As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, the economic policies of candidates are under intense scrutiny. Vice President Kamala Harris’ controversial plan to tax unrealized gains has sparked heated debate, especially following a recent confirmation by her economic advisor on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
The Policy At The Center of Debate
Bharat Rama, Harris’ economic advisor, made waves when he confirmed that the Harris campaign is committed to implementing a tax on unrealized gains—a concept initially proposed by President Joe Biden. This tax would target individuals with at least $100 million in assets who are not paying at least 25% in taxes on their annual income. The revenue generated would purportedly be used to create new economic opportunities, according to Rama.
Opposition and Skepticism
During the interview, CNBC anchors Joe Kernan and Rebecca Quick expressed strong skepticism about the plan. Kernan went so far as to tell Rama that the tax is “probably unconstitutional” and that “it’s never gonna happen.” Quick also chimed in, stating that the proposed tax “doesn’t seem fair in any sense of the word.”
The conversation highlighted the sharp divide over the policy. Proponents argue that taxing unrealized gains could generate significant revenue from the nation’s wealthiest individuals, potentially reducing income inequality. Critics, however, argue that such a tax could discourage investment and innovation, with some questioning its constitutionality.
An Uphill Battle in Washington
Despite the Harris campaign’s commitment to the tax, the road ahead is fraught with challenges. Even if Harris wins the election in November, passing the tax through Capitol Hill will be an uphill battle. The policy is likely to face stiff opposition from both Republicans and moderate Democrats, who may view it as too radical or harmful to the economy.
The debate over taxing unrealized gains is emblematic of broader discussions about wealth inequality and economic policy in the United States. As the election nears, the Harris campaign will need to navigate these contentious issues carefully. The response from the public and lawmakers will likely shape the future of this and other similar proposals.
In the end, while Harris’ economic advisor has confirmed the campaign’s commitment to taxing unrealized gains, the policy’s future remains uncertain. The controversy surrounding it underscores the challenges of implementing sweeping economic reforms in a deeply divided political landscape. As November approaches, all eyes will be on how this and other key issues play out in the race for the White House.
A recent announcement for the Private Dinner event for the top 220 holders of the TRUMP meme coin stated that if former President Trump does not attend, attendees may receive a limited NFT.
This has sparked speculation about the event’s true purpose. Could it ignite a new market wave?
New NFT Collection Launch at the TRUMP Gala Dinner?
According to official details from the TRUMP meme coin team, the Trump Gala Dinner is an exclusive event for the top 220 holders of the meme coin. It will be held at Trump National Golf Club in Washington on May 22, 2025.
However, organizers have noted they reserve the right to change the date and venue, raising questions about the event’s certainty.
More intriguingly, there’s uncertainty about Trump’s participation. Despite the event bearing his brand, terms state that Trump may not attend. If the dinner is canceled or Trump is absent, eligible TRUMP holders will receive a limited-edition NFT as compensation.
This has fueled speculation that Trump may use the event to launch a new NFT collection, building on his previous NFT ventures.
“President Trump may not be able to attend the TRUMP Gala Dinner. In the event President Trump is unable to attend the TRUMP Gala Dinner, or if the Gala Dinner does take place, then in our sole discretion, it may be rescheduled to another date, or TRUMP Meme holders who are qualified for the Gala Dinner and/or reception will receive a limited edition TRUMP NFT in lieu thereof,” the terms and coditions wrote.
He debuted his Trump Digital Trading Cards in December 2022, marking his entry into the crypto space. The first collection, featuring 45,000 NFTs, quickly gained traction due to Trump’s brand. It raised approximately 648 ETH, roughly $785,000 as per the ETH rate during the sale.
After that, Trump launched Series 2 of the Trump Digital Trading Cards. Trump’s second round of ‘Digital Trading Cards’ sold out quickly. However, not everything went smoothly.
The value of the original Series 1 collection took a significant hit. The rapid release of new collections raised concerns in the community about “value dilution,” diminishing the appeal of earlier NFTs.
According to OpenSea data, the total trading volume for Trump Digital Trading Cards reached 17,167 ETH, equivalent to tens of millions of USD—an impressive figure for an NFT collection.
Trump Digital Trading Cards collection. Source. OpenSea
By April 2025, CryptoSlam data shows the trading volume for Trump Digital Trading Cards dropped to just $2,000, a stark contrast to its peak.
Trump Digital Trading Cards sales volume. Source: CryptoSlam
The Trump Gala Dinner could have implications beyond TRUMP holders, potentially influencing meme coin and NFT markets. If Trump launches a new NFT collection and succeeds, it could reignite interest in celebrity-driven NFT projects.
Conversely, if the event flops or the new NFT fails to gain traction, it may deepen skepticism about the sustainability of meme coin and NFT ventures.
During the 2025 edition of the Paris Blockchain Week, BeInCrypto sat down with Alexis Yellow, CEO of Yellow, a crypto project working on an entirely new paradigm based on Satoshi’s initial vision for Bitcoin.
He talks about the upcoming Yellow Tokens, a new smart contract mechanism, and making crypto projects more utility-driven.
Alexis, can you introduce yourself?
