Ray Dalio, the billionaire founder of Bridgewater, has issued a stark warning that the global monetary order is “on the brink” of collapse.
He pointed to the current administration’s tariff policies as a significant catalyst, arguing that they have fueled deglobalization trends and caused severe trade imbalances.
Ray Dalio’s Warnings: The Coming Challenges to US Economic Superiority
The US tariff on most Chinese imports has risen to 145%. In retaliation, Beijing has imposed a 125% tariff on American goods. While reports have circulated that de-escalation could be expected soon, nothing has been confirmed yet.
In his latest essay, Dalio delves deeper into this dynamic, arguing that even if negotiations result in de-escalation, it may not fully undo the damage already inflicted.
“Some people believe that the tariff disruptions will settle down as more negotiations happen and greater thought is given to how to structure them to work in a sensible way. However, I am now hearing from a large and growing number of people who are having to deal with these issues that it is already too late,” he wrote.
Dalio highlighted that exporters and importers worldwide are now forced to reduce their dealings with the US drastically. He noted that both American and Chinese producers and investors are actively seeking alternative plans to minimize interdependence.
He believes this trend is becoming broadly recognized across trade, capital markets, geopolitical, and military relations. Dalio argued that the world is nearing a breakdown of monetary, domestic, political, and international order due to unsustainable fundamentals. This situation mirrors past historical shifts in global orders.
“Though not yet fully realized, it is also increasingly being realized that the United States’ role as the world’s biggest consumer of manufactured goods and greatest producer of debt assets to finance its over-consumption is unsustainable, so assuming that one can sell and lend to the US and get paid back with hard (i.e. not devalued) dollars on their US debt holdings is naive thinking, so other plans have to be made,” Dalio remarked.
The billionaire investor expressed concern that the US risks being bypassed as other countries adapt to these separations, establishing new trade networks and economic “synapses” that exclude the US. This shift could further erode trust in the US dollar, which is already losing ground amid global economic uncertainty.
While he did not specify which currencies might gain prominence, Dalio has previously advocated for “hard money” assets like Bitcoin (BTC) and gold as hedges.
“I want to steer away from debt assets like bonds and debt, and have some hard money like gold and Bitcoin,” Dalio said during the Abu Dhabi Finance Week (ADFW) in December 2024.
Global Monetary System at Risk: Is Bitcoin the Solution?
The warning has resonated within the cryptocurrency community. Jeff Park, Head of Alpha Strategies at Bitwise, stated that Dalio’s recent comments signal a looming “dedollarization” threat.
Park emphasized that Dalio’s shift from supporting China to acknowledging US economic imbalances suggests the global move away from the US dollar is approaching faster than many anticipate, a concept long recognized by Bitcoin advocates.
“The dedollarization threat is nearer than you and I know,” Park wrote.
Similarly, another expert asserted that the conditions Dalio describes create an ideal environment for Bitcoin. Rex believes these developments could drive Bitcoin to surge significantly within the next 18 months, potentially exceeding market expectations.
This impact is already quite visible as BTC’s value has recovered amid a dropping dollar. Over the past week, it has appreciated by 7.5%. At the time of writing, BTC was trading at $94,985.
In fact, market watchers are increasingly bullish on BTC, predicting higher price targets for the largest cryptocurrency. Last week, ARK Invest raised its BTC price forecast from $1.5 million to $2.4 million by 2030. Meanwhile, experts’ forecasts for BTC range from $150,000 per coin to a more optimistic $1 million by the end of 2025.
Ethereum (ETH) is entering a critical week, with technical signals, on-chain data, and a major upgrade all converging. The Pectra Upgrade, set for May 7, aims to improve staking and wallet functionality, but short-term volatility is likely during the rollout.
Meanwhile, ETH’s BBTrend sits at 1.22, showing early bullish momentum, though not yet strong enough to confirm a breakout. At the same time, whale activity remains near 5,463 addresses, and price continues to trade in a tight range between $1,828 and $1,749—setting the stage for a potential breakout or breakdown.
Ethereum Pectra Upgrade Set for May 7: What to Expect
Ethereum’s highly anticipated Pectra Upgrade is set to go live on May 7, introducing 11 new Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs). EIP-7251 stands out for raising the staking cap from 32 ETH to 2048 ETH, aiming to streamline validator operations and boost staking efficiency.
