Coinbase has launched a campaign claiming that “big banks want another bailout”. Those worried about bailouts should probably worry more about poorly regulated crypto firms integrating themselves into the financial system.
The Bank Policy Institute responded to the campaign, writing “A misleading ‘banks vs. crypto’ narrative and references to ‘bailouts’ — deeply ironic given that a Coinbase partner (Circle) was the largest beneficiary of the Silicon Valley Bank rescue — make it harder to achieve consensus on policies that both encourage competition and address financial stability risks.” They continue: “Bank-like stablecoins without full regulatory protections put the financial system at risk. They are less regulated cousins of the money market mutual funds that required a bailout in 2008 and again in 2020. If the crypto industry wants ‘no more bailouts,’ they should support guardrails against the true bailout risk in this debate: pseudo-banks operating without adequate safeguards.”28
![In elections and political influence
Coinbase has launched a campaign to lobby for passage of a crypto market structure bill and against the recent pressure from financial regulators, consumer advocacy groups, and banking organizations to revisit the GENIUS Act [I91]. One ad reads, “Big banks are coming for your crypto rewards. Don’t give them up. America voted pro-crypto. It’s time for the Senate to act.”26 They link to a website called nomorebailouts.org, where Coinbase and various other supporting crypto firms claim, “Big banks want another bailout. Do you really want to pay for it?” They don’t actually provide any detail as to how this amounts to lobbying for bailouts, nor do they mention the widespread concern that GENIUS and market structure legislation would result in bailouts for the crypto industry [I86]. Nevertheless, they encourage people to send form letters to their Senators which claim that “big banks are asking Congress to reverse law by bailing them out, not because they want to protect consumers, but because they want to stifle competition”. Jason Mikula of Fintech Business Weekly opined, “The effort may also serve as a not so subtle reminder to lawmakers that crypto-aligned PACs have more than $200 million on hand to spend in the 2026 midterm elections.”27](https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/115/340/560/608/162/829/original/135044e9a664aefd.png)
In elections and political influence
Coinbase has launched a campaign to lobby for passage of a crypto market structure bill and against the recent pressure from financial regulators, consumer advocacy groups, and banking organizations to revisit the GENIUS Act [I91]. One ad reads, “Big banks are coming for your crypto rewards. Don’t give them up. America voted pro-crypto. It’s time for the Senate to act.”26 They link to a website called nomorebailouts.org, where Coinbase and various other supporting crypto firms claim, “Big banks want another bailout. Do you really want to pay for it?” They don’t actually provide any detail as to how this amounts to lobbying for bailouts, nor do they mention the widespread concern that GENIUS and market structure legislation would result in bailouts for the crypto industry [I86]. Nevertheless, they encourage people to send form letters to their Senators which claim that “big banks are asking Congress to reverse law by bailing them out, not because they want to protect consumers, but because they want to stifle competition”. Jason Mikula of Fintech Business Weekly opined, “The effort may also serve as a not so subtle reminder to lawmakers that crypto-aligned PACs have more than $200 million on hand to spend in the 2026 midterm elections.”27
![Trump business interests
Hot on the heels of New York Times reporting about questionable timing in deals involving the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial and Emirati firm MGX [I93], The Washington Post has published related reporting focused on MGX’s upcoming 15% stake in the TikTok deal brokered by the Trump administration. Senator Warren (D-MA), who had already demanded an ethics investigation into the World Liberty and MGX deals, has stated that the “shady Abu Dhabi firm” had “already cut deals to get sensitive American technology while enriching the Trump family’s crypto firm. The American people deserve to know if the President has struck another backdoor deal for this billionaire takeover of TikTok.” A White House official has said that MGX’s investment profiting the Trump family crypto project had no bearing on the MGX deals, so... case closed, I guess?
Some have raised separate concerns about the TikTok deal, wondering if it’s a scheme to benefit the Trump allies who will take ownership of the firm. Vice President Vance’s recent statement that the firm was valued at only around $14 billion — a fraction of the $100 billion that one analyst previously estimated for the app — has led some to speculate that the company was intentionally undervalued to allow new investors to profit from an artificially large increase in value. Senator Wyden also commented on the arrangement, stating that “By steering TikTok to allies like Larry Ellison and a fund backed by the United](https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/115/340/532/160/406/345/original/c9d4f1ce5276532c.png)
![If realized, this would be the Trump-related second treasury firm with serious conflicts of interest in its management. ALT5 Sigma, a Nasdaq-listed company that pivoted to a WLFI treasury company, added several of World Liberty Financial’s executives to its board. A similar structure, where the treasury company shares leadership with the company that issues the token held in treasury, would suffer from similar issues: executives responsible for managing the treasury company would also stand to benefit from decisions that inflate the token’s value or promote its use, rather than from prudent management. This conflict was so blatant that the Nasdaq forced Eric Trump’s removal from the planned board of ALT5 Sigma, though other World Liberty executives were still allowed to take leadership and board positions [I92]. A $TRUMP treasury company would certainly benefit President Trump, whose businesses control 80% of the $TRUMP token supply and will require a liquid market to sell those holdings. If the same individuals are involved in both the token-issuing entity and the treasury company, they would effectively be negotiating with themselves — able to set whatever price they wish for the tokens the treasury purchases.](https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/115/340/536/732/713/940/original/0820831bdb41b992.png)
![In the White House
After rumors that the Trump administration was considering new candidates to replace Brian Quintenz as their nominee for CFTC chair [I93], the White House has withdrawn his nomination. Politico remarked on the “stunning turn of events for a nominee who once appeared to be a lock for confirmation”, writing that the incident was an “illustration of the new balance of power in Trump’s Washington” as the Winklevoss twins pressured President Trump to rescind his nomination.5 Quintenz has alleged that the Winklevosses might have “misled” Trump, publishing text messages with the brothers that he said he believed “make it clear what they were after from me, and what I refused to promise.” [I92] An anonymous source quoted by crypto outlet DL News, who they described as “familiar with discussions surrounding the CFTC nomination process”, stated, “They completely nuked him. They made a phone call. They were like, ‘This is not going to fly with us.’ And it was a very short trip from there to [Quintenz’s nomination] being killed.”6 The Winklevosses are not the only ones happy to see Quintenz out of the running, though. Dina Titus (D-NV), the co-chair of the Congressional Gaming Caucus who had called for an investigation into possible ethics violations by Quintenz pertaining to prediction markets [I90], responded to the news of the withdrawn nomination by writing, “Good. The CFTC deserves strong, independent leadership that will follow and enforce agency regulations.”7](https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/115/340/540/074/185/275/original/853681c11d8c043d.png)
![In Congress
The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of US unions, has slammed proposed crypto market structure legislation in a letter to the Senate Banking Committee. They write, “As drafted, this bill will enable the crypto industry to operate in wider and deeper ways in our financial system without sufficient oversight or meaningful safeguards.” They urge Senators to oppose the proposed bill, citing concerns that it will poorly regulate assets that may be incorporated into pension funds, and that it would increase financial instability. “This legislation provides the perfect environment for the next financial crisis to germinate,” they write.11
Whether anyone’s actually read the letter is unclear, as the government enters its second week of shutdown. With many congressional staff furloughed and legislative business largely stalled, the shutdown has thrown a wrench in the crypto industry’s hopes to get market structure legislation expeditiously passed into law. The industry had been pushing for quick passage before midterm campaigning begins and before a potentially less crypto-friendly Congress could make their preferred rules more challenging to implement [I84, 85].](https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/115/340/541/911/658/730/original/965bc1800f9b5ba2.png)
