The White House has reportedly confirmed that US President Donald Trump will attend the exclusive event for top TRUMP memecoin holders at his Florida residence on Saturday, after questions were raised earlier this month over whether he would attend.

Reuters reported on Friday that the White House confirmed Trump would deliver a keynote address at the gala luncheon organized by the company behind his Official Trump (TRUMP) memecoin.

The gala is set to take place at Mar-a-Lago. It will be open to the top 297 holders of the TRUMP token, and the top 29 holders will also qualify for a private reception with the president.

When the event was announced in March, a White House official told Politico that it was not locked into Trump’s schedule and that it was taking place the same day Trump said he would attend the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in Washington, DC, the first time he would do so as president.

Donald Trump, pictured at a Turning Point USA event on April 17, is confirmed to be addressing an event for holders of his memecoin on April 25. Source: The White House

The event’s terms also state that Trump may not be able to attend the event, and it “may be canceled for any reason.”

Trump’s potential attendance at the event has been a sticking point for some lawmakers, who have criticized the event as a conflict of interest for the president.

Earlier this month, Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal and Adam Schiff reportedly sent a letter to Bill Zanker, the individual behind the TRUMP memecoin, questioning whether Trump intends to “dangle access” to himself at the upcoming event.

Related: Trump-linked American Bitcoin energizes 11,298 new ASICs

“[O]rganizers are promoting a conference by dangling access to President Trump to potential attendees (and in doing so, are encouraging purchases of his meme coin that will generate transaction fees for the President and his family) on a day he may not actually be able to attend,” the letter said.

It is the second event for holders of the TRUMP token. The first took place at a Trump golf club in May 2025 and drew criticism from those who said Trump was using his position as president for personal financial gain.

Magazine: Quitting Trump’s top crypto job wasn’t easy: Bo Hines

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

The White House has confirmed that U.S. President Donald Trump will deliver a keynote address at a private gala for the top holders of the TRUMP memecoin, slated to take place at Mar-a-Lago this weekend. The event has already drawn scrutiny over the intersection of politics, finance and social media hype surrounding meme coins tied to political figures.

According to Reuters, the White House affirmed on Friday that Trump would speak at the gala luncheon organized by the company behind the Official TRUMP memecoin. The affair is designed to be exclusive, with access limited to the top 297 TRUMP token holders, and the top 29 holders qualifying for a private reception with the president. The organizers list attendance terms that acknowledge the possibility that Trump’s schedule could prevent participation, or that the event could be canceled for any reason.

Key takeaways

• The White House has confirmed Trump will keynote a gala for TRUMP memecoin holders at Mar-a-Lago, with the event planned for April 25.
• Access is restricted to the top 297 TRUMP token holders, and the top 29 are eligible for a private reception with the president.
• Lawmakers are raising concerns about conflicts of interest and access diplomacy tied to the event; a formal inquiry has been issued to the event’s organizer.
• Past criticism surrounding a previous TRUMP memecoin event in 2025 underscores ongoing questions about the use of presidential platforms for personal financial gain.

White House confirms keynote at Mar-a-Lago gala

In a development that blends political life with crypto-tinged fundraising, Reuters reported that the White House has given the green light for Trump to address attendees at the TRUMP memecoin gala. The appearance would mark a high-profile moment for the meme-based project, which markets itself around the former president’s name and brand. The venue is Mar-a-Lago, a setting that has already become a focal point for the event’s exclusivity and spectacle.

The organizers’ terms note that participation is not guaranteed if Trump cannot attend or if circumstances necessitate cancellation. The stated plan to host a closed, invitation-only luncheon aligns with how crypto-promotional events have historically attempted to leverage star power to drive attention and potential liquidity for token holders.

Media coverage of the development has focused not only on the logistical details but also on the broader implications for governance and accountability when political figures lend themselves to crypto campaigns. The event’s framing—as a fundraiser, a social meet-up for the crypto community, and a potential venue for policy or influence peddling—has drawn varying responses from observers across the political spectrum.

Lawmakers raise conflict-of-interest concerns

The invitation to such a high-profile engagement has quickly become a political talking point. Earlier this month, Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal and Adam Schiff reportedly sent a letter to Bill Zanker, the entrepreneur behind the TRUMP memecoin initiative, questioning whether the event would amount to “dangles of access” to the president. The lawmakers argued that tying access to a personal crypto project could incentivize attendees to purchase the token to gain proximity to power, potentially generating transaction-related benefits for Trump and his family.