The upgrade also includes wallet improvements focused on user experience, such as easier recovery and gasless transactions, which could drive broader dApp adoption. While this may increase ETH demand long term, exchanges could temporarily halt ETH transfers during deployment, causing short-term volatility.
Though the upgrade promises significant enhancements, it has already faced multiple delays due to extended testing on networks like Hoodi and Sepolia. A smooth rollout may boost confidence and price, but any technical issues could trigger negative market reactions.
ETH Trend Signal at 1.22: Early Uptrend or Just Noise?
Ethereum’s BBTrend indicator is at 1.22, signaling a mild bullish bias. Over the past day, the BBTrend reached a high of 2.23, showing stronger momentum before pulling back slightly.
Although the current reading has cooled, it remains positive, suggesting the uptrend is not yet invalidated. Traders are watching whether BBTrend can rise again to confirm renewed strength or if momentum continues to fade.
The BBTrend (Band-Break Trend) is a volatility-based indicator designed to detect the strength and direction of price trends. Readings above 1.00 typically suggest a bullish trend, while readings below -1.00 indicate a bearish trend.
Values between -1.00 and 1.00 are considered neutral or trendless, signaling either sideways movement or weak conviction in either direction. The farther the BBTrend moves from zero, the stronger the trend, making values like 2.23 notable for trend confirmation.
However, it’s not a strong breakout level, meaning the price could still reverse if selling pressure increases or momentum fades.
A push back above 2.00 would likely confirm sustained bullish momentum, while a drop below 1.00 might indicate a return to consolidation or even a shift to bearish conditions.
Adding to the broader picture, the number of Ethereum whales—addresses holding between 1,000 and 10,000 ETH—currently stands at 5,463.
This number has fluctuated in recent weeks, struggling to break decisively higher. Whale activity is a critical on-chain signal, as these large holders often influence price movements through accumulation or distribution. A steady or rising whale count typically signals confidence and long-term accumulation, which could support ETH’s price in the coming weeks.
Conversely, a continued stall or drop in whale numbers may reflect hesitation among larger investors, potentially limiting upside momentum.
ETH Stuck in a Range as Traders Await Breakout or Breakdown
Ethereum price has traded between $1,828 resistance and $1,749 support since April 21. The range has held for over two weeks, showing market indecision.
The EMA lines remain bullish, with short-term averages still above long-term ones. However, they’re starting to converge, and a death cross could form soon.
Social engineering scams are on the rise, and these exploits have particularly targeted Coinbase users throughout the first quarter of 2025. According to a series of investigations by ZachXBT, users have lost over $100 million in funds since December 2024, while annual losses reached $300 million.
After sorting through the complaints made by different users, BeInCrypto spoke with Coinbase Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) Jeff Lunglhofer to understand what makes users vulnerable to these kinds of attacks, how they happen, and what’s being done to stop them.
Gauging the Seriousness of Scams Affecting Coinbase Users
Throughout the first quarter of 2025, several Coinbase users fell victim to social engineering scams. As the leading centralized exchange in a sector where hacks are becoming more sophisticated with time, this reality is no surprise.
In a recent investigation, Web3 researcher ZachXBT reported on several messages he received from different X users who had suffered major withdrawals from their Coinbase accounts.
1/ Over the past few months I imagine you have seen many Coinbase users complain on X about their accounts suddenly being restricted.
This is the result of aggressive risk models and Coinbase’s failure to stop its users losing $300M+ per year to social engineering scams. pic.twitter.com/PjtX7vmjqc
On March 28, ZachXBT revealed a significant social engineering exploit that cost one individual close to $35 million. The crypto sleuth’s further investigations during that period uncovered additional victims of the same exploit, pushing the total stolen in March alone to more than $46 million.
In a separate investigation concluded a month earlier, ZachXBT revealed that $65 million was stolen from Coinbase users between December 2024 and January 2025. He also reported that Coinbase has been quietly grappling with a social engineering scam issue costing its users $300 million a year.
While Coinbase users have been particularly vulnerable to social engineering scams, centralized exchanges, in general, have also been significantly impacted by these increasingly sophisticated attacks.
How Does The Broader Context Reflect This Situation?
