TLDR:

• The Supreme Court struck down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, putting $150B+ in potential refunds on the table for U.S. firms.
• Refunds won’t be automatic; companies must file claims or lawsuits to recover payments made under the tariffs.
• If tariffs ease, import costs may fall, inflation could cool, and the Fed may have room to cut rates sooner.
• Trump retains tariff authority under Sections 232, 301, and 122, though broader tariffs now require stronger legal grounds.

The Supreme Court has ruled Trump’s sweeping tariffs unconstitutional, upending a cornerstone of his trade policy. 

Importers across the U.S. paid over $150 billion under these tariffs. The government now faces pressure to return that money. The ruling reshapes the trade landscape and carries wide economic consequences.

Supreme Court Tariff Ruling Opens Door to $150 Billion in Refunds

The tariffs in question relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA. The court’s decision strips that tool from the administration’s trade arsenal. It does not, however, eliminate the president’s authority to levy tariffs altogether.

Refunds will not flow automatically to affected companies. According to Bull Theory, businesses will likely need to file formal claims or pursue litigation. That process could take months or years to resolve.

If the government approves large-scale refunds, federal revenue takes a serious hit. The fiscal gap could force higher borrowing, which tends to push Treasury yields upward. That creates a new pressure point for bond markets.

At the same time, removing these tariffs could ease cost burdens on importers. Lower import costs typically reduce what businesses charge consumers. That could translate into softer inflation readings over time.

Crypto and Financial Markets Watch Fed’s Next Move Amid Tariff Fallout

The Federal Reserve currently faces a difficult position. Growth signals are soft. Inflation remains sticky. The tariff ruling adds a new variable to that calculation.

If import costs fall and inflation cools, the Fed gains more room to cut interest rates. Bull Theory notes that reduced tariff pressure and easing prices could support more aggressive rate cuts. Lower rates historically benefit risk assets, including crypto markets.

Rate cuts tend to lift consumer spending and business investment. Housing markets also respond quickly to cheaper borrowing. Crypto traders watch these macro signals closely.

Trump still holds several legal tools for imposing tariffs. Section 232 covers national security-based tariffs and applies to specific industries. Section 301 targets countries engaged in unfair trade practices, and it already underpins most China-related tariffs.

Section 122 offers a faster but narrower option, limited in size and duration. Anti-dumping and countervailing duties remain available too, though they require formal legal proceedings. 

Bull Theory points out that what changes most is speed. IEEPA allowed near-instant, broad tariffs. Future tariffs will require investigations and stronger legal grounds.

A Polymarket trader has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in crypto because of a Uniswap phishing ad that appeared at the top of a Google search result. Hundreds of friends and associates filled up the comment section with condolences.

The founder of DefiLlama broadcasted the terrible story as a warning to the crypto community.

The founder of Uniswap – the real Uniswap – repeated that warning, “These scams are horrible, we’ve been fighting them for years.” He called the disturbing industry of fake websites that rely on ads to lure crypto investors “the ad economy” and implored that it “needs to go.”

Uniswap is a common way for crypto traders to exchange digital tokens without trusting a centralized crypto exchange with custody of their funds.

The six-figure loss is the latest example in an ongoing series where scammers buy Google Ads to direct users to fraudulent, lookalike websites that mimic real crypto interfaces like Uniswap. Victims click the ad, connect their wallet, and sign a malicious transaction. That approval grants the power to drain assets or make trades from the wallet.

For years, fraudulent Google search ads have led users to phishing pages that impersonate well-known crypto apps.

Uniswap phishing scam-as-a-service

The particular wallet drainer tool used in this attack was AngelFerno. This ‘scam-as-a-service’ wallet drainer script targets DeFi users, including prior front-end attacks that impersonated OpenEden and Curvance websites.

AngelFerno is live on multiple domains that are itemized on GitHub phishing blocklists. Users should not navigate to them.

