After the Secret Meeting, Why Did Trump Aim His Fire at Banks?

比推Опубліковано о 2026-03-05Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-05

Анотація

President Trump met privately with Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, after which he publicly criticized major banks on Truth Social. Trump accused the banks of trying to undermine the pro-crypto GENIUS Act and called for the advancement of the CLARITY Act, arguing that Americans should earn more from their money and that the crypto agenda should not be blocked. The meeting, first reported by Politico, occurred shortly before Trump's social media post, revealing a direct link between the private discussion and his public stance. The key legislative conflict involves a stalled crypto market structure bill. Banks warn that interest-bearing stablecoins could erode deposits and lending capacity, while crypto firms, including Coinbase, argue that the GENIUS Act rightly allows consumers to earn rewards from stablecoin holdings. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon stated that stablecoin issuers paying interest should be regulated like banks, a claim countered by crypto advocates who emphasize that the GENIUS Act prohibits such issuers from lending or rehypothecating underlying funds. Following these developments, crypto-related stocks, including Coinbase (COIN), saw significant gains amid a broader market rally.

Author: CoinDesk

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Original Title: Before Trump Slammed Banks, Coinbase CEO Had Just Met with Him Secretly


Deep Tide Introduction: CoinDesk exclusively confirmed a key timeline: Coinbase CEO Armstrong first met privately with Trump, after which Trump publicly criticized banks on Truth Social for obstructing crypto legislation.

This clue directly reveals the lobbying path behind Trump's statement, making the legislative battle between the crypto industry and the banking sector clearer.

Full Text Below:

Key Points:

  • Before publicly accusing banks of undermining the pro-crypto GENIUS Act and calling for the advancement of the CLARITY Act, Trump had a private meeting with Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong.

  • The meeting was first disclosed by Politico and occurred shortly before Trump posted on Truth Social, stating that banks "need to make a good deal with the crypto industry" to push forward stalled digital asset legislation on Capitol Hill.

  • The crypto market structure bill has stalled because banks warn that interest-bearing stablecoins could erode deposits and lending capacity, while crypto companies argue that the GENIUS Act reasonably allows consumers to earn rewards from stablecoin holdings.

CoinDesk confirmed that U.S. President Trump held a closed-door meeting with Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, shortly after which Trump posted on Truth Social, stating that banks are trying to undermine the GENIUS Act.

"America needs market structure legislation done ASAP. Americans should be making more money from their money," Trump wrote in a post on Tuesday. "The big banks are making historic profits, and we won’t allow them to undermine our strong crypto agenda—if we don’t advance the CLARITY Act, all of this will go to China and other countries."

Politico first reported the meeting between Armstrong and Trump. Since then, Trump has publicly supported Coinbase's stance in the "ongoing lobbying battle with banks," a conflict that has stalled a major crypto bill.

The media cited "two people familiar with the matter" as sources, who spoke anonymously to discuss the closed-door event. The report also noted that it remains unclear what exactly the two discussed during the meeting.

However, the report reiterated that "the meeting took place shortly before Trump posted on social media, stating that banks 'need to make a good deal with the crypto industry,'" which is a key point in pushing forward the stalled digital asset legislation on Capitol Hill.

The White House and Coinbase did not respond to CoinDesk's requests for comment.

The market structure bill has been in limbo since the Senate Banking Committee originally scheduled a debate and vote. The core disagreement blocking the bill's passage is that banks believe stablecoin interest rates could impact bank deposits, thereby affecting their lending capacity; crypto exchanges argue that users should have the right to earn rewards from stablecoin holdings, which the GENIUS Act explicitly allows.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said on Tuesday that stablecoin issuers paying interest on customer deposit balances should be regulated like banks. Patrick White, Executive Director of the Presidential Digital Asset Advisory Committee, countered this, stating, "What truly requires bank-like regulation is not the act of paying yields on balances itself, but the act of lending or rehypothecating the underlying dollars that make up the balances." White also noted that the GENIUS Act "explicitly prohibits stablecoin issuers from engaging in the latter. Stablecoins ≠ deposits."

Crypto-related stocks surged significantly on Wednesday amid a broad crypto market rebound, with COIN breaking above $200, reaching its highest price since late January.


Twitter: https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

BitPush TG Discussion Group: https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

BitPush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original Link: https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7617080

Пов'язані питання

QWhat was the key sequence of events involving Trump and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong?

ACoinbase CEO Brian Armstrong had a private meeting with Donald Trump, shortly after which Trump publicly criticized banks on Truth Social for obstructing the pro-crypto GENIUS Act and called for advancing the CLARITY Act.

QWhat is the main legislative conflict between banks and the crypto industry as described in the article?

ABanks warn that interest-bearing stablecoins could erode deposits and lending capacity, while crypto firms argue that the GENIUS Act reasonably allows consumers to earn rewards from stablecoin holdings.

QHow did Trump's public statement on Truth Social frame the issue between banks and the crypto industry?

