issue by 2030, while a US Treasury analysis estimated there'd be $US2 trillion on issue by 2028. The potential benefits of wide use of stablecoins are obvious. They'd cut out the middlemen of finance – the crypto universe is a peer-to-peer one – making merchant fees, interchange fees and wire transfer fees increasingly redundant, along with the waiting for funds to be cleared. That explains retailers' interest in them, and the threat they pose to the major credit and debit card operators. US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, is also enthusiastic about what they might mean for the US dollar and US Treasury market. Loading The dollar and US Treasury securities are already the most common assets used to back stablecoins and could be expected to be the assets of choice for tokens issued within the framework established by the Genius Act. That would provide a massive new source of demand for the dollar and Treasury securities, buttressing the dollar's global dominance and lowering the US government's cost of funds, or at least that's Bessent's theory. In practice, most of the funds to provide the dollar-for-dollar backing for the stablecoins would probably come from traditional finance sources – banks and money market funds being the most obvious. The flows of US dollar assets would be redirected, rather than new sources tapped. That's an important point, because it means deposits could be withdrawn from highly-regulated and, for deposits of less than $US250,000 in the US, insured environments into one that is far less onerously regulated and where the funds would not be insured. Unlike bank deposits, where the Federal Reserve Board backstops the system, there would be no lender of last resort (one of the BIS criticisms), fewer protections against the use of the tokens for illicit activities (another) and don't have the capacity that banks have to create money (yet another weakness identified by the BIS). Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. If the forecasts of the extent to which the stablecoin issuance could grow are correct, they could have an impact on the stability of the US and potentially other banking systems. They would convert largely retail deposits, which are generally stable and are covered by federal insurance, into more volatile and uninsured wholesale deposits. The regional banking crisis in the US in 2023 was triggered by a run on Silicon Valley Bank's wholesale deposits. Under the Genius Act, stablecoin issuers would be required to hold $US1 of easily cashable assets for each $US1 of stablecoins. It's relatively easy for the issuers to acquire US Treasury bills, or repurchase agreements backed by Treasury securities or cash to match new deposits. If there were, however, a sudden flood of redemption requests and a need to cash out the underlying assets urgently – if the issuer had to dump assets to raise cash in the face of what, in a bank, would be a 'run' – there would be a likelihood of losses on the face value of the Treasury bills and other assets in a forced sale. Some existing stablecoins have traded well below par. With no guarantor or lender of last resort, any liquidity event in a stablecoin would spark a frenetic scramble for the exit by investors, exacerbating the losses and raising the spectre of contagion for the rest of the sector. While the Genius Act makes it explicit that the stablecoins wouldn't be guaranteed by the government or have access to the Fed's facilities, if there were a sector-wide implosion and trillions of dollars of Treasury securities and bank deposits were being dumped into the markets, the pressure for the White House to intervene would be extreme. It would be even more extreme if the president at that moment had a multi-billion exposure to the stablecoin market. The Act prohibits members of Congress or the US executive branch from owning or issuing stablecoins, but an attempt by the Democrats to include the president and vice president in that prohibition failed. The other major criticism of the Act is that it could create a 'back to the future' moment, a return to a 19th century America where almost anyone could open a bank and issue their own currency as long as they had a dollar of collateral for each dollar they issued. Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. Fiat currencies are fungible, crypto assets are not. Each stablecoin could be backed by a different mix of assets and therefore their vulnerability to an external event, or ability to respond to a run, will differ between issuers. Loading Short of real time continuous auditing of every stablecoin issuer, there can't be the same level of trust that there is in the traditional banking and payment systems. By endorsing and providing credibility for stablecoins, however, the US lawmakers are bringing crypto into the mainstream of the US banking and payments systems, fragmenting them to at least some degree and introducing a potential new source of instability.
