Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Fed Chair Nominee Grilled on Independence, Impact on Crypto Policy

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

The nomination of Kevin Warsh to head the U.S. Federal Reserve intensified a long-running debate over central-bank independence as lawmakers grilled him about his financial disclosures and potential conflicts of interest. With Jerome Powell’s term as chair nearing its end, the confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee became a focal point for questions about political influence, transparency, and how a future Fed chief would navigate a charged policy environment.

Warsh, a former Federal Reserve governor, faced pointed scrutiny from Democrats who argued that his financial holdings and ties could color monetary policy and risk management. The proceedings highlighted the broader challenge of balancing independence with accountability in a political era where presidential influence over the Fed remains a live concern for lawmakers and market participants alike.

Key takeaways

  • Democrats pressed Warsh on his financial disclosures and potential conflicts of interest, raising concerns about the Fed’s insulation from political pressure.
  • Warsh pledged to divest from personal holdings, including crypto and AI investments, before taking the oath if confirmed, signaling an attempt to address perceived conflicts.
  • Crypto was explicitly discussed: Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis asked for clarity on digital assets, and Warsh described crypto as part of the U.S. financial services landscape.
  • Republican and Democratic lines of questioning underscored disagreement over the Fed’s future policy stance, including the prospect of rate cuts urged by the president, though Warsh denied committing to any specific rate path.

Independence under scrutiny: the political dynamic of a Warsh nomination

As Powell’s term approaches its expiry next month, the Senate Banking Committee is tasked with evaluating whether Warsh can lead the U.S. central bank with sufficient autonomy. The exchange revealed a fundamental tension at the heart of the nomination: how to preserve the Fed’s dual mandate—maximum employment and stable prices—while acknowledging the political realities of the executive branch’s influence over presidential policy priorities.

Committee Chair Tim Scott acknowledged the need for a balance between independence and collaboration among the administration, Congress, and the Fed. In a CNBC interview cited by lawmakers, Scott stressed that independence means the Fed must perform its duties without being swayed by political pressures, particularly regarding the institution’s mandate. The debate thus shifted from personal biography to institutional trust: could Warsh be trusted to chart a prudent course even if the White House’s policy preferences diverge from market expectations?

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, the committee’s ranking member, did not mince words. She labeled Warsh a potential “sock puppet” for the president’s policies, arguing that confirmation could pave the way for controversial arrangements or preferential treatment in the financial system. Warren warned that such a scenario might include “special accounts” or targeted supports that would undermine the Fed’s credibility. The tenor of her questions underscored a broader concern among lawmakers: that central-bank independence must be safeguarded to avoid entanglements with political favoritism or industry bailouts.

Advertisement

Warsh acknowledged the gravity of the independence issue but avoided direct answers about hypothetical policy outcomes tied to political pressure. When pressed about whether Trump’s influence could shape rate decisions, Warsh told Republican Senator John Kennedy that the president had never asked him to commit to a specific interest rate and that he would not have agreed to do so if asked—though he also noted that the question of influence remains more about guarding against perceived bias than about any single exchange. The exchange reflected the delicate calibration required of a Fed chair who may operate in a politically charged environment while maintaining a clear-eyed focus on monetary stability.

Crypto, conflicts of interest, and the broader policy backdrop

Crypto surfaced as a concrete touchstone in the hearing. Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis asked Warsh for his view on digital assets, and he responded that digital assets are “part of the fabric of our financial services industry in the United States.” The moment underscored the gravity of crypto’s regulatory and financial integration, and how a new Fed chair might weigh macro policy considerations alongside evolving digital-asset dynamics.

Warsh has pledged to divest from his personal financial holdings, including stakes in crypto and AI-related companies, before taking the oath if confirmed. Supporters argue that divestiture would reduce potential conflicts and bolster confidence in the Fed’s impartiality. Critics, however, point out that even divestment does not fully erase the perception of influence, especially given the scale and variety of assets that a policymaker may encounter in a complex financial system.

The hearing also touched on the broader political atmosphere surrounding the Fed. Trump’s repeated calls for rate cuts and leadership changes have kept the independence debate in the public eye. The Hill has reported that Trump signaled a preference for a rate-cutting stance, which intensifies the relevance of the next chair’s approach to policy. Warsh’s insistence on not tying policy to presidential expectations framed him as a candidate who could, in theory, maintain a degree of policy insulation—if confirmed.

