Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Goldman Sachs bond traders stumbled as Wall Street rivals thrived

Published

on

Goldman Sachs bond traders stumbled as Wall Street rivals thrived

David Solomon, CEO Goldman Sachs, speaking on CNBC’s Squawk Box at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Jan. 22nd, 2026.

Oscar Molina | CNBC

When Goldman Sachs executives were asked about disappointing results in the firm’s fixed income division this week, they made it sound as though the trading environment was simply not in their favor.

Advertisement

Fixed income revenue fell 10% in the first quarter, coming in $910 million below analysts’ expectations, according to StreetAccount data. It was an unusually large miss for one of Goldman’s flagship Wall Street businesses.

“It was basically just a function of the overall environment making markets,” CFO Denis Coleman told an analyst on Monday after the bank’s earning report. “We remain actively engaged with clients, but our performance in rates and mortgages was relatively lower.”

But as nearly all of Goldman’s rivals, including JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup, posted blockbuster results for first-quarter fixed income in the days that followed, one thing became clear to Wall Street: Goldman Sachs’ vaunted fixed income traders had underperformed.

JPMorgan saw fixed income trading revenue jump 21% to $7.1 billion, the bank’s second-biggest haul ever. Morgan Stanley, where fixed income is less a priority than equities, posted a 29% jump in the bond business. Citigroup saw bond trading revenue jump 13% to $5.2 billion.

Advertisement

Since before the 2008 financial crisis, when Lloyd Blankfein led Goldman Sachs, the firm’s fixed income division had been the envy of Wall Street. Goldman was known for its trading prowess, a reputation forged in periods of dislocation when its desks generated outsized gains. The bank’s identity as a trader’s firm — one expected to outperform in turbulent times — has endured in the decade-plus since.

That makes the first-quarter stumble particularly notable.

“It seems that something went wrong at Goldman in fixed income,” said veteran Wells Fargo analyst Mike Mayo, who called the bank’s results “worst-in-class.”

“I’d imagine that at Goldman, a fire is being lit under the traders, managers and risk overseers in FICC after such an underperformance,” Mayo said in an interview with CNBC, using an acronym standing for fixed income, currencies and commodities, the formal name for that business.

Advertisement

The prevailing theory is that Goldman was caught offsides on trades tied to interest rates in the first quarter, according to several market participants who asked for anonymity to speak candidly.

That’s because of the positioning that many Wall Street firms had at the start of this year, when markets were expecting the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates at least twice in 2026, these people said.

But after the price of oil surged with the advent of the Iran war, roiling expectations for inflation, the markets began pricing those cuts out, with some investors even bracing for the possibility of rate hikes this year.

Fixed income was the sole blemish on a quarter in which Goldman Sachs exceeded expectations handily, thanks to the firm’s equities traders and investment bankers. Despite the earnings beat, the firm’s shares dropped as much as about 4% on Monday following the report.  

Advertisement

Goldman Sachs didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment. But on Monday, CEO David Solomon sought to put the quarter’s performance into context:

“When I look at the scale and the diversity of the business, it’s performing very, very well,” Solomon said during the company’s conference call. “Some quarters, it’s going to be stronger here, stronger there.”

Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

World Liberty Financial Pushes Aggressive Token Lock and Burn Plan for WLFI

Published

on

WLFI Price Performance

World Liberty Financial (WLFI) published a governance proposal that would lock 62.2 billion tokens under new vesting schedules and burn up to 4.5 billion WLFI permanently.

The proposal targets every insider and early supporter allocation, replacing indefinite locks with structured cliff-and-vest timelines that stretch up to five years.

How the WLFI Token Lock Would Work

According to the proposal, 45.2 billion WLFI held by founders, team members, advisors, and institutional partners would move to a two-year cliff followed by a three-year linear vest.

Those holders must also accept a mandatory 10% token burn upon opting in. That mechanism alone could permanently destroy up to 4.5 billion WLFI, reducing the 100 billion total supply.

Advertisement

Early supporters holding 17 billion WLFI receive slightly better terms. Their tokens shift to a two-year cliff with a two-year linear vest, retaining the full allocation with zero burn.

