- Buy Crypto
- Markets
- Futures
- Spot
- Copy Trade
WE-Launch
A16z Co-founder's Latest Interview: How Does the DOGE "Unpaid Intern" View the Revival Narrative Under Trump's Presidency? | In-Depth Conversation
Original Interview: Peter Robinson, Hoover Institution;
Guest: Marc Andreessen, Co-Founder of A16z;
Original Translation: Ashley, BlockBeats
Editor's Note: This interview delves into the evolution of technology and politics in Silicon Valley, Marc Andreessen's political shift from left to right, as well as his vision for using technology to drive social progress, the role of innovation in addressing energy challenges, and its role in border security and national defense.
The following is the original content (lightly edited for readability):
About Marc Andreessen
Peter Robinson: The New York Times called him one of the most influential thinkers in Silicon Valley, indisputably. Marc Andreessen, welcome to Uncommon Knowledge. I'm Peter Robinson. Growing up in the small town of New Lisbon, Wisconsin (current population 2,523), Marc Andreessen majored in computer science at the University of Illinois before moving to the West Coast.
In 1993, Mr. Andreessen co-founded Netscape, launching the first widely used browser, instantly making him a key figure in Silicon Valley. He has held this prominent position ever since. In 2009, Mr. Andreessen and his investment partner Ben Horowitz founded the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, which currently manages over $40 billion.
At Stanford University, Mr. Andreessen was involved in the Hoover Institution's Emerging Technology Review. Since last November's election, Mr. Andreessen has spent only half his time in Silicon Valley, with the other half at the Lake House, advising Donald Trump, along with his friends Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
Marc Andreessen: Thank you, Peter, I'm delighted to be here.
The Conditions for American Renaissance: Resources, Technology, and Global Appeal
Peter Robinson: Alright, Marc, let's start by watching a video clip.
Peter Robinson: That was in 1984, Reagan's re-election campaign ad. In the 1970s, there was economic stagnation, deteriorating Cold War status, the aftermath of the Vietnam War, and the Watergate scandal causing national humiliation. Then Reagan was elected, and by 1984, the economy began to expand. We started rebuilding the military, and patriotism was reignited. Although this video may seem a bit sentimental today, it was authentic enough for Americans at that time, leading to Reagan's landslide re-election victory in 1984 with 49 states to 1. A serious question: national renaissance, can we do it again?
Marc Andreessen: I think there's no reason why we can't. The key is whether we want to. I was a kid back then, 13 years old, with a vague impression of the situation when that video was released. But we can absolutely achieve it, I mean, look, we have all the prerequisites to do so. We have the people, we have the resources, we have geographical security. We have these capabilities. In fact, if you look now, we are the only major Western economy that is still growing. The economies of the UK, Germany, and Canada have stalled, or perhaps even shrunk.
Despite having many issues, we are still growing. We continue to be a beacon of capitalism, business, and entrepreneurship. The smartest people in the world still unquestionably want to come here. We are now leading the world in artificial intelligence. Furthermore, in the energy sector, almost every time there's news about America running out of a rare earth mineral or lithium resource, a farmer in North Dakota seems to discover a new deposit worth $20 trillion in their backyard. We seem to have unlimited natural resources. We possess overwhelmingly superior military power in the world. Despite our problems, we have all the prerequisites to achieve a golden age.
The Intersection of Technology and Politics: From the Silicon Valley Pact to the Democratic Pivot
Peter Robinson: The golden age, alright, we'll talk more about that later. In the meantime, you need to explain some things. Marc Andreessen's list of endorsed presidential candidates. This is all public information, I did some digging, Marc. Maybe you're trying to conceal some information, but I doubt you would, though these are still on the record.
Marc Andreessen: Wait a second, I need to go edit Wikipedia.
Peter Robinson: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.
Marc Andreessen: Had a brief Mitt Romney moment in the middle there. Yeah, the trajectory is that, from... I actually got into business in 1994, but I knew Bill Clinton and Al Gore, supported them in '96. Then, as you said, supported Gore in 2000, all the way through to Hillary in 2016.
Peter Robinson: Okay, from a very loyal Democrat to a MAGA (Make America Great Again) Republican, why is that? What happened? Did you change, or did things change? What changed in your thinking? I mean, a lot of people say, "It's not that I left the Democratic Party, it's that the Democratic Party left me." Ronald Reagan said that. So, both the environment and the thinking have changed, please comment.