Advertisement

What the markets are pricing in—and what comes next

Powell’s chair term concludes on May 15, leaving a short window for confirmation. If Warsh is not confirmed promptly, Powell might continue temporarily, while Warsh would assume a seat on the Fed’s Board of Governors through 2028 regardless of the outcome. The timing matters not just for policy direction but for the consistency and credibility of the Fed’s forward guidance during a period of elevated market scrutiny over inflation and growth trajectories.

Investors and traders are watching the process closely. Prediction markets have reflected a split in expectations about when a confirmation will occur. On Polymarket, a notable portion of positions bet that Warsh would be confirmed by May 15, but the majority anticipate that a decision may slip beyond June 30. The contrast between these views highlights the variance in perceptions about Senate pace, the likelihood of bipartisan support, and the political sensitivity surrounding a central-bank chair appointment in an election-year environment.

Beyond the chair itself, the dynamic surrounding the Fed’s independence could ripple through markets. A confirmed Warsh might be seen as signaling a commitment to a data-driven, financially prudent approach that could influence risk pricing, quantitative easing expectations, and balance-sheet normalization—especially if his prior records and forthcoming disclosures are interpreted as indicating a measured stance on inflation and growth. By contrast, a protracted confirmation or a transition that keeps Powell in a caretaker role could prolong uncertainty about the Fed’s leadership and its policy trajectory during a volatile macro period.

Next steps and what to watch

As the confirmation process unfolds, the central questions remain: Will Warsh successfully divest from his holdings in time to eliminate real or perceived conflicts? Can the Senate forge a path to confirm a candidate whose independence is under active scrutiny, while ensuring that the Fed remains aligned with its statutory mandate? And how will the markets interpret any shift in the Fed’s leadership, especially if market expectations about rate adjustments or balance-sheet policy diverge from the new chair’s stance?

Advertisement

In the near term, investors should monitor the timeline for the confirmation vote, any additional disclosures from Warsh, and further congressional remarks that clarify how the next Fed chair would balance independence with accountability. The outcome will shape how the Fed communicates its policy outlook, how it manages potential political pressures, and how it integrates the fast-evolving landscape of digital assets into its regulatory and monetary framework.

Readers should stay alert for updates on the confirmation vote schedule, new testimony or filing disclosures, and any shifts in the Fed’s messaging that could signal a new steadiness—or renewed tension—in U.S. monetary policy during a period of macro volatility.

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Quantum Computing Crypto: Act Now, Coinbase Warns

Published

on

Quantum Computing Crypto: Act Now, Coinbase Warns

A 50 page quantum computing crypto risk assessment published Tuesday by Coinbase’s independent advisory board concludes that while today’s blockchains remain secure, a fault-tolerant quantum computer capable of breaking widely used encryption is increasingly plausible and that preparation must begin now, warning that “waiting for it to be urgent is not a good idea.”

Summary

  • The 50 page paper, authored by an independent board including Stanford cryptographer Dan Boneh, Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake, and EigenLayer founder Sreeram Kannan.
  • Replacing today’s signatures with quantum-resistant alternatives could expand blockchain data sizes by up to 38 times, according to one estimate in the report, meaning the transition carries significant engineering costs and performance tradeoffs.
  • Bitcoin wallets that have already revealed their public keys are identified as the most immediately vulnerable category of holdings in any future quantum attack scenario.

Quantum computing crypto risk has its most authoritative industry assessment yet. The Coinbase advisory board, a group of world-class cryptographers and blockchain researchers convened by Coinbase in January 2026, released its first major position paper Tuesday: a 50 page analysis of how future quantum computers could affect blockchain security and what the industry must do before that threat becomes real.

“Waiting for it to be urgent is not a good idea,” the paper states, emphasizing that transitions across blockchains, wallets, and exchanges could take years to execute safely even after all the technical standards are in place.

Advertisement

The board members who authored the paper include Dan Boneh, the director of the Stanford Center for Blockchain Research; Justin Drake of the Ethereum Foundation; Sreeram Kannan, the founder of EigenLayer; Yehuda Lindell, Coinbase’s head of cryptography; and Dahlia Malkhi, an expert in resilient distributed systems. Their institutional breadth gives the paper a credibility that no single-company security assessment would carry.

