Every single person in that article has a special massive interest in bitcoin/cryptocurrency because they are all heavily invested in a scam entity. Every one. And each of them want to enrich themselves first directly.
Nothing about cryptocurrency has any value to the average American or even middle income business. There's a reason for that and it's because nothing insures crypto or bitcoin and is nearly impossible to trace or verify. Point of sale with bitcoin is a lie.
All these people are scammers and criminals trying to shove a losing enterprise down the taxpayers throats. cryptocurrency is the modern snake oil. Almost no exchange lasts, they disappear every few weeks. And they are never based in America.
Why Trump’s Crypto Reserve Plan Has Experts Worried
"Pro-Trump techies enraged by president’s crypto reserve announcement, causing early rift"
Mar 5, 2025 12:00 AM AET
by Andrew R. Chow Andrew R. Chow is a technology correspondent at TIME.
An illustration depicting Donald Trump's meme coin. Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto—Getty Images
After taking a massive tumble in February, crypto markets rallied on Sunday following Donald Trump’s announcement that he would create a national crypto strategic reserve. Trump wrote on Truth Social that a working group would “move forward” on facilitating the strategic federal purchases of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and three other smaller cryptocurrencies.
The announcement comes ahead of the White House’s first cryptocurrency summit on March 7, and builds on Trump’s fixation on crypto over the past year, which has included a crypto venture, a “crypto czar” position in the White House, and a TRUMP meme coin which has fallen in price from $70 to $13 within a month and a half.
It is unclear whether taxpayers will fund the reserve, how big it will be, or whether it will be used to pay off the U.S. federal debt, as some have suggested.
Trump’s strategic reserve announcement drew criticism from economists and even some of crypto’s biggest boosters. The U.S. has a long history of creating strategic reserves in key assets such as oil, in order to ensure access and stabilize prices in times of crisis. But this crypto reserve seems fundamentally different in nature, because it hinges not upon the asset’s importance to the nation, but the idea that its prices will increase going forward, says Stephen Cecchetti, an economist and professor at Brandeis International Business School who has written skeptically about crypto for several years.
Cecchetti called the idea of a strategic crypto reserve “absurd.”
“It's foolish to purchase risky assets with leverage in the hope of making it easier to repay your debt,” he says.
What is a strategic reserve?
In the past, the U.S. has stockpiled scarce assets to protect against supply disruptions. For instance, Congress created a Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1975 after the Arab oil embargo crisis caused gas shortages across the country and decimated the American economy. Creating a store of petroleum, its backers argued, would stabilize prices.
The U.S. has also created strategic reserves of other goods, like medical equipment and helium. “A strategic reserve is for something that is essential, either for national defense or national economic security,”Cecchetti says. “What exactly is essential about Bitcoin in our lives that makes it so the U.S. would want a reserve?”
Why do crypto enthusiasts want a reserve?
Most crypto enthusiasts don’t want to stabilize prices; instead, they hope that a reserve would send prices shooting upward. Federal purchases of crypto would send a signal that crypto is here to stay, encouraging other respected financial institutions to buy in. Other governments, too, might follow the lead and create their own reserves, further upping prices.
Some Bitcoiners also believe that a reserve could serve as a hedge against inflation. They point to the fact that the dollar has gotten less valuable over time, and argue that Bitcoin’s value could be stronger than the dollar’s during global economic crises.
However, crypto has proved highly volatile during recent geopolitical conflicts, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And the U.S. government buying Bitcoin could actually threaten the dollar’s global value, some experts say. Austin Campbell, a crypto entrepreneur and a professor at NYU Stern, wrote on X that “We should be doing everything we can to keep our fiscal house in order in dollar terms, which means cutting the deficit and future expenditures to a sustainable path, not trying to YOLO into an asset that benefits from dollar decline.”
How will Trump pay for a crypto reserve?
On Sunday, many people online expressed worry that a Bitcoin reserve could be funded with taxpayer dollars, effectively transferring money from everyday Americans to crypto millionaires and billionaires. Trump’s crypto czar David Sacks, however, batted down this idea on X on Monday, writing: “Nobody announced a tax or a spending program. Maybe you should wait to find out what’s actually being proposed.” (He also refuted accusations that he personally stands to benefit from the proposal.)
