maltipal

Stablecoins – digital currencies designed to maintain a steady $1 value – have surged to a record market capitalization of approximately $310 billion as of mid-December 2025. Once primarily tools for crypto traders, they are increasingly eyed for everyday payments, remittances, and investments, thanks to clearer U.S. regulations. But financial experts warn that their rapid expansion could introduce risks to the broader financial system, though direct threats to individual finances remain limited for most users.
What Are Stablecoins?
Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies pegged to assets like the U.S. dollar, typically backed by reserves such as cash, short-term U.S. Treasury bills (T-bills), or equivalents. Users can acquire them quickly via exchanges using bank transfers or cards, then store them in digital wallets for fast, low-cost global transactions.
Leading issuers include:
Tether (USDT): The dominant player with around $186 billion in circulation (about 60% market share). Tether reported billions in profits from interest on reserves.
Circle (USDC): Roughly $78 billion in circulation, known for greater transparency and ties to traditional finance.
Together, major issuers hold over $200 billion in T-bills, making them significant buyers comparable to large institutions or nations.
From Crypto Niche to Mainstream Potential
Five years ago, stablecoins were mainly used for trading volatile cryptocurrencies. Today, their market exceeds the annual GDP of many countries.
A key catalyst: The GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins), signed into law by President Donald Trump in July 2025. This bipartisan legislation provides a federal framework for “payment stablecoins,” requiring strict reserves, audits, transparency, and anti-money laundering compliance. It legitimizes stablecoins for traditional banking and payments while excluding them from certain securities regulations.
Companies are responding:
President Trump’s family launched USD1 through World Liberty Financial earlier this year, backed by Treasuries and used in major deals.
Retail giants like Walmart and Amazon have explored issuing or integrating their own stablecoins to reduce fees on cross-border and e-commerce transactions.
Banks, tech firms, and others are entering the space, with hundreds of stablecoin variants emerging.
Proponents highlight benefits: Near-instant transfers, minimal fees for international remittances, and accessibility in underbanked regions.
Expert Concerns: Systemic Risks vs. Personal Impact
Financial experts express caution about the sector’s growth:
Lack of protections: Unlike bank deposits, stablecoins offer no FDIC insurance, fraud safeguards, or guaranteed redemption in crises.
Illicit use potential: Limited oversight could enable money laundering or sanctions evasion, though the GENIUS Act strengthens compliance.
Systemic ties: Heavy investment in T-bills links stablecoins to U.S. government debt markets. A sudden loss of confidence (e.g., a “run” on a major issuer) could spill over, affecting Treasury prices or liquidity.
Growth projections: Private estimates suggest the market could reach $1–3 trillion by 2030, boosting Treasury demand but potentially disrupting bank deposits or monetary policy transmission.
For personal finances:
Direct risks are low if you avoid holding large amounts in stablecoins – most users treat them as transactional tools, not savings.
Indirect risks: Broader instability could affect markets or interest rates, but experts note stablecoins remain a small fraction of global finance.
Many view regulated stablecoins as safer than unregulated crypto, potentially enhancing dollar dominance globally.
As adoption accelerates under new rules, stablecoins could reshape payments – but experts advise caution, sticking to reputable issuers and treating them as utilities, not insured investments. The sector’s evolution will depend on ongoing regulation and market confidence.

Why Scott Bessent Is Cracking Down on Congress Stock Trading
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has renewed his call to end congressional stock trading, highlighting outsized returns by lawmakers that far outpace market benchmarks.
In 2024, Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden’s portfolio surged 123.8%, compared with the S&P 500’s 24.9%, while Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s portfolio returned 70.9%.
Bessent Urges End to Congressional Trading as House Leaders See Outsized Returns
Scott Bessent’s warning comes as asset managers take record-long positions in US equities. S&P 500 futures net long exposure has reached 49%, near historic highs.
Analysts say the intersection of extreme market positioning and growing political scrutiny raises questions about timing.
According to EndGame Macro, a renowned analyst, regulatory attention to insider or political trading typically appears late in bull cycles, often when public frustration and valuations peak.