I’m Alexis, a software engineer by background. I worked at the European Space Center early in my career, but my crypto journey started quite unexpectedly.
Back in 2013, an old friend from school reached out—he was working at Goldman Sachs and told me about a project that needed help. He said, “There are 12 people in Silicon Valley printing fake money.” That project turned out to be Ripple.
Ripple ended up being our first client, and that experience really helped me grasp the potential of crypto.
Despite the skepticism surrounding the space, I saw real innovation. Ripple’s CTO was a Bitcoin Core contributor, and Vitalik Buterin was involved with the team before Ethereum.
Actually, Buterin was planning to join Ripple. He was especially excited about their consensus mechanism, which inspired me, too.
One thing that always stuck with me was Satoshi’s idea: We need systems where trust isn’t a prerequisite. That idea shaped a lot of my thinking.
Around 2018–2019, I decided to start Yellow. We later merged with a French exchange technology company called OpenWare. Combining my market experience with their tech, we launched Yellow Network.
So, it’s a trading infrastructure designed to let institutions, like Société Générale, trade directly with major players like Binance without needing to trust them.
Trading with exchanges like Binance without trusting them, do you mean trust as a counterparty?
Exactly that’s at the core of Satoshi’s vision. At Yellow, we’re working on a different model of trustlessness using state channels, which represent a new paradigm compared to traditional blockchain systems like Bitcoin or Ethereum.
In those systems, you have tens of thousands of nodes, say, around 30,000, validating each transaction. It’s a powerful model for security, each validator has a financial incentive to be honest, and there’s no way to roll back a confirmed transaction.
The same applies to staking networks. But that structure just doesn’t work for high-frequency trading. You can’t have 30,000 nodes verifying every microsecond trade. It’s simply too slow and inefficient.
For example, some networks try to solve this by reducing the number of validators to 21, but that compromises the level of trust and decentralization. Our approach is fundamentally different. The Lightning Network inspires it, but we’ve taken it in a new direction.
With the Lightning Network, you can move money instantly by opening a state channel. At Yellow Network, we use similar state channels but instead of transferring funds directly, we transfer profit and loss in real time.
For instance, if you buy a Bitcoin for $100,000 and it rises 5%, the $5,000 profit is immediately transferred to your wallet. The trade is settled instantly, peer-to-peer, with cryptographic proof.
To ensure security and fairness, we’ve built a smart contract called ClearSync. If a counterparty refuses to settle, as we saw with the HyperLiquid issue recently, ClearSync can step in and arbitrate the trade.
It verifies the claim and, if valid, ensures the rightful party receives what they’re owed. So, it’s a trustless system that still allows for the speed and flexibility traders need.
1/ $JELLYJELLY on @HyperliquidX and what happens when we rely on trust.
No, it’s peer-to-peer trading. Nothing is faster or more efficient than a direct state channel between two parties. Profit is transferred instantly. That’s the core of this new paradigm: trustless trading, where settlement happens in real time.
Let’s say we’re trading and the connection drops, no problem. If I made a profit, it’s already secured. I might not receive the asset, like Bitcoin, but my profit in dollars is locked in. There’s no need to trust the other party to settle correctly.
Is it effective profit or a claim to profit?
It’s effective profit, denominated in dollars or whatever currency is locked as collateral. Here’s how it works – two parties lock in $20,000 to trade Bitcoin. That amount represents the maximum they’re willing to risk.
If the trade results in a $5,000 profit for one side, that amount is instantly settled, even if the other party refuses to finalize the trade.
If both agree to settle, I send you $100,000, you send me one Bitcoin, and both our collaterals unlock.
Can you switch to stablecoin?
Absolutely. In fact, we’re working with stablecoin issuers to create partnerships and potential investments in Yellow.
Can you give us an idea of the size of the Yellow Group? How many people are there? How many transactions do you process ?
We haven’t officially launched. Before the war in Ukraine, we had a large team of over 100 people. Many have since relocated, mostly to Poland, but we still have staff in Ukraine. Right now, we’re about 50 people globally.
Meanwhile, you can track activity on our analytics site, BundleBear. On Polygon, we’re already the fourth most active app. On Linea, a new protocol by Consensys, we’re number one with over 229,000 users despite not being live yet.
We can see on your website that you are offering your technology so that you can list any token without going through a CEX or a DEX. Is that part of the project?
Exactly. The Yellow Wallet is like a Layer 3; it lets users interact with any chain seamlessly. It now supports cross-chain swaps, like moving tokens from Polygon to Binance Smart Chain, with zero fees. It’s designed to remove friction from cross-chain trading.
Seamless cross-chain swaps, all in your Yellow Wallet!
Swap between BNB, Base, Arbitrum, AVAX, Polygon, OP, Linea, and Scroll with ease.
No, not for the state channels themselves. We don’t monetize trades directly. The Yellow token plays a security role, a “necessary evil,” like ETH or BTC.
Your security deposit gets burned if you behave badly and refuse to settle. It ensures honesty in a peer-to-peer environment. Think of it like a miner losing their reward for trying to cheat.
How do you make money from the usage of your service?