Public data regarding the evolution of social engineering scams in recent years is limited and somewhat outdated. Yet, the numbers in the available reports are staggering.
In 2023, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) under the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released its first-ever cryptocurrency report. Investment fraud constituted the largest category of cryptocurrency-related complaints, representing 46% of the nearly 69,500 complaints received, or approximately 33,000 cases.
The FBI’s IC3 reported an increase in crypto-related scams in 2023. Source: IC3.
Investment fraud, or pig butchering, involves false promises of high returns with low risk to lure investors, especially crypto newcomers driven by a fear of missing out on significant gains.
According to the IC3 report, these schemes rely on social engineering and building trust. Criminals use platforms like social media, dating apps, professional networks, or encrypted messaging to connect with their targets.
In 2023, these investment scams resulted in losses of $3.96 billion for users, representing a 53% increase from the previous year. Other social engineering scams, like phishing and spoofing, further constituted $9.6 million in losses.
Coinbase scammers tend to create fake emails that appear legitimate using cloned website images and false Case IDs. They then contact users through spoofed calls, leveraging private information to build trust before sending them these deceptive emails.
Once scammers have convinced users of the interaction’s legitimacy, they exploit the situation to persuade them to transfer funds.
The increasing sophistication of these scams illustrates both the emotional manipulation involved and the particular vulnerability of the victims. They demonstrate that centralized exchanges are often the primary platforms for these exploitations.
ZackXBT’s investigations and user reports on X reveal a gap between the extent of social engineering scams and Coinbase’s apparent management effectiveness.
Public discussions indicate that Coinbase has not flagged theft addresses in common compliance tools.
Victims of scams and users whose funds were frozen are urging Coinbase to take stronger action against this growing and costly issue. Understanding how these scams take place is essential to effectively addressing them.
How Are Coinbase Users Made Victims?
In January, a victim contacted the investigator after losing $850,000. In that instance, the scammer contacted the victim from a spoofed phone number, using personal information likely obtained from private databases to gain their trust.
5/ They then sent a spoofed email which appeared to be from Coinbase with a fake Case ID further gaining trust.
They instructed the victim to transfer funds to a Coinbase Wallet and whitelist an address while “support” verified their accounts security. pic.twitter.com/pOTQpnMfCz
The scammer convinced the victim that their account had suffered multiple unauthorized login attempts by sending them a spoofed email with a fake Case ID. The scammer then instructed the victim to safelist an address and transfer funds to another Coinbase wallet as part of a routine security procedure.
Last October, another Coinbase user lost $6.5 million after receiving a call from a spoofed number impersonating Coinbase support.
The victim was coerced into using a phishing site. Eight months earlier, another victim lost $4 million after a scammer convinced them to reset their Coinbase login.
ZachXBT raised concerns about Coinbase’s lack of reporting the theft addresses in common compliance resources and their perceived inadequate handling of the escalating social engineering issue.
In a conversation with BeInCrypto, Jeff Lunglhofer, Coinbase’s Chief Information Security Officer, shared his version of the events.
Coinbase CISO Addresses Social Engineering Scams
Despite Coinbase’s clear understanding of the widespread harm caused by social engineering scams affecting its users, Lunglhofer stressed that the broader crypto community should address this problem collectively rather than entrusting the responsibility to a single entity.
“In the context of the broader social engineering challenge that’s out there, of course, Coinbase customers are impacted. We’re keenly aware of it. We’ve been rolling [out] a number of control improvements to help protect our users, and, I think more importantly, we are working with the broader industry to bring these ideas and these control uplifts across the industry, across all crypto exchanges, across everything,” Lunglhofer told BeInCrypto.
Coinbase’s CISO referenced the exchange’s collaborative efforts with other platforms to combat this problem in his reply.
Specifically, Lunglhofer pointed to the “Tech Against Scams” initiative, a partnership with industry players like Match Group, Meta, Kraken, Ripple, and Gemini to fight online fraud and financial schemes.
Lunglhofer also added that Coinbase takes a similar approach when flagging theft addresses.
Why Coinbase Handles Theft Addresses Differently
When BeInCrypto asked Coinbase why it doesn’t publish theft addresses across popular compliance tools, Lunglhofer explained that the exchange has a different procedure for these scenarios.
