Bitcoin (BTC) grew to account for about 1.7% of global money, a figure that includes aggregate M2 money supply data for all major fiat currencies, the largest minor currencies, and gold’s market cap, according to River, a Bitcoin financial services company.

“In 16 years, Bitcoin went up to 1.7% of global money,” River said. The company weighed Bitcoin’s market cap against a $112.9 trillion basket of fiat currencies and $25.1 trillion in hard money, which excluded silver, platinum, and exotic metals like palladium.

The data assumes Bitcoin has a market capitalization of $2.4 trillion, which it topped earlier in August. However, BTC’s current market cap is approximately $2.29 trillion, which brings its total share of global money down to around 1.66% at the time of this writing.

Bitcoin and gold continue to claim a greater share of the global money pie as central banks around the world inflate their fiat currencies through excessive money printing, destroying purchasing power and driving investors to hard money alternatives.

Related: Crypto sentiment returns to Greed as Bitcoin and Ether spike on Fed speech

US Federal Reserve chair signals coming rate cuts and continued monetary expansion

United States Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell delivered a keynote address at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium in Wyoming on Friday, signaling impending interest rate cuts and continued monetary expansion. Powell said:

“Our policy rate is now 100 basis points (BPS) closer to neutral than it was a year ago, and the stability of the unemployment rate and other labor market measures allows us to proceed carefully as we consider changes to our policy stance.”

The price of Bitcoin surged by over 2% in response to Powell’s speech, hitting a price of about $116,000 per BTC on Friday.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies tend to appreciate during periods of monetary expansion, as the price of digital assets continues to correlate with global liquidity levels.

75% of investors now anticipate an interest rate cut of 25 basis points in September, according to data from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Group.

Magazine: Baby boomers worth $79T are finally getting on board with Bitcoin

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/btc-climbed-to-1-7-of-global-money-before-fed-chair-signaled-rate-cut/feed/ 0 54766 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/sec-chair-confirms-very-few-cryptos-are-securities-but-markets-continue-to-correct/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/sec-chair-confirms-very-few-cryptos-are-securities-but-markets-continue-to-correct/#respond Wed, 20 Aug 2025 07:46:13 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/sec-chair-confirms-very-few-cryptos-are-securities-but-markets-continue-to-correct/

Bitcoin’s next major leg higher may depend less on halving lore and more on personnel politics in Washington. In an August 18 market note on X, economist and crypto analyst Alex Krüger argued that the cycle’s duration will be set by the Federal Reserve’s leadership change—specifically, who President Trump nominates to replace Jerome Powell—rather than by any fixed four-year pattern. “I have a high degree of confidence this cycle is not over because I am expecting changes in the Fed to bring on considerably more dovish monetary policy, which is not priced in at the moment; this would start to get priced in once Trump announces his nominee to replace Powell,” Krüger wrote.

Bitcoin Bull Run Depends On New Fed Chair

Krüger dismissed worries that a pullback from record highs marks the top, calling it “remarkable how every time you get a correction from new highs so many people start to fret about the cycle top. Over and over again.” He reiterated his longstanding critique of the halving-cycle orthodoxy: “The concept of a 4 year cycle in 2025 is misplaced; [it] died two cycles ago, and 2021 was a coincidence, as it was macro driven.” In his view, the last cycle ended because the Fed turned “ultra-hawkish in January 2022,” not because of any endogenous Bitcoin dynamic.

Related Reading

The nomination clock is visible. Powell’s current four-year term as chair ends on May 15, 2026, and reporting over the past two weeks indicates the White House has narrowed a shortlist to “three or four” names, with an announcement potentially coming sooner than expected. Candidates floated in mainstream coverage include former Fed governor Kevin Warsh and NEC Director Kevin Hassett among others, underscoring the market’s focus on how dovish—or not—the next chair might be.