As described in the letter, organizers were urged to clarify the intent behind offering faces of power in exchange for financial participation and to address potential conflicts with ethical standards governing the president’s official duties. The questions underscore ongoing tensions around the use of presidential branding for commercial ventures, particularly where digital assets could be involved in fundraising or promotional activities.

Past controversy shadows the current event

This event would be the second time TRUMP token holders have gathered under the president’s orbit. The first such gathering occurred in May 2025 at a Trump golf club and drew sharp criticism from critics who argued that a sitting president’s involvement in a personal financial venture could blur lines between public duties and private enterprise. Critics argued the optics suggested the administration was enabling personal financial gain through the presidency—a concern that has echoed through debates about crypto marketing and political power.

Observers note that the current event’s terms explicitly acknowledge uncertainty around attendance, a feature that some critics have highlighted as a necessary check against overreach. Still, the persistence of such events signals a broader trend in which political figures’ associations with crypto tokens become part of the public discourse surrounding policy, regulation, and the evolving role of digital assets in society.

What to watch next

The immediate question is whether Trump will attend or cancel, given the formal caveats in the event’s terms and the fluctuating nature of schedules for sitting presidents. The President’s schedule and public appearances often shift due to broader political considerations, making the outcome uncertain even as the event date approaches. Additionally, lawmakers’ inquiries could influence how such memecoin-linked events are perceived by regulatory bodies and the public.

In broader market terms, the episode illustrates how political branding and crypto marketing continue to intersect in ways that attract both attention and scrutiny. For investors and observers, the key takeaway is not the hype around a single token event but the signal it sends about governance, transparency, and the evolving boundaries of political influence in digital asset cultures. The outcome could shape how future memecoin campaigns navigate ethics, disclosures, and accountability when tied to public figures.

As coverage develops, readers should monitor official statements from the White House, updates from Reuters and Politico on scheduling, and any formal responses from lawmakers or the campaign organizers. The next steps will likely illuminate how such high-profile political-crypto intersections are managed going forward and what safeguards—if any—emerge to balance access, publicity, and governance in this rapidly evolving space.

Liquidity mining has long been framed as a cornerstone innovation in decentralized finance—an elegant mechanism to bootstrap liquidity, decentralize ownership, and align incentives between users and protocols. But beneath the narrative, a more familiar pattern emerges: liquidity mining often functions as a form of paid customer acquisition, with tokens replacing traditional cash incentives.

This framing does not diminish its importance. Instead, it clarifies both its strengths and its limitations

Reinterpreting Liquidity Mining

At its core, liquidity mining distributes tokens to users who provide capital or perform activities for a protocol. Whether through supplying liquidity, staking assets, or executing trades, participants are rewarded for behaviors that enhance the protocol’s functionality and attractiveness.

From a business perspective, this resembles a classic growth strategy:

• Incentivize user participation
• Increase platform activity
• Build initial network effects

The only difference is the currency. Instead of spending fiat on ads or promotions, protocols issue native tokens—effectively subsidizing early adoption with future upside.

Paid User Acquisition, Repackaged

Traditional startups allocate significant budgets to acquire users through marketing campaigns, referral bonuses, and discounts. Liquidity mining mirrors this approach, but with a structural twist:

• Tokens as incentives: Users are compensated directly in protocol-native assets
• Lower upfront cost: Instead of depleting cash reserves, protocols dilute token supply
• Speculative appeal: Rewards are not just payments—they are perceived investments

This creates a powerful feedback loop. As long as token prices remain stable or increase, participation appears profitable, attracting more users and reinforcing growth.

However, the mechanism is not fundamentally different from paid acquisition—it is simply more capital-efficient in the short term.

Temporary Engagement Spikes

Liquidity mining programs are highly effective at generating rapid traction. When rewards are attractive, capital flows in quickly, often producing dramatic increases in:

• Total Value Locked (TVL)
• Trading volume
• User activity

These spikes can create the appearance of strong product-market fit. Yet, much of this activity is incentive-driven rather than organic.

Participants, particularly sophisticated users, optimize for yield. They allocate capital where rewards are highest and withdraw it just as quickly when incentives decline. This behavior introduces a critical dynamic: engagement is often rented rather than earned.