“We will communicate with other exchanges directly [and] let them know the addresses that we’ve seen where assets have been withdrawn,” he said, adding that “when we see that there’s, in fact, fraudulent [activity], we will pull back all the wallets that are associated with the fraud and we’ll push those out to the other exchanges that we have communications with,” he said.
Lunglhofer also mentioned Crypto ISAC, an intelligence and information-sharing group established by Coinbase in collaboration with various other crypto exchanges and organizations to distribute information related to scams.
Coinbase’s Struggle Against the Flood of Spoofed Content
Lunglhofer admitted that the number of spoofed emails Coinbase identifies or receives in the form of reports far exceeds the exchange’s capacity to take them down.
“Regrettably, they’re a dime a dozen. I can open ten of them in five minutes. It’s super easy to do. So there’s not a lot we can do about that. But, when we identify them [or when] a customer reports them, we do have them taken down,” he said.
Coinbase uses vendors to eliminate circulating spoofs or phishing campaigns in those instances.
“We have several vendors that we use to do takedowns. So anytime we see a fraudulent phone number pop up, anytime we see a fraudulent URL [or] a fraudulent website get established, we will issue those for takedown. We’ll use our vendors to work with the DNS providers and others to bring those down as quickly as possible,” Lunglhofer told BeInCrypto.
Although these preventative measures are essential for the future, they provide minimal recourse for users who have already lost millions of dollars to scams.
Whose Responsibility Is It? User vs. Exchange
Coinbase did not respond to BeInCrypto’s inquiry about developing an insurance policy for users who lost savings to social engineering scams, leaving their approach in this area unclear.
Yet, social engineering scams are complex, relying on significant emotional manipulation to build trust. This complexity raises questions about the degree of responsibility that falls on user vulnerability versus potential shortcomings in the centralized exchange’s user protection measures.
The broader cryptocurrency community generally agrees that more educational materials are necessary to help users distinguish between legitimate communications and scam attempts.
Regarding this issue, Lunglhofer clarified that Coinbase will never call users out of the blue. He also noted that Coinbase has recently implemented different features that act as warnings for users potentially interacting with a scam.
Furthermore, the CISO cited a ‘scam quiz,’ an educational tool that appears as a real-time banner when a user is about to undertake a transaction flagged as suspicious by the exchange.
Though this feature is an advantage, its ability to protect users is hard to quantify, especially regarding how efficiently it flags suspicious activity. Coinbase did not respond when BeInCrypto asked if the exchange internally tracked data related to social engineering scams.
A similar issue arises with Coinbase’s ‘allow lists.’
The $850,000 Coinbase Loss
Coinbase offers a feature that enables users to create a safelist of approved recipient addresses to help prevent transactions to unfamiliar or unverified addresses. Lunglhofer strongly urges Coinbase users to adopt this measure.
“We offer every retail customer the ability to create ‘allow lists’ for wallets that they’re permitted to transfer assets to. On my personal account on Coinbase, I have ‘allow listing’ turned on, and I only have three wallets that are allowed,” Lunglhofer detailed.
However, the $850,000 scam loss suffered by a Coinbase user in January, as revealed by ZachXBT, shows a critical limitation of safelists.
Even after a victim adds a theft address, manipulation leading to this addition can still occur, thereby neutralizing the intended protection.
Can Coinbase Do More to Protect Users?
Sophisticated social engineering scams are a growing threat, creating significant challenges for crypto users. Coinbase users and centralized exchanges in general are particularly affected.
Despite Coinbase’s outlined efforts, the significant financial losses highlight the limitations of current industry-standard measures against determined scammers.
While cooperation is crucial across the board, Coinbase, as a leading platform, must also put more proactive efforts and resources into educating its users.
Social engineering is predominantly a user-driven issue, not a security failure for any exchange. Yet, platforms like Coinbase have the critical responsibility to lead industry-wide initiatives to address these threats.
The millions lost are a stark reminder that vigilance and collective action are paramount in safeguarding users against these increasingly refined and frequent attacks.
Regulatory sandboxes have emerged as a concept to drive innovation in a controlled setting. They allow companies to test new crypto products and services while regulators observe and adapt regulations. While jurisdictions like the UK, the UAE, and Singapore have already created sandboxes, the US has yet to create one at the federal level.
