Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

BlackRock Blocks $580M in Withdrawal Requests from HPS Corporate Lending Fund

Published

on

Nexo Partners with Bakkt for US Crypto Exchange and Yield Programs

TLDR:

    • BlackRock blocked $580M in withdrawal requests after its HPS fund hit the 5% quarterly redemption cap limit. 
    • The $3 trillion private credit market faces a structural mismatch between investor liquidity needs and long-term loan terms. 
    • Blue Owl and BlackRock both faced heavy withdrawal pressure, pointing to possible tightening across private lending markets.
    • Weakening labor markets and slower consumer spending are raising corporate debt repayment risks across private credit portfolios.

BlackRock, one of the world’s largest asset managers with $10 trillion under management, has restricted withdrawals from its $26 billion HPS Corporate Lending Fund.

Investors submitted $1.2 billion in redemption requests, equal to 9.3% of the fund’s total assets. The fund paid out $620 million before reaching its 5% quarterly redemption cap. The remaining withdrawal requests were then blocked through a mechanism known as a redemption gate.

The Structure Behind Private Credit Funds

Private credit funds lend directly to companies that cannot access traditional bank financing. These loans typically carry interest rates between 8% and 12% per year.

The loans last between three and seven years and are not traded on any public market. That makes them less liquid than standard investment products.

This creates a structural mismatch between investor withdrawal expectations and long-term loan schedules. Investors in these funds often expect short-term or periodic access to their money.

Advertisement

However, the underlying corporate loans are locked into multi-year repayment timelines. That tension becomes clear when many investors attempt to withdraw capital at once.

As BullTheory.io pointed out, the fund paid $620 million but blocked the rest once it hit the 5% cap. That cap is a built-in protection called a redemption gate. It limits how much capital can leave the fund within a single quarter. It protects the fund’s overall stability.

The private credit market has grown to roughly $3 trillion in total size. Much of that growth followed the 2008 financial crisis, when companies turned away from traditional bank lending.

BlackRock’s HPS Corporate Lending Fund is among the largest vehicles operating in this space today. The market now plays a central role in corporate financing.

Credit Conditions Show Signs of Tightening

The broader private credit market is now facing growing pressure from economic shifts. The labor market is weakening, and layoffs are increasing across several sectors.

Advertisement

Consumer spending is also slowing. These changes tend to reduce corporate revenue, which makes debt repayment harder for many borrowers.

When corporate revenues slow, companies that rely on borrowed capital face a higher risk of missing loan payments. That raises the overall credit risk within private lending portfolios. As that risk rises, more investors are likely to seek early withdrawals from the funds holding those loans.

@BullTheoryio raised the question of whether these events signal broader tightening across the private lending market. BlackRock is not the only fund to face this situation.

Blue Owl Capital also experienced heavy withdrawal pressure before the BlackRock redemption gate made headlines. Two major funds showing this pattern within a short time is worth watching closely.

Advertisement

If more companies struggle to repay loans while investors seek to exit at the same time, stress will not stay limited to individual funds.

It tends to spread through connected parts of the lending system. The events at BlackRock and Blue Owl may be the early stage of a broader credit cycle.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Trump crypto czar David Sacks exits role after 130 days

Published

on

Trump crypto czar David Sacks exits role after 130 days

The US government’s crypto and AI czar, David Sacks, is stepping down from his special government employee (SGE) role to join Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang on Donald Trump’s new tech council. 

Sacks announced his departure in an Interview with Bloomberg that also covered the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).

Sacks told Bloomberg, “In the first year of the Trump administration, I had that role as an SGE. I had 130 days.”

“We’ve now used up that time,” Sacks said, adding that his role as co-chair of PCAST means he’ll now “make recommendations on not just AI, but an expansive range of technology topics.”

Advertisement
Sacks shared an assessment from Elon Musk’s GROK that tried to clarify if his departure was a promotion or not.

Read more: David Sacks promised ‘market structure bill in 100 days’ a year ago

The council has been created to guide tech policies within government, and counts major tech executives such as Marc Andreessen and Sergey Brin among its ranks.  

Tesla CEO Elon Musk was also a SGE under Trump’s administration, and also stepped down from the role after 130 days. He won’t be part of the tech council, however.

Sacks’ time as crypto czar was bittersweet 

Under Sacks’ stewardship, the US administration loosened its grip on crypto regulations, the president launched a memecoin, and the government promised to implement a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (SBR). 

Advertisement

During this time, it gained a reputation for intense profiteering and crypto corruption. Indeed, Trump’s son Eric boasted very publicly about his family making profits of $1 billion from its various crypto enterprises. 

Sacks promised in February last year that the market structures bill, aka the CLARITY Act, and stablecoin legislation, also known as the GENIUS Act, would have been passed through the Senate and House within 100 days. 

While the GENIUS Act was passed, albeit well beyond the self-imposed deadline, the CLARITY Act is still struggling to join it. 