The Retention Problem

The most significant challenge emerges when rewards taper off.

Without continuous incentives, many users disengage, leading to:

• Declining liquidity
• Reduced trading activity
• Increased volatility in protocol metrics

This reveals a fundamental issue: liquidity mining does not inherently create loyalty. It attracts capital, but it does not guarantee that capital will stay.

In traditional terms, this is equivalent to acquiring users who churn as soon as discounts disappear.

Token Emissions as a Cost

While liquidity mining avoids immediate cash expenditure, it is not free. Token emissions represent a form of cost—one that is often less visible but equally impactful.

Key considerations include:

• Dilution: Increased token supply can suppress long-term value
• Sell pressure: Recipients frequently sell rewards, affecting price stability
• Sustainability: Continuous emissions may be required to maintain engagement

In effect, protocols are paying for growth, just as traditional companies do—only the cost is denominated in equity-like instruments rather than cash.

When Liquidity Mining Works

Despite its limitations, liquidity mining can be highly effective under the right conditions. It performs best when:

• The underlying product delivers genuine utility
• Incentives are used to accelerate, not replace, organic adoption
• Token design aligns long-term participation with protocol success

In these cases, liquidity mining acts as a catalyst—helping a protocol reach critical mass before transitioning to more sustainable growth drivers.

Toward Sustainable Incentive Design

The next evolution of liquidity mining lies in improving retention and reducing reliance on continuous emissions. Emerging approaches include:

• Time-weighted rewards that favor long-term participation
• Revenue-sharing mechanisms that tie rewards to real protocol income
• Dynamic incentive systems that adjust based on user behavior and market conditions

These models aim to shift the focus from short-term attraction to long-term alignment.

Finale

Liquidity mining is not a flawed concept—it is a misinterpreted one. At its essence, it is a sophisticated form of customer acquisition, optimized for decentralized systems and powered by token economics.

The challenge is not whether to use it, but how to use it responsibly. Protocols that recognize liquidity mining as a cost of growth—and design accordingly—are far more likely to convert temporary participation into lasting ecosystems.

Because in the end, incentives can bring users in. Only real value makes them stay.

REQUEST AN ARTICLE

Rising oil prices amid risks to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have strengthened global inflation expectations. According to the Pentagon, clearing the strait could take at least six months, sustaining uncertainty in commodity markets and weighing on risk assets overall — a category that typically includes cryptocurrencies.

At the same time, institutional demand for Bitcoin remains resilient. As of 20 April, spot ETFs recorded five consecutive days of inflows, with daily volumes around $238 million, while Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) executed its largest purchase since late 2024, acquiring 34,164 BTC worth $2.54 billion. However, analysts at CryptoQuant note that the current price momentum is being driven primarily by the perpetual futures market, while spot demand is declining. A similar pattern was observed in January ahead of the correction from $98,000, suggesting that the market remains vulnerable.

Technical picture

Since October 2025, Bitcoin has been trading within a descending parallel channel, with the lower boundary tested in February 2026 when the price fell to around $60,000 amid exceptionally high trading volumes typical of a selling climax. Following this low, the market shifted into recovery mode, and in the first half of April 2026, the price broke above the upper boundary of the channel and managed to hold above it.

At the same time, the price moved beyond the upper edge of the horizontal volume zone between $65,000 and $73,000, where most trading activity had been concentrated in previous months. This zone now lies below current levels. The nearest resistance is seen at $90,000, while support stands at $63,000. The RSI with moving averages shows readings of 64 / 61 / 56 — the oscillator remains above both moving averages, which are trending upwards, indicating ongoing buying pressure. Vertical volume in recent sessions remains moderate, with no clear signs of acceleration.

Summary

The horizontal volume zone has shifted below the current price, signalling a structural tilt in favour of buyers. The RSI remains above its moving averages, confirming bullish pressure, though recent trading volumes do not yet indicate a strong acceleration in momentum. Resistance at $90,000 and support at $63,000 define the key range within which the next phase of market structure is likely to develop.

FXOpen offers the world’s most popular cryptocurrency CFDs*, including Bitcoin and Ethereum. Floating spreads, 1:2 leverage — at your service (additional fees may apply). Open your trading account now or learn more about crypto CFD trading with FXOpen.

*Important: At FXOpen UK, Cryptocurrency trading via CFDs is only available to our Professional clients. They are not available for trading by Retail clients. To find out more information about how this may affect you, please get in touch with our team.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.

