Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Trump Iran Deal: $20B Asset Unfreeze Considered

Published

on

Trump Iran Deal: $20B Asset Unfreeze Considered

The Trump Iran deal under negotiation includes a proposal to unfreeze $20 billion in Iranian assets in exchange for Tehran surrendering its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, CNN reported, according to two US officials and two additional sources briefed on the talks, placing Trump on the verge of the very kind of financial concession to Iran he spent years denouncing Obama for making.

Summary

  • The US initially offered $6 billion in unfrozen assets; Iran countered with $27 billion; the $20 billion figure represents the current negotiating midpoint under a broader three-page framework to end the war.
  • Trump posted on Truth Social that “no money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form” shortly after the Axios report published, without specifically addressing the frozen assets proposal.
  • Trump repeatedly attacked Obama’s 2016 arrangement involving a $400 million cash delivery to Iran, calling it a “disaster” and describing the broader nuclear deal as “catastrophic” as recently as April 2 of this year.

The Trump Iran deal framework, as described by sources to CNN and Axios, involves a three-page plan with one central financial term: the United States would release $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in return for Iran handing over its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. That uranium, which includes approximately 450 kilograms enriched to 60% purity, has been the hardest sticking point in every round of negotiations.

The financial concession would mirror, at a larger scale, the exact arrangement Trump spent years attacking Barack Obama for making. Trump called the Obama nuclear deal “catastrophic” and “disastrous,” singled out the $400 million cash delivery to Tehran in 2016 as “ransom,” and repeated that criticism as recently as April 2 this year, saying “I terminated Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran nuclear deal. A disaster. Obama gave them $1.7 billion in cash.”

Advertisement

According to Axios, the broader framework also includes a US demand that Iran agree to a 20-year moratorium on nuclear enrichment. Iran countered with five years. Mediating countries including Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey are trying to close the gap between those positions. The uranium custody question, specifically whether Iran would transfer the stockpile to a third party or simply place it under international inspection, also remains unresolved.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said “productive conversations with Iran continue, but we will not negotiate via the press.” A US official told Axios that Iran has “moved, but not far enough,” adding that while Iran clearly wants the financial relief and sanctions removal, it has not been willing to fully abandon its nuclear program.

The deal, if reached, would require significant political cover for Trump domestically. Conservative hawks including members of his own coalition have already pushed back on the financial terms. Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News that Trump had spoken directly with Iranians and that things got “sporty” on one call.

Advertisement

Why This Directly Contradicts Trump’s Past Position

The political irony is sharp. When Obama’s team released $400 million to Iran as part of a prisoner exchange that coincided with the nuclear deal’s formal implementation, Trump called it a “hostage payment” and used it as a central campaign attack. The frozen asset unfreezing under Obama’s broader nuclear framework released tens of billions more through sanctions relief, which Trump also condemned.

The $20 billion figure now under discussion is fifty times the payment Trump described as evidence of Obama “bribing” Iran. The administration’s internal framing is that the exchange is different because it is tied to full nuclear disarmament rather than a deal that permitted enrichment to continue. Critics, including Republicans who supported Trump’s original criticism of Obama, argue the structural logic is identical.

What a Deal Would Mean for Crypto Markets

The nuclear deal scenario has been described by analysts as the single largest positive catalyst available to crypto markets in 2026. A genuine agreement that permanently closes Iran’s enrichment program, unfreezes the Strait of Hormuz, and removes the war premium from oil prices would drive Brent toward the $65 to $70 pre-conflict range, remove the inflation ceiling suppressing Federal Reserve rate cut expectations, and create the macro conditions most closely associated with Bitcoin recovering toward $100,000.

The ceasefire hopes template from April 8 showed exactly how quickly those conditions can reprice: oil fell 13% and BTC surged to $72,700 within hours of that announcement. A permanent deal would be categorically larger in market terms. The $20 billion asset question is a domestic political problem for Trump. For crypto markets, it is the price tag on the scenario they have been pricing since February.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Aave Pitches Two Solutions to Resolve Kelp DAO Hack Dilemma

Published

on

Aave Pitches Two Solutions to Resolve Kelp DAO Hack Dilemma

Decentralized lending platform Aave’s risk management provider has outlined two scenarios on how bad debt from the Kelp DAO exploit over the weekend could impact the ecosystem, depending on how the losses are allocated.

The incident began on Saturday when hackers stole 116,500 Kelp DAO Restaked ETH (rsETH) tokens worth $293 million from Kelp DAO’s LayerZero-powered bridge and used them as collateral on Aave V3 to borrow wrapped Ether (wETH).

On Monday, LlamaRisk modeled two possible scenarios for how this “bad debt” could materialize on Aave, noting that the final decision rests with Kelp DAO.

The incident highlights the contagion risk in DeFi, where a single bridge exploit can trigger liquidity crunches and mass withdrawals across interconnected protocols like Aave, which has seen nearly $10 billion in value leave the protocol since the Kelp DAO exploit took place.

Advertisement
Source: Aave

Two scenarios and potential paths forward

The first scenario would see losses spread across all rsETH token holders on Ethereum mainnet and Ethereum layer 2s, resulting in roughly $123.7 million of bad debt on Aave while risking a 15% depeg in rsETH relative to Ether (ETH).

LlamaRisk said this first scenario would spread losses more thinly across all chains, while noting that wrapped Ether (wETH) would be “absorbing the bulk in absolute terms but barely noticing it relative to its reserve depth.”

Aave could also use its Umbrella security model to cover losses in wETH under the first scenario, noting that 18,922 Aave Wrapped ETH (aWETH) tokens worth nearly $43.7 million have entered the unstaking cooldown phase.

The second scenario would shift the entire shortfall to Ethereum layer 2 networks, such as Arbitrum and Mantle. However, the bad debt would be significantly higher at $230.1 million.

LlamaRisk also noted that Aave has around $181 million in its treasury that could be used to address a potential bad debt shortfall.

Advertisement
Scenario comparison of LlamaRisk’s two scenarios. Source: Aave

Related: Aave DAO backs V4 mainnet plan in near-unanimous vote

On Monday, Kelp DAO said it is still assessing the financial impact of the exploit and how to safely unpause the protocol, adding that it is working with Aave, LayerZero and other stakeholders on a path forward.

Kelp DAO sheds more light on the exploit

Kelp DAO also shared more details about the incident, saying that two nodes tied to the LayerZero bridge were compromised, while a third was hit with a distributed denial-of-service attack.

The attacker forged a seemingly valid transfer message that the system approved, allowing 116,500 rsETH to be minted on one of LayerZero’s bridges.

Kelp said it paused all relevant contracts on Ethereum and Ethereum layer 2s and blacklisted all wallets tied to the exploiter shortly after, preventing them from stealing another 40,000 rsETH worth $95 million.

Advertisement

Magazine: Are DeFi devs liable for the illegal activity of others on their platforms?