In the nearer term, the policy calendar still drives the tape. Powell’s final Jackson Hole appearance, scheduled during the Aug. 21–23 symposium, is widely framed as a tone-setting moment before the September FOMC. Consensus coverage flags the risk that Powell leans hawkish to preserve optionality, even as rates markets handicap a cut next month; Krüger leans “slightly bearish into it as a hawkish speech (to reduce the odds of a September cut) makes sense, for the Fed to retain optionality and not let the market push itself into a corner.”

Technically, Bitcoin has cooled after printing fresh all-time highs in mid-July and again last week. Traders are watching the previous $112,000 high as initial downside cushion, with the psychologically critical $100,000 level, the overhead reference remains the $122,000–$124,000 zone of recent peaks. Krüger also highlights that “BTC is having a very hard time going up sans leverage without triggers,” a point echoed by derivatives signals showing compressed risk appetite.

Related Reading

Derivatives and volatility gauges corroborate the “low-vol, slow ascent” regime he describes. Implied volatility on BTC options (DVOL/BVIV) has sat near two-year lows, and open interest on institutional venues remains off July highs, signaling a more measured stance from levered players into Jackson Hole. Krüger also observed that futures basis had eased alongside the pullback—a classic sign of froth leaking out—while options markets show a renewed bid for downside protection on dips.

The macro through-line is straightforward: if the Fed chair nomination tilts dovish, markets will begin discounting a looser stance well before the first policy move, extending the cycle; if the candidate (and subsequent guidance) skews restrictive, the liquidity impulse that powered Bitcoin’s post-ETF advance will fade at the margin.

For now, the immediate catalysts are stacked—Powell at Jackson Hole, followed by PCE, NFP, CPI and PPI into September’s FOMC—while price trades between well-defined levels with volatility suppressed. As Krüger put it, bull markets “don’t end because of valuations or over-extension; the end needs a major trigger.” In 2025, that trigger may well be a name.

At press time, BTC traded at $115,683.

Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com

The Senate Agriculture Committee will consider President Donald Trump’s nominee for chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Brian Quintenz, as lawmakers weigh a broader shift in crypto regulation that could dramatically expand the agency’s role.

The committee is scheduled to review Quintenz’s nomination during a July 21 hearing, ahead of a full Senate vote regarding his appointment expected next week.

His confirmation would come at a pivotal moment as Congress debates the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act legislation. The legislation aims to establish a clear regulatory framework for the digital asset industry and designate a primary supervisor.

Quintenz, a former CFTC commissioner, may have to lead the agency alone. Acting Chair Caroline Pham and Commissioner Kristin Johnson are both anticipated to depart by the end of 2025, and no additional nominations have been announced.

The CLARITY Act, which passed the House on July 17 with bipartisan support, proposes a regulatory framework that would designate the CFTC as the lead watchdog for most digital commodities, including crypto.

Its future in the Senate remains uncertain, with possible amendments and political divisions still in play. Senate Banking Committee leaders have expressed interest in moving the bill forward before October, though no formal vote has been scheduled.

If passed, the legislation could recalibrate the balance of power between the CFTC and the SEC, the nation’s two primary financial regulators.

While the crypto industry has largely backed the bill as a step toward clearer oversight, regulatory leadership changes may complicate implementation.

The CFTC’s existing leadership has signaled support for the proposed reforms, emphasizing the agency’s readiness to adapt.

Should Quintenz be confirmed without further appointments, he may find himself guiding the CFTC through one of the most consequential shifts in its history without additional support.

Mentioned in this article

US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Paul Atkins showed openness to allowing cryptocurrencies in 401 (k) retirement plans for Americans, but highlighted the need for responsible disclosure.

During a Bloomberg interview published Friday, Atkins did not rule out allowing cryptocurrencies into 401 (k) plans. Still, he emphasized that education on the risks associated with such an investment is crucial.