Insert: Sacks is into Yarvin's idea of decimating governments worldwide - see insert in, https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175887492 - so why would you believe anything he says to allay concerns that Trump's government might intentionally do the wrong thing with taxpayer dollars.
U.S. law enforcement already holds about 200,000 Bitcoin, worth around $17 billion, which has mostly been obtained through criminal seizures. These assets, managed by the U.S. Marshals Service, are typically auctioned to support law enforcement operations and compensate victims of crypto-related crimes. It’s unclear if Trump aims to co-opt those Bitcoins for the reserve, or how the government could go about transferring those funds from Justice to Treasury.
In response to email questions, a representative for the White House referred to Sacks’ X post which stated that more information will be provided at the summit on Friday.
Could a crypto reserve help pay down the U.S. government’s debt?
Crypto enthusiasts believe the answer to that question is yes. Senator Cynthia Lummis,
who proposed a Bitcoin reserve bill last year, has contended that because Bitcoin will continue increasing in value, simply investing in it would raise far more money than levying taxes. Those gains, she argued, could then be sold, allowing the U.S. to cut its debt in half in 20 years. (The bill has no co-sponsors.)
But experts say that relying on a volatile asset like Bitcoin for debt reduction is risky. “Just because an asset has gone up in the past doesn’t mean it will go up in the future,” says Chester Spatt, professor of finance at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. “If we think our markets are pretty efficient, then we would expect the markets to be forward-looking, and so that would suggest there wouldn't necessarily be a lot of predictive power from the past.”
[Umm. That's an interesting comment.]
Cecchetti likened the ploy to a homeowner running up their credit card to gamble in the hopes of paying off their mortgage faster. He also argues that using U.S. debt to buy a large amount of crypto would “increase the likelihood that credit rating agencies would downgrade the U.S., increasing the cost of borrowing.”
Meanwhile, some crypto enthusiasts are also concerned about what would happen to Bitcoin if the plan actually works. If Bitcoin increases massively in price and then the U.S. decides to sell off the reserve to pay down its debt, that transaction itself could trigger a significant decrease in Bitcoin’s price.
Why are some crypto fans unhappy with Trump’s announcement?
While the larger crypto market responded positively to Trump’s announcement, influential crypto voices criticized it for a slew of reasons. Some pointed to the irony of the federal government having so much power over a currency that is supposed to be decentralized. “It’s wrong to steal my money for grift on the left; it’s also wrong to tax me for crypto bro schemes,” wrote the entrepreneur Joe Lonsdale on X.
[And that's only one. Who was it, please. Chatter: Thanks. Donald. You're welcome pal, that announcement worked as well as other announcements of mine in the past have, eh. ;-) ]
Trump’s announcement also surprised many people for its inclusion of not just Bitcoin, but also smaller, more volatile currencies like ADA and XRP. “So the U.S. will use taxpayer money on XRP, SOL and ADA? Why would one build a strategic reserve of something you can just print? Bad look,” wrote Gabor Gurbacs on X.
Given the lack of clarity around many of the idea’s central details, it’s difficult to say whether a crypto reserve will actually come to fruition. However, Trump is far from the only one pushing this idea: several states are considering their own versions, including Oklahoma, which passed a strategic Bitcoin reserve act out of committee last week. Utah and Arizona have also advanced similar proposals.
Dennis Porter, the CEO and co-founder of the crypto advocacy group Satoshi Action Fund, wrote on Twitter that the group had helped over 20 states introduce strategic reserve legislation.“Yes, many will fail, but all we need is one then the door is wide open,” he wrote.
Andrew R. Chow’s book about crypto and Sam Bankman-Fried, Cryptomania, was published in August.