BeInCrypto spoke with representatives of OilXCoin and Asset Token Ventures LLC to understand what the US needs to build a federal regulatory sandbox and how it can unify a fragmented testing environment for innovators.
A Patchwork Approach
As the name suggests, regulatory sandboxes have emerged as a tool for providing a controlled testing ground. This environment allows entrepreneurs, businesses, industry leaders, and lawmakers to interact with new and innovative products.
According to the Institute for Reforming Government, 14 states in the United States currently have regulatory sandboxes for fintech innovation.
Of those, 11 are industry-specific and cover other sectors like artificial intelligence, real estate, insurance, child care, healthcare, and education.
Utah, Arizona, and Kentucky are the only jurisdictions among these states with an all-inclusive sandbox. Meanwhile, all but 12 states are currently considering legislation to create some regulatory sandbox for innovation.
Due to its relatively short existence, the crypto market has underdeveloped legislation. While state-level sandboxes enable innovators to demonstrate their products’ capabilities to the public, they are significantly constrained by the lack of federal regulatory sandboxes.
The Need for Federal Oversight
Though statewide efforts to create regulatory sandboxes are vital for innovation, entrepreneurs and businesses still face constraints in developing across borders or reaching an audience at a national level.
Rapid advancements in fields like blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) add a particular layer of uncertainty, given that existing legal frameworks may not be well-suited to these technologies.
At the same time, regulators may face difficulties in developing appropriate rules for these technologies due to a potential lack of familiarity with these constantly changing industries.
As a result, industry participants are increasingly calling for creating a federal regulatory sandbox. This environment could be a collaborative framework to address the gap, facilitating communication and knowledge sharing between regulators and industry stakeholders.
“The implementation of a federal regulatory sandbox in the United States has the potential to significantly enhance both innovation and regulatory oversight by reducing the uncertainties often associated with navigating the regulatory landscape across state lines. Such an initiative could help establish a coherent framework characterized by uniformity, continuity, and a conducive environment for innovation,” said Paul Talbert, Managing Director of ATV Fund.
According to Rademacher and Talbert, this proposal would meet the needs of all players involved.
Benefits of a Federal Regulatory Sandbox
A sandbox provides innovators with a controlled environment to test products under regulatory oversight without the immediate burden of full compliance with rules that may not yet fit their technology.
It also allows regulators to acquire firsthand insights into blockchain applications, facilitating the creation of more knowledgeable and flexible regulatory policies.
“Startups should have clear eligibility criteria to determine their qualification for participation, while regulators must outline specific objectives—whether focused on refining token classification frameworks, testing DeFi applications, or improving compliance processes,” Rademacher said.
It could also help the United States reinforce its position as a leader in technological innovation.
“By fostering innovation through simplicity, regulatory certainty, and conducive environments, the United States can significantly strengthen its competitive position in the global fintech landscape,” Talbert added.
While the United States has stalled in creating a federal framework for fintech innovation, other jurisdictions around the world have already gained significant ground in this regard.
Global Precedents
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which regulates the United Kingdom’s financial services, launched the first regulatory sandbox in 2014 as part of Project Innovate. This initiative aimed to provide a controlled environment for testing innovative products.
The government asked the FCA to establish a regulatory process to promote new technology-based financial services and fintech and ensure consumer protection.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Singapore, in particular, have made progressive strides in creating federal regulatory sandboxes.
The UAE, for example, currently has four different sandboxes: the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Regulation Lab, the DSFA Sandbox, the CBUAE FinTech Sandbox, and the DFF Regulation Lab.
Their focus areas include digital banking, blockchain, payment systems, AI, and autonomous transport.
Meanwhile, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) launched its Fintech Regulatory Sandbox in 2016. Three years later, MAS also launched the Sandbox Express, providing firms with a faster option for market testing certain low-risk activities in pre-defined environments.
“The success of regulatory sandboxes in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates has highlighted the importance of key attributes: regulatory collaboration, transparent processes, continuous monitoring, and the allocation of dedicated resources. As a result, a growing number of jurisdictions worldwide are looking to replicate the frameworks established by these pioneering countries to strengthen their competitive position in the global fintech landscape,” Talbert said.
Rademacher believes these jurisdictions’ innovations should prompt the United States to accelerate its progress.
For that to happen, the United States must overcome certain hurdles.