What the Report Found and What Makes It Credible

The paper’s core conclusion is carefully calibrated: quantum computers today cannot crack the cryptography underpinning Bitcoin, Ethereum, or any major blockchain. Breaking standard encryption would require fault-tolerant quantum machines with vastly more error-corrected qubits than current hardware provides, and achieving that is still considered a major engineering challenge. The report does not predict when that will happen. It argues that the timeline uncertainty itself is the problem.

The threat the paper focuses on most is the harvest now, decrypt later attack: adversaries can collect encrypted blockchain data today and store it, waiting for quantum hardware to mature enough to crack it retroactively. For long-held assets, this is a material risk that begins now rather than when the quantum threat becomes practical. Bitcoin addresses that have already revealed their public keys on-chain are specifically identified as the most immediately exposed category of holdings.

Advertisement

Why the Transition Will Be Harder Than It Sounds

The technical solution to quantum vulnerability already exists: NIST has standardized post-quantum cryptographic algorithms that are mathematically resistant to quantum attacks. The problem is implementation at blockchain scale. Post-quantum digital signatures can be tens to hundreds of times larger than the signatures in use today. One estimate in the Coinbase report suggests that replacing current signatures with quantum-proof alternatives could expand block sizes by up to 38 times.

For a network like Bitcoin, which processes blocks under a strict size limit and where any upgrade requires consensus among a decentralized set of stakeholders with no central authority, a 38-times expansion of signature data is not a parameter adjustment. It is a fundamental architectural change that touches every node, wallet, exchange, and application in the ecosystem. The debate among Bitcoin developers, already underway, reflects exactly this tension between urgency and the cost of change.

What Crypto Networks Are Already Doing

The Coinbase report arrives alongside parallel actions across the ecosystem. Ripple published a four phase XRPL post-quantum roadmap targeting completion by 2028. The Ethereum Foundation has elevated post-quantum security to a top strategic priority with a dedicated research team. Bitcoin developers are actively debating BIP 361, a proposal for a structured migration away from legacy address types that expose public keys.

For the Bitcoin quantum risk assessment specifically, researchers estimate approximately 4.5 million Bitcoin held in early or reused addresses may be exposed to future quantum attacks. The quantum threat debate in Bitcoin has become one of the most contested governance questions in the community, precisely because the solutions require either forcing coin migration or accepting that some portion of the supply may eventually be at risk.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Crypto hacks top $17b in a decade as attackers pivot from code to keys

Published

on

Trader offers 10% bounty after claiming violent $24M crypto robbery

DefiLlama logs 518 crypto hacks and over $17b in losses in 10 years, with attackers shifting from smart contracts to keys, bridges and wallets, as rsETH loses ~$290m.

Summary

  • DefiLlama has logged 518 crypto hacking incidents over the past 10 years, with total losses above $17 billion.
  • A growing share of that damage comes from private key leaks, phishing and credential theft rather than pure smart contract bugs.
  • The latest example is Kelp DAO’s rsETH bridge exploit, which drained about 116,500 rsETH worth roughly $290–$293 million — 2026’s largest DeFi hack so far.

Crypto’s security bill over the past decade has quietly climbed past $17 billion, according to DefiLlama data cited by Cointelegraph, with at least 518 documented hacks and exploits hitting exchanges, DeFi protocols, bridges and wallets since 2014. That figure captures everything from early exchange blow‑ups to today’s sophisticated cross‑chain attacks, and it comes even as the overall pace of large on‑chain exploits has slowed from peak‑mania years like 2021–2022.

A decade of $17b in crypto losses

Under the surface, however, the composition of those losses is shifting. Where early DeFi hacks often hinged on smart contract bugs and unchecked flash‑loan logic, recent incidents show attackers increasingly targeting the soft tissue around crypto — private keys, signing infrastructure and user devices — with credential theft, social engineering and SIM‑swap‑style attacks. Security firms told Cointelegraph that they expect 2026 to bring more advanced phishing and AI‑assisted scams capable of tricking even technically savvy users into signing malicious transactions or revealing seed phrases.

Advertisement

Bridge infrastructure has been a particular weak point. DefiLlama’s hacks dashboard shows that bridges account for almost $3 billion of the roughly $11.8 billion it categorises as “total value hacked,” with large single incidents like the Ronin, Wormhole and Multichain exploits setting the tone for cross‑chain risk. The latest addition to that list is Kelp DAO’s rsETH cross‑chain bridge, which was hit on April 18 after an attacker forged a cross‑chain message on a LayerZero‑based link and minted or released 116,500 rsETH to an attacker‑controlled address.