-------------------- Pro-Trump techies enraged by president’s crypto reserve announcement, causing early rift [...]By going well beyond bitcoin, the critics say, Trump would be using U.S. taxpayer money to buy much riskier assets that have unproven value and have the potential to bolster the net worth of a select few investors who own the coins. That’s all the more problematic to those who want to axe government spending by trillions of dollars, in support of Elon Musk’s cost-cutting mission at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. P - “Taxation is theft,” wrote Joe Lonsdale, founder of venture firm 8VC and a vocal Trump supporter, in a post on X. “It should be kept to a minimum. It’s wrong to steal my money for grift on the left; it’s also wrong to tax me for crypto bro schemes.” P - David Sacks, the venture capitalist who was tapped by Trump to be the White House artificial intelligence and crypto czar, took exception to Lonsdale’s comment, suggesting it’s premature to jump to any conclusions. Sacks and Lonsdale are part of the same conservative circle in the tech world, with Musk and Peter Thiel at the center. P - “Nobody announced a tax or a spending program,” Sacks wrote, in response to Lonsdale’s post. “Maybe you should wait to find out what’s actually being proposed.” [...]--------------- [ Insert: Don't ever forget who that David Sacks is: The Neo-Reactionary Coup "The Ciskei libertarian experiment failed in South Africa. It was an effort to resist the elimination of Apartheid, on the way to democratic rule in South Africa. "Crack-Up Capitalism: How Billionaire Elon Musk's Extremism Is Shaping Trump Admin & Global Politics"" [...] The Neoreactionary (NRx) Movement’s Agenda P - These threats to democracy and national security are tied to a larger plan. Elon Musk is part of a Silicon Valley elite group (including Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, David Sacks, Balaji Srinivasan, and JD Vance) that has been funding, developing, and advancing an extremist ideology as leaders and supporters of the Neoreactionary movement (or “NRx,” or the “Dark Enlightenment”). The aim of the neoreactionary movement is to bring about the collapse of the nation-state, democratic institutions, and what they call “The Cathedral” — establishment institutions including academia, the mainstream media, and the administrative state. They advocate replacing the existing Constitutional system with a privatized state structure akin to a corporation, with a monarch-like figure at the top modeled after a CEO. The CEO/monarch would control an oligarchy, much like a feudal system. There would be no accountability of the CEO/monarch to citizens, but rather to shareholders. Those who would be accorded political voice would be “the best” people, understood as those with the highest IQ. P - The ideologues behind this movement (Curtis Yarvin and Nick Land) are so extreme that they have been dismissed as marginal crackpots in a weird corner of the Internet. But their ideas have been embraced by Musk, Thiel, and other billionaires with enormous influence inside the new administration and over the technologies that can be used as direct tools or political leverage to put these ideas into practice. ----------------
David Sacks, Trump’s go-to adviser on all things tech, may help decide who wins the AI race between the US and China.
by Avishay Artsy and Noel King Dec 22, 2025, 12:00 AM GMT+11
David Sacks speaks to press outside of the White House on March 7, 2025 in Washington, DC. Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
This summer, as President Donald Trump signed a new industry-friendly “Genius Act” for cryptocurrency, he deferred to White House “AI and cryptocurrency czar” David Sacks to explain why crypto companies need a hands-off regulatory framework.
When Trump introduced an executive order this month that limits states’ ability .. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-ai-executive-order-one-rule-state-regulations-2025-12 .. to regulate artificial intelligence, Sacks was at his side again, insisting that government needs to get out of Silicon Valley’s way if the US hopes to beat China in the race for superintelligence.
Sacks has had a meteoric rise to become Trump’s point person on all things tech.
Sacks was an early friend of tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel. The two met at Stanford, bonded over their conservative leanings, and co-wrote The Diversity Myth, a polemic against political correctness and campus liberalism. He then became part of Thiel and Elon Musk’s “PayPal mafia,” started a company that sold to Microsoft for $1.2 billion, and founded a venture capital firm with big stakes in SpaceX and xAI.
Today, Explained co-host Noel King spoke with Nitasha Tiku, tech culture reporter for the Washington Post, about how Sacks went from Silicon Valley investor to DC heavyweight.
Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
Podcast
How do most people know about David Sacks?
David Sacks has a very popular tech podcast, All-In, that he co-hosts with three of his “besties.” They’re all investors, and one of the other co-hosts was also part of the war room as Elon [was] taking over. And they cheered a lot of his ideas: fire your trust and safety department, get rid of DEI, fight for free speech. The idea is that you’re getting an unfiltered, candid look from people who are in the game, “in the arena,” as they like to say on the podcast.
But increasingly they started talking about politics and David started out as the conservative foil. His co-hosts were much more like centrist Democrats. And the evolution of their worldview, of their political stances, is pretty close to what we see from the tech supporters of Trump’s second term.
What do we learn from All-In about David Sacks’s politics?
We learn that he is conservative. He has also been politically involved in previous election cycles, giving to different candidates. He’s given to Hillary Clinton.