“Disclosure is key and that people need to know what they are getting into,” Atkins said when asked about the potential inclusion of crypto into 401 (k) plans. Still, he added that he looks “forward to whatever may come out from the president.”

US President Donald Trump is reportedly set to sign an executive order that could allow 401(k) retirement plans to invest in assets other than stocks and bonds, such as cryptocurrencies. In April, Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville said he would reintroduce a bill he sponsored in May 2022 that would scale back regulations on the types of investments used in 401(k) retirement plan fiduciaries.

A 401(k) is a US employer-sponsored retirement plan that allows workers to defer part of their salary into tax-advantaged investment accounts, often with employer matching contributions.

Related: Bitcoin ETFs for retirement planning: A beginner’s guide

Expectations of crypto in 401 (k) plans

Also in April, Fidelity, a financial services company with $5.9 trillion in assets under management, introduced retirement accounts that will allow Americans to invest in crypto nearly fee-free. The three new accounts are a tax-deferred traditional IRA and two Roth IRAs (one of which is a rollover) that will enable the inclusion of Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), and Litecoin (LTC).

Related: Is Bitcoin a good investment for retirement?

At the end of May, the US Labor Department rescinded guidance issued during the administration of former President Joe Biden administration that limited the inclusion of cryptocurrency in 401(k) retirement plans.

“We’re rolling back this overreach and making it clear that investment decisions should be made by fiduciaries, not D.C. bureaucrats,” US Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer said at the time.

Magazine: Older investors are risking everything for a crypto-funded retirement

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/us-sec-chair-atkins-education-is-key-for-crypto-in-retirement-accounts/feed/ 0 48349 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/what-did-the-block-chair-highlight-about-bitcoins-security-budget/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/what-did-the-block-chair-highlight-about-bitcoins-security-budget/#respond Sat, 12 Jul 2025 01:28:51 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/what-did-the-block-chair-highlight-about-bitcoins-security-budget/

July 11th What did the Block Chair highlight about Bitcoin’s security budget?

Blockchain Explorer and Analytics Firm Blockchair recently launched its budget. Day is a website designed to raise awareness and encourage discussion about the decline in Bitcoin security budget. This is an issue that could threaten the long-term viability of your network. The platform presents a simplified live visualization so that users can understand how Bitcoin security is funded through a combination of block subsidies and transaction fees. With block subsidies halving every four years and the fare market still undeveloped, the budget underscores the increased risk of insufficient mining incentives, which could expose the network to a potential 51% attack. The site also explores potential responses, ranging from scaling solutions to controversial proposals such as changes to 21 million BTC supply caps. By addressing widespread misconceptions such as relying on Hashrate’s growth and optimistic price forecasts, Blockchair aims to promote more informed, solution-oriented debates about Bitcoin’s future security.

How does Bitcoin security model actually work?

Bitcoin’s security model is based on a distributed proof of job (POW) consensus mechanism. This mechanism involves miners spend computational energy to validate transactions and protect the network. This model relies on economic incentives to adjust participants’ interests and to block malicious behavior. Miners compete to solve the encryption puzzle, and those who first find a valid solution will win the right to add new blocks to the blockchain. This process requires significant energy consumption and hardware investment, making attacks like double spending and chain reorganization economically unfeasible, unless the attacker controls most of the total network hashrate. The difficulty adjustment algorithm ensures that blocks are generated every 10 minutes regardless of changes in network hash power, maintaining a stable cadence of predictable publication and transaction processing.

A “security budget” refers to the total amount of value paid to a miner to encourage this ongoing work. These are two important factors: block subsidies and transaction fees. Block subsidies are new bitcoins created in each block, starting at 50 btc, half every four years (currently at 3.125 BTC per block as of half of 2024). Transaction fees are paid by users to include transactions in blocks, and become more and more important over time as subsidies decrease. Together, these rewards must remain economically attractive enough to maintain participation of miners. If security budgets are below what miners need to cover operational costs, some may drop networks, reduce hashrates, and make them more vulnerable to system attacks.