The Age
3 days ago
- Business
- The Age
The US is about to bring crypto into the mainstream of finance
There are already about $US250 billion of stablecoins on issue but, assuming the House endorses the bill (it has previously passed a slightly different version, named the STABLE Act) the legislation is likely to encourage a flood of new issuers. Amazon and Walmart and other retailers, large and small, are said to be preparing to issue their own tokens, along with other participants in payment chains. The major US banks have talked about creating one, the big tech companies would inevitably become involved and, as with the Trumps, there'd be a host of entrepreneurial types entering the sector. A report by Citigroup earlier this year said there could be $US3.7 trillion of stablecoins on issue by 2030, while a US Treasury analysis estimated there'd be $US2 trillion on issue by 2028. The potential benefits of wide use of stablecoins are obvious. They'd cut out the middlemen of finance – the crypto universe is a peer-to-peer one – making merchant fees, interchange fees and wire transfer fees increasingly redundant, along with the waiting for funds to be cleared. That explains retailers' interest in them, and the threat they pose to the major credit and debit card operators. US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, is also enthusiastic about what they might mean for the US dollar and US Treasury market. Loading The dollar and US Treasury securities are already the most common assets used to back stablecoins and could be expected to be the assets of choice for tokens issued within the framework established by the Genius Act. That would provide a massive new source of demand for the dollar and Treasury securities, buttressing the dollar's global dominance and lowering the US government's cost of funds, or at least that's Bessent's theory. In practice, most of the funds to provide the dollar-for-dollar backing for the stablecoins would probably come from traditional finance sources – banks and money market funds being the most obvious. The flows of US dollar assets would be redirected, rather than new sources tapped. That's an important point, because it means deposits could be withdrawn from highly-regulated and, for deposits of less than $US250,000 in the US, insured environments into one that is far less onerously regulated and where the funds would not be insured. Unlike bank deposits, where the Federal Reserve Board backstops the system, there would be no lender of last resort (one of the BIS criticisms), fewer protections against the use of the tokens for illicit activities (another) and don't have the capacity that banks have to create money (yet another weakness identified by the BIS). Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. If the forecasts of the extent to which the stablecoin issuance could grow are correct, they could have an impact on the stability of the US and potentially other banking systems. They would convert largely retail deposits, which are generally stable and are covered by federal insurance, into more volatile and uninsured wholesale deposits. The regional banking crisis in the US in 2023 was triggered by a run on Silicon Valley Bank's wholesale deposits. Under the Genius Act, stablecoin issuers would be required to hold $US1 of easily cashable assets for each $US1 of stablecoins. It's relatively easy for the issuers to acquire US Treasury bills, or repurchase agreements backed by Treasury securities or cash to match new deposits. If there were, however, a sudden flood of redemption requests and a need to cash out the underlying assets urgently – if the issuer had to dump assets to raise cash in the face of what, in a bank, would be a 'run' – there would be a likelihood of losses on the face value of the Treasury bills and other assets in a forced sale. Some existing stablecoins have traded well below par. With no guarantor or lender of last resort, any liquidity event in a stablecoin would spark a frenetic scramble for the exit by investors, exacerbating the losses and raising the spectre of contagion for the rest of the sector. While the Genius Act makes it explicit that the stablecoins wouldn't be guaranteed by the government or have access to the Fed's facilities, if there were a sector-wide implosion and trillions of dollars of Treasury securities and bank deposits were being dumped into the markets, the pressure for the White House to intervene would be extreme. It would be even more extreme if the president at that moment had a multi-billion exposure to the stablecoin market. The Act prohibits members of Congress or the US executive branch from owning or issuing stablecoins, but an attempt by the Democrats to include the president and vice president in that prohibition failed. The other major criticism of the Act is that it could create a 'back to the future' moment, a return to a 19th century America where almost anyone could open a bank and issue their own currency as long as they had a dollar of collateral for each dollar they issued. Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. Fiat currencies are fungible, crypto assets are not. Each stablecoin could be backed by a different mix of assets and therefore their vulnerability to an external event, or ability to respond to a run, will differ between issuers. Loading Short of real time continuous auditing of every stablecoin issuer, there can't be the same level of trust that there is in the traditional banking and payment systems. By endorsing and providing credibility for stablecoins, however, the US lawmakers are bringing crypto into the mainstream of the US banking and payments systems, fragmenting them to at least some degree and introducing a potential new source of instability.