Particularly nefarious attackers use Cyrillic characters in URLs, also known as Punycode URLs, to make the fake domain appear visually indistinguishable from the real URL.

BGD Labs, a core technical contributor to the DeFi protocol Aave, announced it will conclude its involvement with the project’s DAO on April 1, ending a four-year collaboration that helped shape the protocol’s core subsystems. In a post on Aave’s governance forum, BGD cited an “asymmetric organizational scenario” and argued the DAO had not adequately accounted for contributors’ expertise. The team said the project had adopted an adversarial posture toward v3 in favor of features planned for v4, a shift it said impeded meaningful improvements. Nothing changes until April 1, but BGD signaled it will wind down its formal contributions while remaining engaged in certain areas through a defined transition. The forum note points to ongoing work on multiple fronts, even as the formal collaboration winds down.

Key takeaways

• BGD Labs will end its involvement with the Aave DAO on April 1 after four years of work.
• The departure is framed around an asymmetric organizational setup and perceived governance misalignment with technical contributors, particularly in the v3-versus-v4 prioritization debate.
• Until the wind-down date, BGD will continue work on v3, Umbrella, chain expansions, security, and asset onboarding, with no immediate off-boarding path but a transition-focused plan.
• A two-month, $200,000 security retainer has been proposed to support continuity beyond April as the community seeks a replacement for critical contributions.
• Reactions within the user base were mixed-to-positive toward BGD, tempered by concerns about the loss of a significant DeFi builder; Stani Kulechov publicly praised BGD’s contributions.

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The development underscores ongoing governance and talent-retention dynamics within DeFi DAOs, where centralized expertise must coexist with decentralized decision-making, and where transition plans can influence security and upgrade trajectories.

Why it matters

The departure of a long-standing technical contributor from a high-profile protocol like Aave highlights how DeFi projects balance governance with engineering depth. BGD Labs’ four-year involvement positioned it at the center of critical subsystems, meaning its exit could ripple through areas spanning core protocol stability, security reviews, and on-boarding of assets. When a DAO relies on a limited set of builders for foundational components, even routine changes can take on outsized importance. In this case, the forum discussion that accompanied the announcement suggests a broader tension between centralized expertise and DAO-driven governance, a stakes-laden issue for communities that prize decentralization but depend on specialized knowledge to maintain robust, scalable systems.

The situation also spotlights the challenge of aligning long-term technical progress with a governance model that is, by design, open to diverse stakeholders. BGD’s public characterization of an “asymmetric organizational scenario” reflects concerns that the DAO’s governance structure may not always create the conditions necessary for sustained improvement, particularly when competing priorities between v3 stabilization and v4 feature development emerge. Such tensions are not unique to Aave; they echo broader discussions across the ecosystem about how to evolve upgrades and enhancements without fracturing consensus or stalling critical work.

From a practical standpoint, the two-month security-retainer proposal signals a pragmatic approach to continuity, allowing time for a replacement to come online while limiting risk exposure. In a space where security, asset onboarding, and cross-chain capabilities are high-stakes, transitional mechanisms like retainers can help calm the nerves of users and developers who rely on steady maintenance. The move may also influence how other DAOs outline transition plans when a core contributor departs, potentially becoming a template for similar exits in the future.

For the broader market, the episode reinforces that DeFi projects remain highly collaborative efforts where governance decisions, technical leadership, and risk management intersect. Talent mobility — from one protocol to another or toward new ventures — is a reality of the space. The emphasis on sustaining critical subsystems while seeking a replacement provider reflects an industry-wide trend toward clearer transitional governance and more explicit continuity strategies as ecosystems scale and mature.

In the immediate term, the community’s reaction—largely positive toward BGD’s contributions while raising concerns about the loss of foundational expertise—highlights a nuanced sentiment: appreciation for past work alongside vigilance regarding ongoing development and security assurances. The public response from Aave’s founder suggests confidence in the ecosystem’s resilience, even as the project navigates a meaningful personnel shift.