Bitcoin’s long-term security model predicts that the final face will be eliminated from block subsidies approaching zero around 2140. As a result, the network ultimately relies entirely on transaction fees to maintain its security budget. This shift has made the ongoing high demand for block space and healthy rate markets very important. If trading volumes and fees are too low in the unsubsidized future, Bitcoin could struggle to maintain sufficient hash power unless alternative mechanisms (such as optional sidechains and off-chain solutions such as lightning networks) generate sufficient economic activity to maintain base tier fees. Critics have questioned whether fees alone are sufficient to maintain robust security, but supporters argue that rarity, adoption and economic utility support a naturally viable fee market.

An important feature of this model is its game-theoretical resilience. Miners are encouraged to act honestly, as attacking networks is not only expensive, but also undermine trust in the system and undermine the value of the attacker’s own Bitcoin holdings and mining infrastructure. Furthermore, as Bitcoin’s fixed supply schedules have declined over time the security budget issuance component, the long-term viability of the network depends on demand-driven transaction fees and ongoing technology adaptation. Therefore, Bitcoin’s security model is not static, but a dynamic equilibrium of economic incentives, user behavior and technological innovation, all of which need to continue evolving in tandem to maintain network integrity.

What is a budget? Why do you claim that Bitcoin’s security model is risky?

Blockchair’s newly launched website, Buldge.day, serves as educational resources and warning signals for bitcoin security budgets that decrease by 50% every 210,000 blocks when herbs occur, or block subsidies, which can become a structural issue with a long-term impact on network history. The site provides an explicit language breakdown of how Bitcoin’s POW model relies on miners’ compensation through block subsidies and transaction fees, and what happens when its financial incentives become weaker. Budget fills the budget as blocks’ rewards are halved every four years and trading fees cannot fill the gap. Day argues that Bitcoin could ultimately face situations where its economic defenses no longer thwart attacks such as double spending, trading censorship, or network stalling. The concern is not theoretical. It is based on measurable trends and declines in miners’ revenue compared to the overall value of Bitcoin.

At the heart of the site’s discussion is the decline in block subsidies, which now drops to 3.125 BTC per block, eventually reaching zero around 2140. Theoretically, this reduction subsidy should be offset by a robust fee market, but it suggests that no data has occurred. As of early 2025, trading fees have contributed only a small portion of miners’ total revenue, and fee levels remain low as users are motivated to seek cheaper alternatives in other chains due to limited block space. The budget warns that if fees and revenue from rising BTC prices do not outweigh the decline in subsidies, there may be fewer miners who may feel they are worthy of securing a network. This reduces hash power, lowers the cost threshold for successful 51% attacks, and weakens the deterrent that underpins Bitcoin’s unreliable design.

Budget outlines some potential paths, ranging from technical scaling to more fundamental protocol changes. The first option, on-chain scaling, includes increasing block size, reducing block time, or incorporating optional block extensions. These changes could potentially increase transactions per block, allowing individual fees to be reduced while maintaining appropriate total miner compensation. More controversial proposals include shifting Bitcoin consensus mechanisms through mechanisms such as tail ejection and demerging to alternatives such as proof of fact and alternatives that implement continuous inflation. However, these approaches raise philosophical and practical concerns, such as violations of Bitcoin’s fixed supply principles and increased risk of centralization. This site presents these as trade-offs that need to be critically evaluated, rather than as approval.

A key part of the budget is challenging the widely held assumptions about Bitcoin’s future security. The site warns that hashrates alone will not guarantee security, especially when it comes to cheap energy or hardware. It also counters the idea that future Bitcoin price increases will automatically resolve the issue, allowing miners to be paid with BTC, potential attackers to be funded with BTC, and FIAT’s negative predictions are made regardless of network security. The conclusion is direct but measured. Without meaningful adaptations and reforms, Bitcoin’s current incentive model may not be sufficient to secure a chain in the long term. The site does not claim to provide a final answer, but rather seeks to raise technical and economic issues that are below the debate despite its fundamental importance.