Marc Andreessen: By the way, what's surprising is many key members of the Trump team are former Democrats. Trump himself was a former Democrat, Bobby Kennedy, Tulsi Gabbard, and the list goes on. So, it's a widespread phenomenon. But in any case, we can discuss this phenomenon. I would describe it like this: I grew up in the Midwest in the '90s and have a very profound understanding and memory of the living environment there, which is the complete opposite of California. But I moved to California and fully integrated into becoming a Californian.
I would describe it this way: in the '90s, if you were in Silicon Valley, in the high-tech industry, there was a concept of a "Deal" with a big D. No one explicitly stated it, but everyone implicitly acknowledged this Deal. The Deal was this: you could be a high-tech entrepreneur, could create amazing technology, could build a successful company, could create a lot of jobs. Technology makes the world a better place. That's great, you take the company public, make a lot of money. And then you take the money out and donate it to charity. That was the complete trajectory. When you passed away, your obituary read: he was an entrepreneur and a philanthropist, his life...
Peter Robinson: Silicon Valley's Life Cycle.
Marc Andreessen: Life cycle. It's a great deal because you get to do what you love, find professional satisfaction, achieve material satisfaction from economic success, and finally achieve psychological and moral satisfaction through philanthropy.
Peter Robinson: And the government won't interfere with you. As an entrepreneur, you have enough space to do what you need to do.
Marc Andreessen: Yes. And you may remember, the Clinton-Gore administration was very supportive of high tech. I have countless stories from that period, one of which is I had the privilege of being involved in the first presidential webcast event. In 1996, I co-hosted the President's Town Hall Meeting on the Internet with Bill Clinton, which was a big deal at the time. After the event, he called me, very excited, thinking everything was great. Al Gore was also very supportive, and he later received a lot of mockery for the statement "I invented the internet."
Peter Robinson: He said he invented the internet.
Marc Andreessen: He didn't actually. His exact words were that he spearheaded the legislation in the Senate that created the internet, which is actually true. He founded the NSFNET in the '80s, which became the backbone of the internet. This also included the National Supercomputer Centers. I mention these because these facilities provided the necessary conditions for my research at that time. When I entered the University of Illinois, these infrastructures were already there.
Peter Robinson: Essential to your work.
Marc Andreessen: Yes, they were the prerequisites for everything that followed. So, I think Al Gore made a huge contribution in this regard. But the key point is, he always had great enthusiasm for technology and was a staunch supporter of it. Therefore, throughout the 2000s, despite the Democratic Party gradually turning left, Obama still generally supported high tech and American business. He liked what we were doing. And you may remember in 2012 when Obama was reelected, the media called it the first internet election or social media election. The headlines at that time were "Social Media Saved Democracy." Because social media helped Obama raise a lot of money online, defeating the "evil fascist Nazi" Mitt Romney. The media's coverage of social media at that time was almost entirely positive. Facebook was very helpful to democracy, and the whole phenomenon was great. At the same time, the Arab Spring was happening during that period, and media coverage of it was also generally positive. So until 2012, the situation was very optimistic.
Peter Robinson: You reminded me of something. I know someone closely connected to Mitt Romney, who is a Silicon Valley investor. Romney once said that the Obama team completely out-tech'd us, especially in campaign technology. The Obama team could provide volunteers with smartphone apps to ask five questions door-to-door. This way, they could know if the person already supported Obama (so no need to spend resources), if they were firmly in Romney's camp (again, no need to spend resources), or if they might support Obama (requiring more resources). And the Romney team had no similar tools at all. Because that was just not "cool" back then.
Marc Andreessen: Yes, absolutely. This actually goes back to the historical trajectory of Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley had a portion of Republican supporters during the "chip era" (1950s-1970s).
Peter Robinson: David Packard once served as Deputy Secretary of Defense under Richard Nixon, that's one example I remember.
Marc Andreessen: Yes, most of those people had retired by the time I got here. It also marked the transition of Silicon Valley from chips to software. By the time I arrived, pretty much everyone under 50 was a Democrat. This trend also foreshadowed the future direction of California. Everyone in Silicon Valley accepted that "pact." Almost everyone I know does. And, it's actually very heady because you get to be this highly praised tech founder. You get invited to the White House, the media loves you, everyone loves you. You donate to charity, and they love what you're doing. You go to Davos and Aspen to attend events...