“When the rules tighten for the people closest to the information, it’s often because the upside has already been largely harvested,” the analyst said.
A growing body of research highlights the magnitude of congressional outperformance. A National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by Shang-Jin Wei and Yifan Zhou found that congressional leaders outperform peers by roughly 47% annually after assuming leadership positions.
The analysis identifies two drivers:
Direct political influence
Such as trading before regulatory actions or investing in firms expected to gain government contracts, and
Access to nonpublic information
About home-state or donor companies, information that is unavailable to the average investor.
Historical examples illustrate this advantage.
Pelosi reportedly achieved cumulative returns of 854% after the 2012 STOCK Act, compared with 263% for the S&P 500.
Wyden, as Senate Finance Committee chair in 2024, allegedly gained 123.8%, while his 2023 performance was 78.5%, well above the S&P 500’s 24.8%.
These figures exceed many professional hedge fund returns, highlighting significant information asymmetries and raising concerns over market fairness.
Bessent’s intervention frames the debate as a credibility issue for Congress rather than a partisan matter.
“When members of Congressional leadership post returns that far exceed many of the world’s top performing hedge funds, it undermines the fundamental credibility of Congress itself,” he said in the post.
Public support for banning congressional trading is strong, with a 2024 YouGov poll showing 77% of Republicans, 73% of Democrats, and 71% of independents in favor.
Legislative efforts, such as the Restore Trust in Congress Act, would require lawmakers and their close relatives to divest individual stocks within 180 days. However, it would allow them to retain mutual funds and ETFs.
Yet, House leaders have not scheduled a floor vote, and only 23 of the required 218 signatures for a discharge petition had been gathered by December 2024.
Opinions remain divided among lawmakers, with some warning that restrictions could deter qualified candidates, while others call reform “common sense” and a matter of good governance.
Record-Bullish Market Positioning Signals Maturing Cycle
The debate on congressional trading comes against a backdrop of historic bullishness in equities. The Kobeissi Letter reports that net long positions in S&P 500 futures increased by 49%, representing a rise of roughly 400% since 2022.
This is nearly double the long-term average and more than two standard deviations above historical norms.
Nasdaq 100 futures are similarly elevated, and the S&P 500 reached 37 all-time highs in 2025, the third-most since 2020.
Despite this, Bank of America (BofA) issues a cautious outlook. The bank forecasts the S&P 500 to reach 7,100 by the end of 2026, only 4% above current levels. BofA cites AI-related valuation pressures and potential tech-driven consumption slowdowns.
Analysts suggest that the combination of extreme positioning and potential regulatory action signals market maturity rather than a new expansion. The timing of reforms potentially highlights when insiders have already captured a significant portion of the upside.
This convergence of record bullish bets and growing regulatory scrutiny serves as a barometer of market cycles, rather than an immediate warning of a crash. It is also a reminder that late-cycle dynamics are shaping both equity and risk asset markets, including crypto.$ETH

Japan Rate Hike Could Send Bitcoin to $70K, Analysts Warn
The Bank of Japan is expected to raise interest rates by 25 basis points this week.
Analysts warn the move could push Bitcoin (BTC) to $70,000.
The central bank's policy meeting begins Wednesday, with the rate decision announcement scheduled for Thursday.
Prediction markets assign a 98% probability to the rate increase, according to Polymarket data.
What Happened
The Bank of Japan is poised to raise its benchmark rate from 0.5% to 0.75%.
The increase would mark the first rate hike since January and the highest level since 1995.
Anonymous sources told Japan Times that policymakers favor the quarter-point move barring major disruptions.
The decision reflects Japan's exit from decades of ultra-low and negative interest rates.
Bitcoin has historically suffered sharp declines following Bank of Japan rate hikes.
In March 2024, Bitcoin dropped 23% after Japan raised rates by 10 basis points.
In July 2024, the cryptocurrency fell 26% following a 25-basis-point increase.
Most recently, Bitcoin plunged 31% in January after another 25-basis-point hike.