Those tokens — representing “restaked” Ether — were worth about $290–$293 million at the time, or roughly 18% of rsETH’s total supply, and have been called the largest DeFi exploit of 2026 so far by outlets including Bloomberg. The incident forced Kelp DAO to pause the bridge, coordinate emergency responses with exchanges and protocols, and sparked a blame game over LayerZero’s default single‑validator configuration, which critics argue left the system effectively one‑key‑away from catastrophic minting.

Even away from headline‑grabbing exploits, everyday credential compromises continue to rack up damage. DefiLlama data cited by Cointelegraph shows that in the first quarter of 2026 alone, hackers stole about $168.6 million from 34 DeFi protocols, with the largest single hit — a $40 million Step Finance theft — traced back to a private key compromise rather than a pure code bug. That trend suggests DeFi’s smart contract security is slowly hardening, while attackers respond by moving upstream into the tools and human processes that sit between wallets and protocols.

Advertisement

For users and teams, the lesson is brutal but clear: audits and formal verification are necessary, but not sufficient. Hardware keys, multi‑sig schemes, segregated signing devices, strict key‑management policies, and relentless phishing hygiene are now as critical to safeguarding crypto as gas optimisations and bug bounties ever were — because it only takes one compromised credential to turn another line in DefiLlama’s hacks database into a nine‑figure loss.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

US Admiral Touts Bitcoin a Tool For US Power Projection

Published

on

US Admiral Touts Bitcoin a Tool For US Power Projection

A senior US military commander has lauded Bitcoin as a “valuable computer science tool,” arguing its usefulness extends beyond monetary applications and can support US national security interests.

“It is a valuable computer science tool, as a power projection,” Admiral Samuel Paparo said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, adding that Bitcoin’s proof-of-work technology “imposes more cost” on attackers attempting to compromise the network:

“Outside of the economic formulation of it, it has got really important computer science applications for cybersecurity.”

The Senate hearing looked into the strategic posture of US forces in Indo-Pacific, including ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, China’s military expansion and coordination with foreign adversaries, and threats from North Korea.

Admiral Samuel Paparo at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday. Source: US Senate Committee on Armed Services

Paparo’s remarks echo similar comments from US Space Force member Jason Lowery in December 2023, who said Bitcoin and other proof-of-work blockchains could protect the US in cyberwarfare.

At the time, he said that while Bitcoin is mostly seen as a “monetary system” to secure funds, few know that Bitcoin can be used to secure “all forms of data, messages or command signals.”

Advertisement

“As a result, this misconception underplays the technology’s broad strategic significance for cybersecurity, and consequently, national security.”

Research into Bitcoin’s use as a cybersecurity tool comes as many adversaries — including state-linked actors — have turned to cyberattacks such as phishing, ransomware and distributed denial-of-service to sabotage infrastructure and secure economic advantages.

North Korea’s notorious Lazarus Group is one of the most notable examples of this, having stolen billions of dollars in crypto over the past decade to support its nuclear program.

Paparo’s comments came in response to a question from US Senator Tommy Tuberville, who asked how the US and Congress can lead on Bitcoin competition, noting that China’s top monetary think tank now also views Bitcoin as a strategic asset.

Paparo didn’t address the question directly but added, “Bitcoin is a reality. It is a peer-to-peer zero-trust transfer of value. Anything that supports all instruments of national power for the United States of America is to the good.”

Advertisement

Senators introduce national security-focused Bitcoin bill

The US holds the largest Bitcoin reserves among nation-states and holds the largest share of Bitcoin hashrate. However, it remains reliant on foreign-manufactured mining equipment, an issue that has raised national security concerns related to supply chain risks.

Related: Quantum threat to Bitcoin still years away, says Borderless Capital partner

Last month, US Senators Bill Cassidy and Cynthia Lummis introduced the Mined in America Act to resolve that issue by bringing more Bitcoin mining manufacturing back to the US. 

It also seeks to codify Trump’s executive order establishing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.

Advertisement

Magazine: Adam Back says current demand is ‘almost’ enough to send Bitcoin to $1M