Japanese bitcoin treasury firm Metaplanet is back in the market with another round of balance-sheet leverage, issuing 8 billion yen, worth roughly $50 million, in zero-interest ordinary bonds to finance future bitcoin purchases.

In a Friday filing, the company said the latest issuance was fully taken up by EVO Fund, a Cayman Islands-based investor that has repeatedly anchored Metaplanet’s previous offerings. It also marks the firm’s 20th bond issuance, underscoring its long favored strategy of tapping debt markets to fund bitcoin accumulation.

Metaplanet, now Japan’s largest corporate bitcoin holder, has maintained a steady buying spree since April 2024, adding 5,075 BTC in the first quarter alone. As of writing, it held 40,177 BTC, which makes it the third-largest listed bitcoin treasury globally, according to BitcoinTreasuries.

The aggressive accumulation continues even as the firm faces deep paper losses. Metaplanet reported a $619 million net loss for fiscal 2025, largely driven by unrealized markdowns on its bitcoin stack.

The broader backdrop, however, has been volatile rather than outright bearish. Bitcoin, which briefly surged to an all-time high near $126,000 in October 2025, has since pulled back amid geopolitical shocks in the Middle East. It is currently trading around $77,800, still up roughly 10% over the past month as risk sentiment stabilizes.

TLDR:

• US consumer sentiment fell to 47.6, marking its lowest level amid rising cost pressures
• The S&P 500 remains near highs, showing a sharp disconnect from household expectations
• Retail outlook weakens as discount chains report softer demand and cautious guidance
• Strong premium travel demand contrasts with declining confidence among lower-income groups

---

A widening gap between financial markets and household outlook is drawing attention across the United States. Equity benchmarks remain elevated, yet US consumer sentiment has dropped sharply, raising concerns about how long this divergence can persist without affecting broader economic stability.

Record Gap Between Markets and Households

Recent commentary shared by Global Markets Investor described an unusual disconnect between Wall Street performance and everyday financial expectations. The post noted that US consumer sentiment fell to 47.6 in April, marking a record low reading.

At the same time, the S&P 500 continues to trade near peak levels. This contrast places US consumer sentiment at levels seen during past recessions, while equities reflect continued optimism. The gap between the two indicators now stands at its widest point on record.

The update pointed to rising living costs as a key factor weighing on US consumer sentiment. Higher gas prices and persistent inflation continue to pressure lower-income households. These pressures have intensified following disruptions linked to the Strait of Hormuz closure.

Meanwhile, asset price growth has supported wealthier households. This trend has helped sustain equity valuations despite weakening US consumer sentiment. As a result, financial conditions vary sharply across income groups.

The same post indicated that more than a quarter of households expect their finances to worsen. This marks the highest level since May 2024. Such expectations further reflect declining US consumer sentiment across the country.

Diverging Spending Patterns and Economic Signals

Retail data shows early signs of strain among cost-conscious consumers. Discount chains have reported cautious outlooks, aligning with the drop in US consumer sentiment. Walmart issued measured guidance, while Dollar General noted softer expectations.

At the same time, spending patterns remain uneven. Premium travel and cruise bookings continue to perform well. This divergence suggests that higher-income consumers remain less affected by declining US consumer sentiment.

The contrast between retail segments reflects a broader economic divide. While some households maintain discretionary spending, others are scaling back. These shifts are closely tied to ongoing weakness in US consumer sentiment.

The US economy depends heavily on consumer activity. As US consumer sentiment weakens, questions arise about future demand. Market participants are watching whether reduced confidence will translate into lower spending levels.

Equity markets continue to price in a stable outcome. However, declining US consumer sentiment presents a different narrative. If household confidence continues to fall, corporate earnings could face pressure in the coming months.

This divergence leaves uncertainty about which trend will adjust. Either markets may reprice risk, or consumer conditions may stabilize. Until then, US consumer sentiment remains a key measure shaping expectations across sectors.

The President Trump administration has announced plans to fight what it called “industrial-scale campaigns” aimed at copying artificial intelligence technology from American companies. 

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy said foreign entities are targeting major US AI firms through unauthorized model distillation.

Michael J. Kratsios, assistant to the president for the White House science office, said the government has “information” that foreign entities, mainly based in China, are trying to extract capabilities from US AI models. The statement said these groups use proxy accounts and jailbreaking methods to avoid detection.