However, many of these holders have already waited roughly 550 days since the project’s October 2024 launch and now face four more years before full access.

Holders who do not opt in within a 10-day acceptance window stay locked indefinitely under their original terms.

Advertisement

World Liberty Financial stated that 77% of currently locked supply belongs to inactive, non-voting holders, framing the ultimatum as a filter for genuine governance participants.

“…we believe it represents one of the strongest long-term governance alignment signals in DeFi,” they said.

Community Pushback and Market Context

The proposal arrives during a turbulent stretch for the Trump-family-associated DeFi project. Earlier this month, WLFI’s treasury drew criticism for pledging roughly 5 billion tokens as collateral on the Dolomite lending protocol and borrowing approximately $75 million in stablecoins.

That position consumed over half of Dolomite’s total value locked, squeezing other depositors’ liquidity.

WLFI traded for $0.07987 as of this writing, down almost 3% in the last 24 hours and roughly 82% from its September 2025 all-time high of $0.46.

Advertisement
WLFI Price Performance
WLFI Price Performance. Source: Coingecko

Reaction on the governance forum and social media has been split. Supporters praised the burn and extended locks as proof the team has skin in the game.

Critics called the terms punitive for early buyers who now face years of additional waiting or permanent lockout.

“No matter what decisions are made regarding WLFI at this stage, the financial damage to thousands of investors has already been done…there is no real reversal for those losses. Announcements like these do little to rebuild trust…they appear less about transparency or accountability and more about sustaining interest and attracting fresh capital,” one user commented.

The proposal still requires a seven-day community vote with a one billion WLFI quorum before taking effect.

The post World Liberty Financial Pushes Aggressive Token Lock and Burn Plan for WLFI appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

A new design for Ethereum’s encrypted mempool

Published

on

A new design for Ethereum’s encrypted mempool

Sponsored Content

Sandwich attacks cost Ethereum users an estimated $60 million per year. Transactions broadcast to the public mempool are publicly visible before inclusion, which gives MEV bots the ability to affect the order of transactions and insert their own for profit. This problem has persisted on some level in spite of years of discussion and various out-of-protocol mitigation attempts.

Encrypting mempool transactions would be one of the most compelling solutions to prevent MEV. While this idea has been actively discussed for years, it has not yet been implemented at the protocol level. In our earlier research, we examined several proposals based on threshold-encryption, including Shutter, Batched Threshold Encryption, and Flash Freezing Flash Boys. In this article, we turn to a meta proposal titled “Universal Enshrined Encrypted Mempool (EIP-8105)“.

How EIP-8105 approaches mempool encryption

Universal Enshrined Encrypted Mempool, also known as EIP-8105, is a scheme-agnostic encrypted mempool design, which means it can support a wide range of encryption methods, including threshold encryption, MPC committees, TEEs, delay encryption, and fully homomorphic encryption. A new system contract on the execution layer, called the key provider registry, is planned to facilitate this flexible design. It would allow any account to register as a key provider that holds and reveals decryption keys using their own preferred encryption technology. 

Advertisement

How transactions are executed in Universal Enshrined Encrypted Mempool

Universal Enshrined Encrypted Mempool introduces two new transaction types under the EIP-2718 framework: 0x05 for encrypted transactions and 0x06 for decrypted transactions. An encrypted transaction is an envelope with an encrypted payload and a public payload, which contains the envelope nonce, gas amount, gas price parameters, key provider ID, key ID, and a signature. This structure is required to associate the transaction with the chosen key provider, assign a nonce and ensure gas fees for the blockspace are covered.

EIP-8105 follows a two-step execution flow. In the first step, the encrypted transaction envelope is included in a block even though the payload itself remains hidden. Key providers monitor transactions with encrypted payloads, collect the relevant transaction key IDs, and publish either the corresponding decryption keys or a withhold notice once the block builder publishes the data. 

Once the block builder has published the execution payload, the relevant key provider reveals either the decryption key or a withhold notice. A Payload Timeliness Committee (PTC) monitors whether the decryption keys referenced by encrypted transactions are published on time, validates them, and attests to whether a valid key was present or missing. If the key is available and decryption succeeds, the resulting decrypted transaction is executed in the following block. If the key is missing, withheld, or decryption fails, the decrypted payload is skipped, while the envelope remains included, and the transaction fee is still paid.