The token economy is the foundation. Just like ETH or BTC derive value from usage and network participation, the Yellow token does too.
It’s needed to place security deposits in the network, and over time, its utility and adoption by industry players will drive its value.
If someone cheats, their token gets burned—creating deflationary pressure and reinforcing good behavior.
Is the token already traded?
Not yet, but we’re planning to launch in the next couple of months. We’ll mint 10 billion Yellow tokens; ideally, that number stays close to that.
If too many tokens get burned, it could indicate issues in the system. It’s a built-in signal to monitor the health and integrity of the network.
Are you going to start it with an airdrop or something of the sort?
No, we’re focused on utility-based distribution. Most tokens will be sold directly in the markets where they’re used. Ethereum didn’t launch with an airdrop. Neither did Bitcoin.
This is a B2B infrastructure project—just like Ethereum and Ripple. While the network is open to everyone, our core users are businesses and institutional players.
That said, the beauty of crypto is that the ecosystem is open. Anyone who believes in the project can get involved and benefit from the network effect, without needing to be a developer or an insider.
Anything important that we left out?
Yes, very few cryptocurrencies are used in the real world today. Bitcoin has proven its value as a store of wealth.
Ethereum demonstrated its utility during the ICO boom. USDT fills a vital gap in places where dollars are hard to access.
We believe Yellow can become the fourth pillar. It’s solving a real need in crypto markets: scalable, trustless, high-frequency trading. And we’re making it open source so the whole industry can benefit.
It’s obvious that Web3 applications will need infrastructure to reach the scale of platforms like Twitter or YouTube.
At Pragma today, @Yellow‘s Louis Bellet shared the secret weapon Ethereum already has to achieve this today.
I think this approach, state channels for speed and smart contracts for resolution, will redefine how trading infrastructure works. It’s ideal for gaming and other fast-paced applications where blockchains never truly fit.
Blockchain isn’t always the answer, especially if you’re using 30,000 nodes to validate a game move. That’s just not efficient.
With Yellow, the trading side is handled through cryptographic state channels not full decentralization. But if something goes wrong, we still fall back to a smart contract to arbitrate. That’s the balance we’re bringing.
Also, we’re working on a new ERC standard for this. In the next 3–4 years, I expect that 10–20% of new crypto projects will adopt this architecture.
Overall, We’re not just building a product, we’re introducing a new philosophy for how decentralized systems can operate more efficiently.
The GENIUS Act, a bill of proposed new stablecoin regulations for the US, is up for a Senate vote today. Still, its chances of success remain uncertain, as Democratic opposition remains high.
Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee released harsh criticism of the bill, and their staffers also circulated a scathing letter co-signed by 46 advocacy groups. This blowback took place despite recent bipartisan amendments.
However, this vote failed, and the Act currently faces a make-or-break chance to win again or start over:
“IMO, If the GENIUS Act doesn’t pass the Senate, there will be no meaningful legislation involving crypto before the midterms and, unfortunately, midterms historically go against the party in power. If they can’t get this passed, a more complex Market Structures Bill is highly unlikely… not to mention crypto-related tax legislation or consumer protections,” claimed crypto advocate John Deaton.
Reports claim that the GENIUS Act’s next chance will take place today as part of Senate proceedings that will begin at 3 PM EST.
The crypto industry is strongly in favor of these regulations, with advocacy groups and business leaders both saluting the bill. However, it may not be that easy for one clear reason: stiff Democratic opposition.
Despite some initial support, Congressional Democrats turned on the GENIUS Act due to concerns of legalized corruption and unfair business practices.
Last week, legislators proposed a few bipartisan amendments that would severely handcuff the bill with Big Tech exclusions and new enforcement mechanisms. It’s looking like that may not be enough.
According to several reports, the Senate Banking Committee’s Democrats released a scathing review of the GENIUS Act, and staffers also circulated a hostile letter co-signed by 46 different advocacy groups. These measures don’t necessarily reflect the bill’s chances of success, but they do highlight real opposition.
Democratic staff on the Senate Banking Committee sent around a letter this AM signed by several dozen advocacy orgs opposing the GENIUS Act.
Includes ACRE, AFR, Center for Responsible Lending, Our Revolution, Public Citizen, Tech Oversight Project… pic.twitter.com/pragFvzSKB
— Brendan Pedersen (@BrendanPedersen) May 19, 2025
These criticisms focused on a few key deficiencies. First of all, the GENIUS Act’s amendments would prevent publicly traded Big Tech companies from issuing stablecoins.
However, they wouldn’t stop private firms, notably including Elon Musk’s X. This is one of several alleged loopholes that could eventually lead to blurred lines between banking and commerce.
The letters also address consumer protection in the event of an issuer’s collapse. Considering that Tether and most other prominent stablecoin issuers aren’t US-based, critics worry that the GENIUS Act won’t guarantee users’ assets.
Most of the other concerns were adjacent to these major topics, worrying that the Act is wholly insufficient.
To be clear, it might still pass despite this opposition. The Senate Banking Committee and its allies clearly hate the GENIUS Act, but other Democrats might have a more favorable view. At the moment, we can only wait and see how the vote turns out.
1/ $JELLYJELLY on 