Challenges of a Fragmented US Regulatory Landscape
A fragmented network of federal and state agencies overseeing financial services presents a key challenge to establishing a US federal regulatory sandbox.
“Unlike other countries with a single financial authority overseeing the market, the U.S. has multiple agencies—including the SEC, CFTC, and banking regulators—each with different perspectives on how digital assets should be classified and regulated. The lack of inter-agency coordination makes implementing a unified sandbox more complex than in jurisdictions with a single regulatory body,” Rademacher told BeInCrypto.
Yet, in recent years, important SEC and CFTC actors have expressed interest in adopting a more favorable regulatory approach to innovation.
“Even though I tend to be more of a beach than a sandbox type of regulator, sandboxes have proven effective in facilitating innovation in highly regulated sectors. Experience in the UK and elsewhere has shown that sandboxes can help innovators try out their innovations under real-world conditions. A sandbox can provide a viable path for smaller, disruptive firms to enter highly regulated markets to compete with larger incumbent firms,” Peirce said in a statement last May.
However, the full scope of national regulations far exceeds the authority of these two entities.
Congressional and Constitutional Hurdles
Any legislative measure to develop a federal regulatory framework for sandboxes in the United States would have to undergo Congressional approval. Talbert highlighted several potential constitutional dilemmas the promotion of an initiative of this nature may face.
“These dilemmas include issues related to the non-delegation doctrine, which raises concerns about the constitutionality of delegating legislative power; equal protection considerations under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; challenges arising from the Supremacy Clause; and implications under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and principles of judicial review,” he said.
To address these complexities, Congress must enact clear legal boundaries that ensure a regulatory framework is both predictable and open. Given the current administration’s emphasis on technological innovation, the prospects for creating a sandbox appear positive.
“Given the current composition of Congress, which aligns with the political orientation of the new executive branch, there may be a timely opportunity for regulatory reform. Such reform could facilitate the creation of a cohesive federal regulatory framework and enhance collaboration among federal agencies,” Talbert told BeInCrypto.
However, creating a federal regulatory sandbox is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
Balancing State Autonomy and Federal Regulations
State autonomy is enshrined in the US Constitution. This protection means that, even though a regulatory sandbox may exist at the national level, individual states still have the authority to restrict or prohibit sandboxes within their jurisdictions.
Encouragingly, most US states are already exploring regulatory sandboxes, and the states that have already implemented them represent diverse political viewpoints.
However, other considerations beyond political resistance must also be addressed.
“A federal regulatory sandbox might also face opposition from established financial institutions, including banks, which may perceive potential threats to their existing business models. Furthermore, federal budgetary constraints could impede the government’s capacity to support the development and maintenance of a federal regulatory framework,” Talbert added.
Effective federal regulations will also require a balance between businesses’ concerns and regulators’ responsibilities.
“The two biggest risks are overregulation—imposing excessive restrictions that undermine the sandbox’s purpose—or underregulation, failing to provide meaningful clarity. If the rules are too restrictive, businesses may avoid participation, limiting the sandbox’s effectiveness. If they are too lax, there is a risk of abuse or regulatory arbitrage. A well-executed federal regulatory sandbox should not become a bureaucratic burden but rather a dynamic framework that fosters responsible growth in the digital asset space,” Rademacher told BeInCrypto.
Ultimately, the best approach will require coordination from different governing bodies, industry stakeholders, and bipartisan collaboration.
Fostering Collaboration for a Successful Sandbox
Due to recent strained communication between tech and federal agencies, Rademacher believes fostering a cooperative atmosphere is essential for creating a functional federal sandbox.
“The approach must be collaborative rather than adversarial. Agencies should view the sandbox as an opportunity to refine regulations in real time, working alongside industry participants to develop policies that foster responsible innovation. Involvement from banking regulators and the Treasury Department could also be valuable in ensuring that digital assets are integrated into the broader financial system in a responsible manner,” he said.
Achieving this requires a bipartisan approach to harmonizing regulatory goals and setting clear boundaries. Industry collaboration with lawmakers and regulators is vital to showing how a sandbox can promote responsible innovation while safeguarding consumers.
“Its success will ultimately depend on whether it serves as a bridge between innovation and regulation, rather than an additional layer of complexity,” Rademacher concluded.