And the government supports you as well. If you run into trouble, say something happens in a foreign country, or you have some weird tax issue, the U.S. government will actually step in for you. If there's some trade war or your goods are held up at a port, the State Department will intervene. So, the government is on the side of American business. And in hindsight, that's the trade the Democrats made in the '90s: they decided to support business. Bill Clinton got the Democratic Party out of the crazy state of the '60s and '70s, positioning the party as not being in a fight with capitalism every day. And it all worked very smoothly, this symbiotic relationship continued until 2012. However, after Obama's reelection, my experience is that from 2013 on, things really started to unravel.
Peter Robinson: So, how did you perceive this change? As I mentioned, you have been a key figure in Silicon Valley since the 90s, a celebrity, wealthy, and highly respected. In 2013, how did you sense the change? Did you notice that entrepreneurs were facing difficulties they hadn't encountered before during the investment process? Or was it something more abstract? Was it an atmosphere? Please describe how you felt in 2013.
Marc Andreessen: Looking back, I was at the forefront of sensing the change. At that time, I didn't fully understand what was happening, but I did feel it. The reason was my deep involvement with consumer internet companies of that era, especially social media companies. I was a board member of Facebook at the time, as well as an angel investor in Twitter and LinkedIn. I was involved in almost all emerging social media companies, understanding how they operated and knowing everyone in them. I was part of many crucial discussions. In 2013, employees began radicalizing. There was a wave of employee activism within companies. In hindsight, the reasons can be traced back to the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the global financial crisis, and the Occupy Wall Street movement. A series of events in those years radicalized college students before they entered the workforce. These students flooded into companies between 2012 and 2014, activating slightly older colleagues within the company, who wanted to appear "cool" and "up-to-date." So, we saw a lot of...
Peter Robinson: All of this started with young people?
Marc Andreessen: Yes, it started with young people. For social media companies, the most specific manifestation was the controversy over hate speech and misinformation. At that time, the internet was like the Wild West; everyone loved it because its openness made everything possible. It was great, supporting democracy and freedom of speech. The Obama administration even promoted a global expansion of free speech. However, at the same time, they began censoring on American social media. It was a surprising reversal. Do you remember "net neutrality"?
Peter Robinson: Of course, I do.
Marc Andreessen: At that time, the left was aggressively pushing for "net neutrality," ensuring that large companies couldn't censor internet speech. Suddenly, the left's position took a 180-degree turn, supporting internet censorship, and the issue of "net neutrality" disappeared from the political stage. So, this whole slide actually began in 2013. I was present at many initial discussions within companies about hate speech and misinformation. Everyone was confident, thinking it was a very simple, clear-cut matter. Of course, it wouldn't lead to political censorship, but the actual situation was completely the opposite. This slide indeed started in 2013, long before Trump's election. Much earlier than the primaries and the general election.
Peter Robinson: Understood. So, what was your initial impression of Trump?
Marc Andreessen: You see, I read The New York Times, watch MSNBC, just like my peers. I was as shocked as most people at the time, "Goodness, this guy is outrageous!" He was a challenge to the "norm." At that time, I supported Hillary, as to me, "traditional bad" is always better than "radical bad." Hillary continued the Clinton legacy in policy, and Clinton was very supportive of technology and business. However, by 2018 and 2019, the tech industry started to get weird, which made me rethink. Especially in the past four years, it's been absolutely insane. If I wasn't clear in 2018, the past four years have completely clarified the direction for me.
DOGE: A New Attempt to Reform Federal Institutions
Peter Robinson: So, let's talk about DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency). Your friends Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are leading it, and you humorously refer to yourself as an "unpaid intern." In the 90s, I sat with Milton Friedman, and we discussed cabinet departments. He reduced the departments from 14 to four and a half. Elon Musk then retweeted that video with the caption "DOGE Agenda." Well, now I'd like to ask you about the DOGE Agenda, but let me reveal a little secret first.
In 1979, during Ronald Reagan's campaign, he called for the abolition of the Department of Education. The Department of Education had just been established in 1979. This wasn't some glorious legacy of American history; it was a brand-new federal institution. When Ronald Reagan took office, Ed Meese told me he went to Capitol Hill and found almost all Republican senators saying, "You can't do that." Within just a year, these senators had learned how to use this cabinet department to deliver benefits to their constituents. Now, they didn't want to abolish it; they wanted to protect it. So, what can you people actually achieve in DOGE? High emotions and great wisdom are about to collide with the realities of practical politics.