ATrump stated that banks are trying to undermine the strong crypto agenda, that Americans should earn more from their money, and that without advancing the CLARITY Act, crypto innovation would move to China and other countries.

QWhat was Jamie Dimon's position on stablecoin regulation, and how was it countered?

AJamie Dimon argued that stablecoin issuers paying interest on customer deposits should be regulated like banks. Patrick White countered that the real need for bank-like regulation is not for paying yield on balances, but for lending or rehypothecating the underlying dollars, which the GENIUS Act explicitly prohibits.

QWhat was the market reaction following the news of Trump's meeting and statements?

ACrypto-related stocks, including COIN (Coinbase), saw significant gains, with COIN surpassing $200, reaching its highest price since late January, amid a broad crypto market rally.

Пов'язані матеріали

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

**From Survival to Accelerated Growth: Zcash Founder Details the 3-Year Rise** Three years ago, Zcash (ZEC) was a struggling pioneer in privacy technology, with a price near $30, low shielded supply (11%), and a community mired in governance disputes. Today, ZEC trades around $600, with over 31% of its supply (~$3B) in user-controlled shielded pools. This transformation resulted from breaking key constraints. First, **governance shackles were removed**. The old model guaranteed funding to two entities (ECC and ZF) regardless of performance, creating a monopoly. In 2024, ECC rejected further direct funding, forcing a change. The NU6 upgrade ended direct funding, allocating 8% to community grants and 12% to a protocol-controlled treasury for retroactive rewards, expiring in 2028 unless renewed by overwhelming consensus. The entities also relinquished their trademark-based veto power, freeing community governance. Second, the **product focus shifted** from pure cryptography to user growth. Previously, engineering excelled at privacy tech but failed to attract users. In early 2024, the team (later ZODL) pivoted to building products users wanted, like the Zodl wallet (default privacy, hardware support, cross-asset swaps). This drove shielded supply to grow over 400% in ZEC terms, with 86.5% of recent transactions being shielded, representing real user adoption. Third, the **narrative evolved** from the limiting "privacy coin" label to "unstoppable private money." This clarified Zcash's value proposition: a Bitcoin-like monetary policy with verifiable private payments via advanced cryptography. This structural narrative—protocol (Zcash), asset (ZEC), gateway (Zodl)—enabled broader exchange listings, institutional interest, and ETF filings. Finally, **organizational constraints were broken**. In early 2026, the ECC team left its non-profit structure after disputes over control, forming Zcash Open Development Lab (ZODL). ZODL raised $25M from top VCs (Paradigm, a16z, etc.), gaining the capital and agility of a startup to scale consumer products. Current metrics show strong momentum: social discussion volume for ZEC surged 15,245% in a year, with 81% positive sentiment. The focus is now on enhancing user experience (Zodl wallet), scalability (Tachyon project targeting Visa-level throughput with 25-second blocks), and post-quantum security (quantum-recoverable wallets coming soon). Zcash is positioned to become faster, more usable, scalable, and quantum-resistant.

marsbit12 хв тому

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

marsbit12 хв тому

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

**Summary:** This companion piece reframes the five TradFi-on-crypto exchange architectures, previously classified by "architectural fingerprint," through the lens of counterparty risk. The core question is: whose balance sheet bears the loss first in a stress scenario, and has it historically done so? Each of the five models corresponds to a distinct risk holder with its own documented failure modes. * **Model 1 (Stablecoin-Settled CEX Perpetuals):** Risk is held by the stablecoin issuer (e.g., reserve composition, bank connectivity) and the CEX's own book. History includes Tether's banking disconnections (2017) and reserve misrepresentations (CFTC 2021 Order). * **Model 2 (CFD Brokers):** Risk resides on the broker's balance sheet (B-book model). Regulatory differences (e.g., ESMA's mandatory negative balance protection vs. Mauritius FSC's lack thereof) define loss allocation rules, as seen in the 2015 SNB event (Alpari UK insolvency). * **Model 3 (Off-Chain Custody & Transfer Agent Chain):** Risk lies with the off-chain custodian/platform. User asset recovery depends on Terms of Use and corporate structure, exemplified by the Celsius bankruptcy ruling (2023) where Earn Account assets were deemed property of the estate. * **Model 4 (DEX Perpetual Protocols):** No single balance sheet bears risk. Loss absorption relies on a protocol's insurance fund and Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) mechanism, as demonstrated in the GMX V1 (2022) and dYdX v3 YFI (2023) incidents. * **Model 5 (Regulated CCP - DCM-DCO-FCM):** The most institutionalized model concentrates risk in the Central Counterparty (CCP). However, history shows CCPs can employ non-standard tools under extreme stress, such as mass trade cancellation (LME Nickel, 2022) or enabling negative price settlements (CME WTI, 2020). The report argues that regulatory choices and counterparty risk structures are co-extensive, not in an upstream-downstream relationship. It concludes with five separate observation checklists (not predictions) for monitoring the structural vulnerabilities of each risk model.

marsbit29 хв тому

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

marsbit29 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片