Sacks was revealed by the New York Times to have held over 400 investments in various crypto and AI firms while still maintaining his SGE role in Trump’s administration, raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest.  

Advertisement

The administration also signed into existence the SBR but it was watered down significantly when officials revealed that the US wouldn’t be buying any BTC to contribute to the it and would instead rely on the coins it had already seized and forfeited.

An audit of crypto assets intended for both the SBR and Digital Asset Stockpile was supposed to be complete by April 5, 2025. However, no such review has been published almost 356 days after the deadline.

Read more: David Sacks sends silly legal threat to the New York Times

Crypto traders happy about David Sacks crypto czar departure

Upon discovering Sacks’ departure yesterday, X users have remarked on the less-than-stellar effect he had on the crypto market. 

Advertisement

Venture capitalist Adam Cochran mocked Bitcoiners who voted for Trump, asking “How’d that bitcoin reserve work out for you? Remember those day one promises?”

“Remember how Trump and Sacks promised you the world, and you told us we had TDS when we told you that you were getting played?” he added. 

Others pointed to today’s BTC price of $66,600, and how it’s down 34% from the day Sacks was inaugurated as crypto czar. 

Read more: US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve audit now 172 days overdue

Advertisement

Traders have also complained that under Sacks’ role, nothing was actually achieved, adding that he’s “the single most useless person of Trump administration [sic] (right there with Trump).”

Eleanor Terrett reports that it’s unclear whether or not Sacks’ crypto czar role will be replaced while major crypto legislation, such as the CLARITY Act, continues to work its way through the Senate.

If the Trump administration does decide to hire a replacement, at least one willing candidate has already thrown their hat into the ring on X. Despite currently serving a 25-year prison sentence, FTX fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried posted simply “dibs.”

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on XBluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

ECB Study Questions How Decentralized DeFi Governance Really is

Published

on

ECB Study Questions How Decentralized DeFi Governance Really is

The European Central Bank published a working paper on March 26, finding that governance in four major DeFi protocols was heavily concentrated.

The staff paper looks at Aave, MakerDAO, Ampleforth and Uniswap, and finds that while governance tokens are held across tens of thousands of addresses, the top 100 holders control more than 80% of the supply in each protocol.

Based on holdings snapshots from November 2022 and May 2023, the authors found that a large share of governance tokens could be linked either to the protocols themselves or to centralized and decentralized exchanges, with Binance the largest identified centralized exchange holder across the four protocols.

The authors said the findings challenge the idea that decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are inherently decentralized, raising questions about accountability and complicating efforts to identify possible regulatory anchor points under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) framework. MiCA currently excludes “fully decentralised” services from its scope.

Advertisement

Top token holders dominate governance

The authors also look at who actually votes on key proposals, concluding that top voters are mostly delegates who wield delegated voting power from smaller token holders. 

The top 20 voters in Ampleforth control 96% of delegated voting power, while the top 10 voters in MakerDAO hold 66% of delegated votes, and the top 18 in Uniswap hold 52%. Around one-third of top voters cannot be publicly identified, and among those that can, the largest groups are individuals and Web3 companies, followed by university blockchain societies and venture firms.

Related: DAOs may need to ditch decentralization to court institutions

ECB Working Paper on DeFi: Source: ECB

Cointelegraph reached out to Aave, Uniswap, MakerDAO, and Ampleforth, but had not received a response by publication.

Kavi Jain, senior research associate at Bitwise, told Cointelegraph that many large DeFi protocols were not as decentralized in practice as they might appear, especially in the earlier stages, where a small group still has “meaningful influence over decisions.”

Advertisement

He pointed to the recent Aave governance debate that highlighted how, even with a DAO structure, voting power can “still be concentrated among a few participants.”

MiCA faces DeFi accountability problem

The paper catalogues what governance actually decides, finding that the largest share of proposals relates to “risk parameters” that shape the protocols’ risk profiles. That raises further questions about accountability, especially given that it is “not possible” to tell from public data whether protocol-linked holdings belong to founders, developers or treasuries, or whether exchange wallets are voting their own positions or those of customers.

Related: How a 2.85% price error triggered $27M in liquidations on Aave

There are some caveats with the methodology, and the paper itself warns that it does not capture the “full scope of the DeFi ecosystem,” due to insufficient data.

Advertisement

The paper also stresses that it reflects the authors’ views rather than official ECB policy, however, it warns that the difficulty of reliably identifying who controls major protocols makes it harder to lean on popular entry points such as governance token holders, developers or centralized exchanges, and says that the relevant anchor may differ protocol by protocol and require information that is not publicly available.

Its findings echo earlier warnings from the Financial Stability Board and others, cited in the paper, that DeFi’s promise of disintermediation often masks new forms of concentration and governance risk that resemble, and sometimes amplify, those seen in traditional finance.

Magazine: Ethereum’s Fusaka fork explained for dummies — What the hell is PeerDAS?