“I respect BGD’s decision, though I am sad to see them go. The DeFi ecosystem is better for having a team like BGD in it and I hope they continue to build and make contributions to the industry.”

What to watch next

• April 1 milestone as BGD’s formal wind-down begins and responsibilities are reallocated or retired.
• Whether Aave’s DAO moves to nominate or contract a replacement for BGD’s technical leadership on v3, Umbrella, and related areas.
• Groundwork or approval for the proposed two-month, $200,000 security retainer or alternative continuity arrangements.
• Any governance updates or votes touching on the prioritization of v3 stabilization versus v4 feature development and how contributors are engaged in those decisions.

Sources & verification

BGD Labs exits Aave DAO after four years of technical leadership

BGD Labs, a core technical contributor to the DeFi protocol Aave, announced it will conclude its involvement with the DAO on April 1, ending a four-year collaboration that helped shape the protocol’s core subsystems. In a post on Aave’s governance forum, BGD cited an “asymmetric organizational scenario” and argued the DAO had not adequately accounted for contributors’ expertise. The team said the project had adopted an adversarial posture toward v3 in favor of features planned for v4, a shift it said impeded meaningful improvements. Nothing changes until April 1, but BGD signaled it will wind down its formal contributions while remaining engaged in certain areas through a defined transition. The forum note points to ongoing work on multiple fronts, even as the formal collaboration winds down.

The decision reflects BGD’s long-running role as a builder for the Aave ecosystem, involving substantial hands-on work across technical subsystems and security-related tasks. The forum post emphasizes that BGD’s work extended beyond a narrow scope, with the team frequently leading or collaborating on critical components that the community recognizes as part of Aave’s technical backbone. While the departure focuses on governance dynamics and organizational structure, the practical implications are real: what happens to ongoing maintenance, security audits, and cross-chain initiatives when a primary contributor steps back?

As part of the wind-down plan, BGD noted that “nothing changes” immediately after the announcement and that the group will continue supporting v3, Umbrella, chain expansions, security, and assets onboarding up to and beyond the April deadline. The firm argued that the current environment—where improvements to v3 are expected to be constrained by governance dynamics—undermined its ability to push forward effectively. It also proposed a two-month, $200,000 security retainer intended to bridge the gap while Aave searches for a suitable replacement and while the community weighs longer-term continuity options.

From a governance perspective, the episode illustrates a broader conversation about how DAOs sustain momentum when essential contributors depart. The Aave community’s response—varying from appreciation for BGD’s contributions to concern about the impact on ongoing development—mirrors a wider tension across the DeFi landscape: decentralization versus the practical need for specialized, ongoing expertise. Stani Kulechov’s public reply to the forum thread underscores the ecosystem’s resilience and willingness to recognize value created by core teams, even as leadership transitions take place.

In the weeks ahead, observers will be watching for concrete steps toward replacing BGD’s functions, the fate of the proposed security retainer, and any governance actions that influence the prioritization of v3’s stabilization versus v4’s feature set. The move also serves as an implicit reminder that even established contributors can re-evaluate alignment with a DAO’s evolving objectives, and that a thoughtful transition plan may prove essential to maintaining user trust and system reliability in a rapidly evolving DeFi environment.

BGD Labs, a core technical contributor to decentralized finance protocol Aave, said it will conclude its involvement with the project’s DAO on April 1 after four years.

In a Friday forum post on Aave, BGD cited an “asymmetric organizational scenario,” which it said the DAO has “badly executed” without consideration of contributors’ expertise. The contributor added that Aave had taken an “adversarial position” of the third version (v3) of its protocol to promote features in the fourth (v4).

“While all previous points that BGD should just keep contributing on the v3 side exclusively, the situation created makes it nonsensical to us: every time we think/will think about improving v3, there will be some type of implicit/explicit artificial constraint,” said BGD. “We are not really interested in being in that position, as we think it is a waste of our potential.”