The EIP also enforces a block structure that prevents MEV-extracting transactions from being inserted in the window between decryption and execution. Decrypted transactions must appear at the beginning of a block, plaintext transactions remain in the middle, and encrypted transactions are placed at the end. This ordering allows encrypted payloads to be revealed and executed only after inclusion, while preventing secondary MEV. 

While EIP-8105 significantly limits MEV exposure, earlier providers in the block retain a limited ability to extract MEV from later transactions by selectively revealing or withholding their decryption keys. The proposal attempts to mitigate this by letting key providers designate other trusted providers and ordering transactions according to the resulting key provider trust graph.

Encrypted Mempools and Ethereum’s Roadmap

Encrypted mempools are becoming an increasingly important part of Ethereum’s roadmap, as the ecosystem looks for protocol-level ways to reduce harmful MEV. While EIP-8105 is no longer being positioned as one of the headliners for the first 2027 hard fork, it remains an open draft, and its ideas continue to inform the broader effort to prepare a leading encrypted-mempool proposal for the upgrade.

Advertisement

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, financial, investment, or other advice. The views expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Cointelegraph, which does not endorse this content or any products mentioned herein. All investments carry risk — readers should conduct their own research and bear full responsibility for their decisions. Cointelegraph strives for accuracy but makes no guarantees regarding the completeness or reliability of the information presented, including any forward-looking statements, and accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on this content.

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Elizabeth Warren Criticizes Musk, Sends Probing Questions About X Money

Published

on

Twitter, Senate, US Government, United States, Stablecoin, Elon Musk, Companies, Genius Act

US Senator Elizabeth Warren has asked Elon Musk for information on X Money, a payments feature that is expected to be integrated into the X social media platform in the near future.

Warren, who is a longtime critic of Musk and the cryptocurrency industry, wrote in a letter on Tuesday that X Money’s potential stablecoin and crypto integrations could pose risks to the financial system and US national security.

She questioned whether the platform would also issue its own stablecoin, under a legal “carveout” in the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, which allows private companies to issue their own stablecoins. 

Twitter, Senate, US Government, United States, Stablecoin, Elon Musk, Companies, Genius Act
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s letter seeking information about the upcoming X Money launch. Source: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs

Warren said X Money’s limited beta preview suggests it will offer 6% interest on deposits and partner with Cross River Bank, which was subject to enforcement action by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a banking regulator. She said:

“It is unclear what risky investments, intrusive data monetization activities or gimmicks either X Money or Cross River may intend to engage in to pay that yield when the target Federal Funds Rate is 3.5-3.75%.”

Warren’s letter could signal pushback from US lawmakers against private companies issuing stablecoins under the GENIUS stablecoin regulatory framework, which opens the door for the tech sector and non-banks to issue US dollar-pegged tokens.

Advertisement

Related: X rolls out smart cashtags in US, Canada in step toward ‘everything app’

Questions on FDIC insurance for stablecoin deposits

Warren asked whether potential X Money customers were aware that FDIC insurance would not protect them if the platform failed.

Twitter, Senate, US Government, United States, Stablecoin, Elon Musk, Companies, Genius Act
A list of questions from the letter sent to Elon Musk by Senator Elizabeth Warren. Source: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs

In March, FDIC Chair Travis Hill said that stablecoin user deposits are not protected by FDIC insurance under the GENIUS Act.

“The GENIUS Act makes clear that payment stablecoins are not ‘subject to deposit insurance’ or guaranteed by the US government,” Hill said.

However, the legislation did not expressly prohibit stablecoin deposits from receiving pass-through insurance, which extends FDIC insurance to each customer of an eligible financial institution up to $250,000 in the event of a company failure, he added.

Advertisement

Hill said that even though the GENIUS Act lacks a hard prohibition on stablecoin companies extending pass-through FDIC insurance to end users, allowing this would be “inconsistent” with the broader points of the regulatory framework.

Magazine: Elon Musk’s plan to run government on blockchain faces uphill battle