Kratsios said, “Models developed from surreptitious, unauthorized distillation campaigns like this do not replicate the full performance of the original.” He added that such models can still allow foreign actors to release products that appear close to US systems on some benchmarks at a much lower cost.

US says proxy accounts helped hide activity

The White House said some foreign companies used “tens of thousands of proxy accounts” to mask their activity while probing American AI models. It also said the groups used jailbreaking techniques to expose private or protected model information.

According to the science office, these campaigns aim to extract useful features from American models without permission. The statement said, “These coordinated campaigns systematically extract capabilities from American AI models, exploiting American expertise and innovation.”

The White House also said models built through these methods may lack security controls. It warned that copied systems could move away from being “neutral and truth-seeking” if safety protections are removed or weakened.

Moreover, the statement follows claims made by Anthropic in late February. The Claude developer accused three Chinese AI firms, DeepSeek, Moonshot, and MiniMax, of carrying out distillation attacks against its models.

Anthropic said the firms created more than 16 million exchanges with its AI models through about 24,000 “fraudulent accounts.” The company said the activity targeted capabilities such as coding, agentic reasoning, data analysis, grading tasks, and computer vision.

The case has added focus to how frontier AI companies protect model access. AI firms charge users through token-based pricing, and lower-cost competitors can gain market attention by offering similar performance on selected tasks.

US plans closer work with private AI firms

The White House science office said the administration will work with US companies to share information about large attacks. It also plans to help the private sector coordinate stronger defenses against foreign actors.

The administration said it will explore measures to “hold foreign actors accountable.” It did not provide a detailed list of possible penalties or enforcement steps in the statement.

The move comes as AI competition between the United States and China continues to grow. US officials have framed advanced AI systems as a core technology for national security, business productivity, and future economic power.

Kelp DAO’s $292 million exploit has raised new questions about risk across liquid restaking and DeFi lending markets. 

The attack reportedly affected the protocol’s rsETH bridge and involved 116,500 rsETH, equal to about 18% of circulating supply.

The incident did not remain limited to Kelp DAO. Aave saw large withdrawals, while SparkLend and Fluid paused rsETH markets. Lido also paused earnETH, which had exposure to rsETH, even though its core stETH product was not affected.

A post by a DeFi-focused account, known as @whatexchange on X, compared the event to the 2008 financial crisis. The account wrote, “Stacking asset layers does not remove risk. It compresses and hides it.”

Layered yield products face scrutiny

The post argued that rsETH moved through several layers before the exploit. Users first staked ETH through Lido and received stETH. That stETH could then move into Kelp DAO and EigenLayer, where rsETH was minted.

The rsETH token was then used as collateral on lending platforms such as Aave, SparkLend, and Fluid. It was also bridged through LayerZero to other chains, creating wrapped versions that depended on the same underlying asset.

The analysis compared this structure to mortgage products before the 2008 crisis. It said both systems repackaged one base asset through several financial layers, while each layer relied on the previous one working as expected.

Market response shows hidden exposure

After the Kelp DAO exploit, several DeFi platforms moved to reduce risk. Aave froze rsETH markets for several hours, while SparkLend and Fluid paused similar markets. Ethena also paused LayerZero OFT bridges as a precaution, despite having no direct rsETH exposure.

According to the post, over $6.2 billion exited Aave within less than 36 hours. The account said the main issue was not only the exploit size but the difficulty of mapping indirect exposure across protocols.

The post stated, “No participant, including protocols themselves, can fully map their exposure network.” It added that when users cannot verify exposure in real time, they often react by withdrawing funds.

DeFi risk debate shifts to system design

The post also focused on bridge security. It claimed Kelp used a 1-of-1 verifier setup, meaning one node verified cross-chain messages before funds moved. The post argued that this design created a single point of failure inside a product marketed as decentralized.

The analysis also questioned yield stacking. It said each layer adds new risks, including validator slashing, restaking risks, bridge bugs, contract failures, and lending liquidations.

The post said users should not judge DeFi products only by APY. It argued that higher returns often reflect hidden risk across several connected systems, not simple passive income.

The Kelp DAO exploit has now become part of a wider debate on DeFi security, leverage, and transparency. The incident showed how one failure can affect users across several platforms, including users who did not directly interact with Kelp DAO.