He mostly gives to Republicans. He spoke out against the January 6 insurrection. He was actually backing Ron DeSantis. He asked his buddy Elon to host Twitter Spaces with DeSantis back when they were still calling it Twitter, if you remember. It was an audio disaster. And he hosted a fundraiser for Vivek Ramaswamy.
Not only that, but they had all of the Republican candidates, and Dean Phillips, on the All-In podcast. And we saw him become increasingly closer to the MAGA right.
How did Trump and Sacks end up getting involved?
Sacks hosted a fundraiser for Trump in June of 2024 at his home in San Francisco. And it seems like that dinner really cemented the deal. There were a lot of crypto entrepreneurs, and Trump just loved it. Sacks has a very nice home on Billionaire’s Row in San Francisco. When Trump came on the All-In podcast afterward, he was like, “I love David’s house.” Sacks is very deferential towards him.
They talked about what was happening to the crypto industry in a way that really resonated with Trump. They were talking about being persecuted by SEC chairman Gary Gensler, how hard it was for crypto entrepreneurs to bank, and what the Trump administration could do for them and for this empowering technology. And keep in mind that Trump has previously called crypto a scam .. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57392734.
We’ve seen this very quick evolution on that since the inauguration. There’s another quote in that episode where Trump talks about how Sacks introduced him to all the tech geniuses. That ends up being the start of this faction of the tech industry that helps bring Trump into the White House for a second term.
David Sacks goes from outside of the Washington, DC, establishment into a role in the Trump White House. What is he doing for Trump now and how serious is this job?
We weren’t sure how serious it was going to be. His title is the White House AI and crypto czar. Trump and Sacks have a very close and mutually respectful relationship, and he has ended up playing a extremely pivotal role in these two technologies that he has been put in charge of.
We’ve all witnessed the power of the AI industry through this post-ChatGPT boom. So it ends up having a lot of geopolitical significance in terms of how we think about national security in China. All of that is tied in with GPUs and chips that are needed by companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, chips that are built by Nvidia, a trillion-dollar company. So his profile is just so much higher than it used to be.
States want to regulate AI.Governors want laws on the books protecting people from artificial intelligence. The Trump administration says, “No, you can’t do that.” Where do you think David Sacks fits into the executive order that says: States, you don’t get to make laws around AI?
He played a very instrumental role in this executive order, doing a lot of work behind the scenes, talking to the populist wing of the Republican Party, trying to get them on board, emphasizing that this would not affect those laws that would keep their constituents safe. They tried to make it clear: We’re not trying to stop you from protecting teens in your district or what have you. We just want laws that are not onerous, that won’t slow down the development of the AI industry.
And that very much matches what you are hearing from the VC crowd that worked in the Trump administration, that was aligned with the tech right when they came into office. It was like: We want rules of the road for crypto, and we want no hindrance for AI. This executive order definitely reflects their interest in making sure that there’s not a patchwork of laws that a startup has to abide by.
So the stakes here are very high. David Sacks is a rich man who is powerfully connected in the White House, and he does not want there to be AI regulation. On the other hand, you have Americans who are concerned about AI. So which side of this do you think is going to end up winning?
Just in the last couple months, we’ve seen this particular question really gear up for a fight because you have increasing concerns from parents who are reading these stories about chatbots encouraging teenagers to die by suicide or manipulating them in ways that look extremely uncomfortable when you start reading the chats. And at the same time, you have people pushing back in an organized way against having more data centers in their neighborhood, and the idea that we’re going to literally change the landscape of the country and other countries in order to power this technology that CEOs say is going to put everybody out of work.
Maybe before some of the chatbot pushback, you would’ve had the industry get its way. And I think that the industry will still be able to win. And I think that [there’s some] ability to do little carve-outs for child safety, for issues that are kitchen-table issues or things that just sound terribly bad, like encouraging a child to commit suicide, you might be able to get some restrictions on that. But the thing that will really shape how the tech industry has to behave is any checks on its ability to grow.
I am not saying that it’s futile. I think drawing attention to these issues could hopefully, potentially, change the outcome towards what voters want, what people want. But I think that we should watch for that distinction between some of these little safeguards that nominally seem like they’re going to protect people or carve out a safe space for them and some of the bigger, more existential factors.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
