Democrats Probe FHFA Over Proposed Crypto Mortgage Plan

TheCryptoTimesPublicado em 2025-07-06Última atualização em 2025-07-28

Five Senate Democrats, led by Jeff Merkley, have challenged the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte over his recent order to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to come up with proposals for considering crypto in mortgage applications. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Chris Van Hollen, Mazie Hirono, and Bernie Sanders co-signed the letter. The senators expressed concerns that William’s proposal could introduce unnecessary risks to consumers and threaten the stability of the U.S. housing and financial markets.

The senators sent a letter to William Pulte requesting detailed explanations of FHFA’s risk assessment process and the potential implications for housing market stability. They highlighted the volatility of cryptocurrency prices, default risks, potential for scams, and limited traceability as factors that could increase mortgage default rates and systemic risks. 

In the letter, the senators stated, “Under current policy, neither the Enterprises nor any other channel for federally backed, insured, or guaranteed mortgages permits mortgage lenders to consider cryptocurrency when determining whether they can afford a mortgage, unless that cryptocurrency has been converted to U.S. dollars and is accompanied by appropriate documentation…. Expanding underwriting criteria to include the consideration of unconverted cryptocurrency assets could pose risks to the stability of the housing market and the financial system.”

The senators also questioned the conflict of interests between the Trump Administration, the cryptocurrency industry, and the Enterprises’ Boards in the letter. 

Meanwhile, several Republicans and crypto industry experts have supported this proposal, whereas the Democrats want more clarity and say that a lack of a comprehensive risk analysis could lead to another 2008 financial crisis. 

Also Read: Hackers Steal $448K in Crypto From Cyprus Investor’s Wallet



Leituras Relacionadas

What's It Like Working with Two "Madmen": Peter Thiel and Elon Musk? Palantir Co-founder Shares His Experience

Joe Lonsdale, co-founder of Palantir and a member of the "PayPal Mafia," shared his experiences working alongside Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. He described both as highly opinionated, ambitious, and intolerant of broken systems, demanding immediate fixes and rapid execution. Thiel is characterized as a strategic philosopher, while Musk is a hands-on engineer deeply involved in technical details. Musk is noted as one of the hardest workers Lonsdale has ever seen, a trait common in PayPal's early, passionate culture that later spawned numerous billion-dollar companies. Lonsdale recounted Palantir's origin story. While working at Thiel's hedge fund, he and Thiel discussed how Silicon Valley's technology far outpaced the government's, especially after 9/11. They saw an opportunity to build a platform to help stop terrorist attacks while protecting civil liberties. Their initial venture capital pitches were met with rejection and ridicule. However, Thiel viewed this as motivation. Critical funding eventually came from the CIA's venture arm and Thiel himself. Reflecting on Palantir's impact, Lonsdale believes their work helped neutralize thousands of terrorists and ensured government oversight, though he acknowledges the potential dangers if such powerful technology is misused. His key takeaway echoes Thiel's early advice: being rejected and laughed at can fuel the determination to prove the doubters wrong.

marsbitHá 28m

What's It Like Working with Two "Madmen": Peter Thiel and Elon Musk? Palantir Co-founder Shares His Experience

marsbitHá 28m

15 Reasoning Models Flip Collectively: Unpacking the Latent Risks Hidden in the Chain of Thought Behind Their Outputs

"15 Reasoning Models Collectively Fail: Revealing Hidden Risks in Chain-of-Thought Outputs" A systematic study led by researchers from Harvard, USC, Brown, and MIT warns that evaluating only the final output of large reasoning models (LRMs) is insufficient for safety. The research highlights that the intermediate reasoning chains (CoT) these models expose can contain dangerous content—like bomb-making instructions or poisoning recipes—even when the final answer appears safe. The core methodology involves separately assessing the reasoning chain and the final answer against 20 safety principles, each scored 1-5 for risk. This identifies three key failure modes: 'Unsafe' (both stages unsafe), 'Leak' (unsafe reasoning but safe answer), and 'Escape' (safe reasoning but unsafe answer). The team evaluated 15 reasoning models on a combined in-distribution dataset of 41K prompts from seven public harmful/jailbreak datasets. A universal finding across all 15 models was that reasoning chains are consistently riskier than final answers. Risk is concentrated in categories like misinformation, illegal activity, bias, and physical/psychological harm, with illegal compliance showing the starkest divergence. Case studies reveal instances where harmful operational details are 'leaked' in reasoning or a seemingly harmless chain 'escapes' into a dangerous final answer. To mitigate this, the researchers propose 'Adaptive Multi-Principle Steering,' a white-box, test-time intervention method. It identifies unsafe principles being activated during reasoning and gently steers the model's internal representations towards safer directions. Validated on open-source models, this approach reduced unsafe outputs by up to 40.8% while preserving 97.7% of benchmark performance. The work underscores the critical need to monitor and secure the entire reasoning process, not just the final output.

marsbitHá 33m

15 Reasoning Models Flip Collectively: Unpacking the Latent Risks Hidden in the Chain of Thought Behind Their Outputs

marsbitHá 33m

Trading

Spot
活动图片