Marc Andreessen: Yes, you may also recall that the Clinton-Gore administration had an initiative called "Reinventing Government." Do you remember? There was a famous moment where Al Gore appeared on the then most popular late-night talk show host David Letterman's show. He had a $600 Pentagon unbreakable ashtray. The $3 ashtray cost $600 and was unbreakable, so it could be used in military areas. Of course, he put on safety goggles, took a hammer, and smashed it on Letterman's desk. He said, "Game over, we need to reform this system." But of course...
Peter Robinson: In the end, nothing happened.
Marc Andreessen: Well, give him a little credit, the budget did balance. They did achieve a budget surplus in a short period of time. So maybe something did happen. Reagan did some things, but if I remember correctly, the government was larger when Reagan left office than when he entered.
Peter Robinson: I can tell you some relevant information. Reagan, you know, one issue he faced was with something called the discretionary budget, which is the portion that Congress can vote on each year. The Pentagon is a big part of that. Reagan was able to control the growth of the discretionary budget to around 1% annually, which was essentially a slight cut when adjusted for inflation. But this required ongoing effort. What Reagan couldn't control was the non-discretionary budget. This portion of the budget was set in previous legislation and would grow automatically, beyond his or Congress's control. That would be a problem for you guys, right?
Additionally, I remember at that time there was also a Government Commission on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse established. J. Peter Grace was the chairman of the commission, a highly respected New York banker from a bygone era. He hired investigators to look into things and found a lot of absurd federal government spending. He found a national beekeeping program, which was only seen as waste from a businessman's perspective. However, from a politician's perspective trying to get reelected, these expenditures were very effective in buying votes. So, these plans hardly made any progress. Your current plan has been tried before, although I must say, this time the audacity is greater.
Marc Andreessen: And there's Elon's involvement, too.
Peter Robinson: Yes, Elon's involvement as well.
Marc Andreessen: First of all, let me declare that I am not a spokesperson for DOGE. Therefore, I will not speak for it. Elon Musk and Vivek are both very capable of speaking for themselves. Let me share my views. Yes, as you said, people have tried these things before. The challenges and issues you described are all real.
However, this time is different. There are three main threads here: personnel, spending, and regulation. Although they are related, they are separate threads. The recent Supreme Court ruling on executive power and the so-called "Chevron Deference" issue has intertwined these three. The Supreme Court has recently made a series of rulings that limit the power of administrative agencies to create regulatory regimes on their own. These rulings provide a legal basis for shutting down certain activities and institutions.
Peter Robinson: The media has hardly mentioned DOGE's attention to these Supreme Court rulings. Do you plan to leverage these rulings to return decision-making to Congress and the president, rather than federal agencies? This is a huge success, congratulations!
Marc Andreessen: Yes. Vivek deserves a lot of credit in this regard. He has openly discussed these issues and has gained support from legal scholars. A very strong argument is that if there is an agency that should not exist, or there are activities that the agency should not engage in, or some regulations it enforces are unreasonable, then it is actually necessary for the executive branch to cease those activities to comply with the Supreme Court's rulings. This is contrary to the usual assumption. This is not about some kind of radical reform; we are doing what we are explicitly required to do.
Peter Robinson: Just a shift in the burden of proof and the burden of proof.
Marc Andreessen: That's right, the burden of proof is completely flipped. Of course, so far, these Supreme Court rulings have not had any practical impact, but this is clearly because the previous administration had no interest in them.
Peter Robinson: They were more interested in changing the Supreme Court.
Marc Andreessen: That's right. However, this administration has the opportunity to address these issues differently. Peter, let me test you, how many federal agencies are there now?
Peter Robinson: I saw a statistic, around 127?
Marc Andreessen: Actually, it's between 450 and 500. There's a saying, I don't know if it's true, that no one actually knows the exact number of federal agencies. One reason is that there are too many of them, and new agencies are established every year. Another reason is that we now have many ambiguous agencies. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a typical example.
Peter Robinson: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, established by Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Marc Andreessen: Correct, this agency is considered Warren's agency. It is nominally an independent agency supervised by the Fed.
Peter Robinson: She explicitly legislated that the President of the United States does not have the power to dismiss the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which on its face is unconstitutional.
Marc Andreessen: Yes, unquestionably unconstitutional. So far, this issue has not been fully resolved. But this is just the tip of the iceberg; the expansion and blurring of federal agencies are out of control. Some joke that the entire federal government system is an 80-year-old private monarchy evolved from FDR's New Deal, but without FDR's leadership. FDR expanded the federal government from a small supervisory entity to a massive bureaucracy through the New Deal. And this system has continued to expand, morph, and self-evolve over the following decades.