7NEWS
21-06-2025
- 7NEWS
Jury awards millions to parents of decapitated baby whose autopsy was shared on social media
A jury in the US state of Georgia has awarded $US2.25 million in damages to the parents of a baby who was decapitated during delivery and whose autopsy was posted on social media without his parents' consent. The parents, Treveon Taylor and Jessica Ross, will receive $US2 million in compensatory damages and an additional $US250,000 in punitive damages against the pathologist who posted the video, Dr. Jackson Gates, and Medical Diagnostic Choices in Atlanta. The parents sued Gates in September 2023 for alleged invasion of privacy, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 'While we are pleased that a jury punished Dr. Jackson Gates for his reprehensible behaviour, nothing can ease the pain that the parents, Jessica Ross and Treveon Isaiah Taylor, Sr., have experienced in losing their baby boy in such a horrific way,' attorneys for the family said in a statement this week. Gates did not immediately respond to an NBC News request for comment. The baby was deceased at the time of his delivery on July 10, 2023, the lawsuit stated. On July 12, Ross contracted Gates to conduct an autopsy for $2,500. Ross and Taylor did not permit Gates to share images of the autopsy, through the contract or verbally, according to the lawsuit. Gates uploaded multiple videos to his Instagram account that month showing 'in graphic and grisly detail a postmortem examination of the decapitated, severed head of Baby Isaiah,' as well as the baby's body, the suit stated. At the time, Gates' social media account showed a history of posting photos and videos of other autopsies. That account has been taken down, but he has at least one other account on YouTube. 'After the decapitation of their baby, Gates poured salt into the couple's already deep wounds when he betrayed them,' the family's attorneys said. Gates told NBC News in March 2024, after he was initially found liable in the case, that he had not violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) due to a clause that allows physicians to inform the public when there are safety concerns in health care. 'I have not violated HIPAA, it is not required by a physician to get consent to report a crime or some sort of health issue to the public,' Gates said at the time. 'I've been doing this for 15 years, publishing my autopsy cases to explain to the public the victimization of those persons who have died.' The parents sent a cease-and-desist letter in August 2023 for the videos of their child to be immediately removed; they filed a lawsuit against Gates the following month. Ross and Taylor also sued the facility where the delivery took place, Southern Regional Medical Centre, and obstetrician Dr. Tracey St. Julian — who is a member of a private practice and not the hospital — for 'ridiculously excessive force' used during the delivery of their son. The baby did not properly descend during labour, likely due to shoulder dystocia, a condition that occurs when a baby's shoulder is caught behind the mother's pubic bone, according to the lawsuit against the medical providers. St. Julian tried to deliver the baby vaginally using different methods, including excessive traction resulting in decapitation, skull and facial bone fractures and other injuries, the suit states. Ross asked for a Cesarean section 'while the baby was viable,' the parents' attorney Roderick Edmond said at a news conference in 2023, and instead was told to keep pushing for three hours. The baby was ultimately delivered through an emergency C section, which the lawsuit alleges St. Julian failed to perform in a 'timely and proper manner' and resulted in the child's death. Southern Regional Medical Centre denied the 'allegations of wrongdoing' at the time and said in a statement. 'This unfortunate infant death occurred in utero prior to the delivery and decapitation,' they said. In February 2024, the Clayton County Medical Examiner's Office ruled the baby's death a homicide caused by 'actions of another person,' stating his death resulted from a fracture of cervical vertebrae in the spine. St. Julian's practice and lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did Southern Regional Medical Centre.
AU Financial Review
12-06-2025
- Politics
- AU Financial Review
US senator pushed to ground, handcuffed at LA briefing
Lawyers for Harvard University urged a federal judge to reinforce her block on the Trump administration's effort to bar the college from enrolling foreign students. In a filing in federal court in Boston on Thursday (Friday AEST), the university said the judge should do more to ensure the administrating is complying with her previous order. Harvard cited concerns that the administration would impose alternative restrictions on its ability to enroll foreign students. The filing is the latest salvo in the high-stakes battle between President Donald Trump and the US's oldest and richest university. Earlier, a Russian scientist at Harvard was freed on bail by a federal judge after spending four months in detention for failing to declare biological material she brought into the US for research. After winning release on Thursday, Kseniia Petrova is scheduled to reappear in court on June 18 for a hearing over whether the government will proceed with a criminal charge for smuggling, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $US250,000 fine. In February, US customs agents detained the Russia-born researcher and revoked her visa because she didn't declare frog embryos that she brought on a flight into Boston's Logan Airport. After the Trump administration called Petrova a threat to national security, and she challenged efforts to deport her, she was charged in May with illegal smuggling.