The pattern suggests a potential decline to around $70,000 if history repeats.
Bitcoin currently trades near $89,000, down from its recent high above $100,000.
Read also: SEC Dropped 60% of Crypto Cases After Trump Returned to Office, NYT Finds
Why It Matters
Higher Japanese rates threaten the yen carry trade, a popular investment strategy.
For decades, investors borrowed cheap yen to fund purchases of higher-yielding assets like Bitcoin.
Rising borrowing costs force traders to unwind these positions by selling cryptocurrency holdings.
Japan holds the largest foreign position in U.S. government debt, making its monetary policy shifts globally significant.
Yen strength tightens worldwide liquidity conditions, which particularly impacts risk assets like Bitcoin.
However, some analysts see early warning signs that much of the impact is already priced in.
Exchange inflows have risen ahead of the announcement, suggesting proactive selling by traders.
Funding rates have collapsed, indicating leverage is being reduced before the event.
The timing coincides with a busy week for macroeconomic data.
U.S. unemployment figures and non-farm payrolls are due Tuesday.
Consumer price index data and jobless claims will arrive Thursday.
The European Central Bank also announces its rate decision this week.
Analysts advise positioning for volatility as multiple central bank decisions converge.
Read next: JPMorgan Launches $100M Tokenized Money Fund on Ethereum
$BTC $SERAPH $ETH

Donald Trump’s latest tariff moves have sharply raised US trade barriers in 2025, targeting major partners like China, India, the EU, and Mexico and pushing global trade into a more fragmented, high‑cost phase.��� The strategy is boosting tariff revenue and pressure on foreign governments, but it is also lifting prices, unsettling markets, and inviting legal and political pushback at home and abroad.��What Trump has done in 2025Imposed a baseline 10% tariff on virtually all US imports using emergency economic powers, with higher “reciprocal” rates for countries with large trade surpluses versus the US.��Escalated tariffs sharply on China, with some categories now facing effective rates near or above 60%, and extended new or higher tariffs to partners such as the EU and Mexico, often tied to tight negotiation deadlines.����Announced or implemented additional sector‑ or country‑specific hikes, such as steep duties on Indian goods that brought India’s overall tariff rate near 50%, partly linked to its imports of Russian oil.���Economic and political impactAverage US tariff levels have jumped to their highest point in more than a century, raising input costs for American manufacturers and feeding into higher consumer prices, even as the administration argues that domestic industry will gain over time.��Financial markets and global supply chains face renewed uncertainty as companies consider relocating production or rerouting trade, while some economists note that world trade volumes have bent but not broken, as partners re‑divert flows and seek new regional deals.���In the US political system, members of Congress from both parties have begun challenging specific moves—such as the India tariffs—as overreach or economically harmful, signaling that legal and legislative constraints on this tariff strategy may grow.���Who is hit the hardest nowChina remains the primary target, facing very high tariffs and tighter export controls in strategic sectors like technology and critical materials, which deepens decoupling pressures between the two economies.���Allies and partners—including the EU, Mexico, Canada, and India—are increasingly pulled into disputes despite security ties, as tariffs are used both as leverage for trade concessions and as a tool linked to wider foreign‑policy goals.����Emerging economies that depend heavily on the US market, such as some Asian and Latin American exporters, are exposed to demand swings and may accelerate efforts to integrate with alternative regional blocs.���What to watch nextWhether trading partners choose confrontation (WTO cases, retaliatory tariffs) or negotiation (sectoral deals, managed trade arrangements) to defuse the pressure.���How quickly US manufacturers actually reshore or diversify production, which will determine if the promised gains in jobs and strategic resilience materialize or if costs simply rise for US consumers and firms.���The outcome of congressional and court challenges, which could narrow the president’s emergency tariff powers and reshape how far this tariff‑first trade doctrine can go beyond 2025.���Illustration of Trump’s 2025 global tariff fronts, highlighting the US at the center with tariff pressure radiating toward China (60%+), India (50%), the EU (up to 30%), and Mexico (around 30%).