Is the block chair problem trolling or is the conversation worth it?

The team behind the budget deserves recognition by opening conversations that have long been preferred over side steps by many of the Bitcoin community. Addressing the long-term viability of Bitcoin security budgets is not an easy task, especially when challenging the general narrative of self-sufficiency and inevitable success. Rather than promoting self-satisfaction, the project highlights the true risks associated with reduced incentives for miners and the assumption that rising prices or speculative demand will naturally resolve all structural problems. By presenting data in a clear and accessible way, the budget invites the community to be honest with these concerns. This requires both technical insight and a willingness to question legitimacy.

When Bitcoin was introduced, it was envisioned as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, allowing for large amounts of daily trading at a minimum fee. Early usage reflects its purpose, with microtransactions and direct payments playing a central role. But over time the story changed. Faced with intense internal debate about scalability limitations and block size, Bitcoin’s dominant use cases have evolved to that of “digital gold.” This transformation has provided certain benefits such as broader institutional acceptance and enhanced and valuable appeals, but also produced unintended side effects. The decline in Bitcoin usage has weakened the development of a sustainable fee market that could ultimately replace block subsidies. This dynamic poses a structural challenge to the long-term integrity of Bitcoin’s work proof system. Relying on rising transaction fees to compensate for falling subsidies envisages continuous, large-scale use of the baseline. However, when most owners are investors who rarely move coins, and those seeking low-cost move to a tier 2 solution or alternative blockchain, the on-chain activity needed to support miners’ incentives may not be realized.

With the perceived impact on network fees and differences from Bitcoin’s original purpose, unorthodox tokenization protocols such as ordinal numbers and runes have sparked major controversy within the Bitcoin community. These protocols allowed the inscription and mint of digital assets on the Bitcoin blockchain, and in many cases, trading fees have skyrocketed during periods of high activity. For many everyday users, this rendered Bitcoin is temporarily unavailable, making basic transactions prohibitively expensive. Critics, especially the longtime Bitcoiner, dismissed these tokens, messed up the network and misused block space for speculative purposes. However, from the perspective of miners operating at thin razor margins in an increasingly competitive environment, these fee spikes needed so much revenue that some miners began offering private mempools and out-of-band relay channels directly to tokenization projects, such as marathon slipstreams. As block subsidies have declined over time, the additional revenue generated by ordinances and rune-driven demand provided temporary economic reprieves, highlighting the growing tension between Bitcoin’s evolving use cases and its reduced security budget.

Several voices from the Bitcoin development community, including Peter Todd, have expressed concern about the issue. Todd is openly debating the possibility that hard forks introducing modest, continuous inflation, such as tail release, or that it may be necessary to ultimately protect the network as subsidies approach zero. Such a proposal is naturally controversial as it challenges one of the fixed 21 million btc supply caps, one of Bitcoin’s most sacred design principles. However, raising these options should not be seen as heresy, but as a responsible effort to maintain the long-term viability of the system. The budget does not specify a specific solution, but it should be praised for bringing these perspectives to the surface. Ignoring the potential discrepancies between current usage patterns of Bitcoin and its future security model, the network will not give favor. By choosing to take difficult questions seriously, the leadership behind the budget ensures that Bitcoin evolution is guided by informed deliberations rather than blind faith.

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/what-did-the-block-chair-highlight-about-bitcoins-security-budget/feed/ 0 47124 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/fed-chair-jerome-powell-addresses-us-dollar-weakness-says-markets-are-in-unusually-challenging-circumstances/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/fed-chair-jerome-powell-addresses-us-dollar-weakness-says-markets-are-in-unusually-challenging-circumstances/#respond Wed, 25 Jun 2025 18:12:58 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/fed-chair-jerome-powell-addresses-us-dollar-weakness-says-markets-are-in-unusually-challenging-circumstances/

The Chair of the Federal Reserve says financial markets are dealing with a unique set of circumstances that may be contributing to dollar weakness.

In a recent testimony to the US Senate, Powell tells members of the Senate’s banking panel that while the US dollar appears to be doing better, the Fed has yet to formally form an opinion on the matter.

“I would go back to the thought that markets have been digesting an unusually challenging set of circumstances and have reacted the way they reacted. The dollar has kind of stabilized just now, in fact it’s moved back up in the last couple of weeks a bit. There are plenty of people who are still writing that the dollar is still overvalued, we don’t have a view on that of course…

I don’t really have an official view I’d like to share, [but] I think there are possible explanations…one of which is that people still feel the dollar is highly valued, but we’ll see.”

Touching on the subject of tariffs, Powell says markets are in uncharted territory since tariffs have only ever been going down for many decades.

“We’ve been going through a long period where tariffs have been going down. Since World War 2 really, it’s been a process of lowering tariffs globally…

There isn’t a lot of modern learning on that. One of the reasons 1750875178 is so challenging is that we don’t have modern precedent.”

Follow us on X, Facebook and Telegram

Don’t Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox

Check Price Action

Surf The Daily Hodl Mix

&nbsp

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed at The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making any high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please be advised that your transfers and trades are at your own risk, and any losses you may incur are your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the buying or selling of any cryptocurrencies or digital assets, nor is The Daily Hodl an investment advisor. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing.

Generated Image: Midjourney

US President Donald Trump has more insults for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

At a bill signing ceremony on Thursday, Trump claimed the government would save $600 billion a year in short-term debt payments if Powell lowered the federal funds rate by 2 percentage points.

In May, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced that it planned to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 4.25-4.5%, arguing that it was the most suitable level to achieve both maximum employment and controlled inflation. The Fed has held interest rates steady since December, when it cut the rate by 0.25%.

Trump says he’s not planning on firing Powell, but he slammed the Fed chair for not adjusting course.

“We’re going to spend $600 billion a year – $600 billion – because of one numbskull that sits there [and says] ‘I don’t see enough reason to cut the rates now.’ And the problem he’s got, and I explained to him… cut your rates now, there’s no inflation. We got it down, we got prices down.” 

Inflation rose by 2.4% in May, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was slightly less than the 2.5% increase predicted by economists, CBS reports.

Powell met with Trump last month following a barrage of insults from the president. The Fed, however, noted in a statement following the meeting that Powell did not discuss interest rate expectations with the president.

“At the President’s invitation, Chair Powell met with the President today at the White House to discuss economic developments, including for growth, employment, and inflation.

Chair Powell did not discuss his expectations for monetary policy, except to stress that the path of policy will depend entirely on incoming economic information and what that means for the outlook.

Finally, Chair Powell said that he and his colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will set monetary policy, as required by law, to support maximum employment and stable prices and will make those decisions based solely on careful, objective, and non-political analysis.”

Trump has repeatedly criticized Powell for not slashing interest rates, saying earlier in May that communicating with the Fed chair was “like talking to a wall.”

“The Bank of England cut. China cut. Everybody’s cutting but him. I don’t know, we’ll see what happens. It’s a shame. I call him ‘Too Late.’ Too Late Powell, that’s his nickname. And it’s a shame, it’s ridiculous… he’s always too late. But in this case, it’s not going to matter that much because our country is so strong, we’re so powerful in terms of economic strength and what we’ve done.” 

Follow us on X, Facebook and Telegram

Don’t Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox

Check Price Action

Surf The Daily Hodl Mix

&nbsp

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed at The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making any high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please be advised that your transfers and trades are at your own risk, and any losses you may incur are your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the buying or selling of any cryptocurrencies or digital assets, nor is The Daily Hodl an investment advisor. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing.

Generated Image: Midjourney