Peter Robinson: So, what is the DOGE team's plan regarding expenses, personnel, and regulation?
Marc Andreessen: Let me give you an example about personnel. Here's another question, do you know how many people are employed by the federal government?
Peter Robinson: I'd guess around 2.5 million to 3 million, including Pentagon personnel?
Marc Andreessen: Alright, so how many contractors are there?
Peter Robinson: That's not known, it's incalculable.
Marc Andreessen: Yes, no one knows the exact number. The figure is estimated to be much higher. I don't want to throw out numbers here, but it's estimated to be quite high. Now let's talk about another interesting fact, what is the current occupancy rate of the federal office buildings?
Peter Robinson: It seems to be around 25%, right?
Marc Andreessen: It's about 25%. Essentially, the federal buildings in Washington, D.C. now resemble a ghost town. The security agencies are still fully operational, but others are not. In extreme cases, employees of some agencies only need to come back to work for one day a month. And many of these agency employees are federal-level union members who during COVID negotiated collective bargaining agreements, some of which include provisions that allow employees to never return to the office.
Peter Robinson: So are these people considered true federal employees now? If they are not working in the office, are they still considered government employees?
Marc Andreessen: That's one of the issues. These are some of the threads that the DOGE team plans to address.
Peter Robinson: All of this is very exciting. However, DOGE is an advisory committee, I believe it was set up by the President as an advisory committee. It has a sunset date, it will end on July 4, 2026. I like these "sunset provisions." As long as it has to do with the federal government, I'm happy to see a "sunset provision." But the question is, how do you really get people to take action? Including Congress passing authorization legislation, including the President signing executive orders, or driving actual implementation?
Marc Andreessen: Let me give you an example. Congress authorizes spending by the executive branch, but is there a way to save on expenditures through some mechanism? Like the concept of "Impoundment." Can the President legally reduce spending approved by Congress?
Peter Robinson: That was a law from 1974 that removed that power from the President.
Marc Andreessen: Yes, that's the issue. The President is required by law to spend the budget approved by Congress and can't even spend less. This is not explicitly laid out in the Constitution but has become a major constitutional issue of the past 40 years. We can revisit this issue through the Supreme Court to restore this power to the President. This would be a crucial step if we want to achieve actual fiscal control.
Peter Robinson: So, from what you've seen, is the President interested in these issues?
Marc Andreessen: Yes, he is very supportive of it. He has explicitly expressed support for Elon and Vivek's work on DOGE and has given a green light to this effort.
Peter Robinson: So, does this mean that DOGE will provide a very concrete opportunity for national revitalization? Alright, let's move on to more technical matters for the next question.
Technical Innovation: Addressing Energy and Border Security Issues
Peter Robinson: 18 months ago, you published a 5000-word article titled "The Techno-Optimist Manifesto." Let me quote a passage from it: "We are told that technology has taken our jobs, lowered our wages, exacerbated inequality, and could destroy everything at any moment. But our civilization is built on technology. Technology is the glory of human ambition and achievement, the vanguard of progress, the realization of our potential. It's time to raise the banner of technology once again." Apart from being very well-written, not many people in Silicon Valley can write an article like this. I want to ask, on several specific issues, how should we raise the banner of technology?
First, I want to go back to the incoming President. At the age of 78, he grew up in an old-school community in Queens, New York, and his career started in real estate. This is a person who accumulated wealth by pouring concrete. Does he understand technology? Is he as passionate about technology as you are? Or is he simply willing to say, "Here are some important things, maybe this generation or my background doesn't quite grasp, but I'll let Andreessen and Musk handle it for me"?
Marc Andreessen: Yes, I would say that. He is a world-class expert in real estate and communications, both of which are his core skills. He excels in both areas, possibly being the first person to be world-class in both. The real estate industry has never been known for great communicators, but he excels in both. Due to his deep understanding of real estate and his involvement in the communications industry, he also has a very profound understanding of business. You know, in Washington, there is always someone lamenting, "There are many lawyers here, but almost no one has actually worked in the private sector." Very few have actually run companies, been accountable to investors, or had clients. And he is one of the most successful businessmen of our generation.
Therefore, these skills combined make him a very excellent systems thinker. In large real estate projects, many things can go wrong, there are many complex processes to coordinate. Additionally, there are technological changes to consider, such as the application of new technologies like solar energy, and many new management requirements. He is very good at managing this complexity. There was recently a widely circulated video about the California water resources issue. He provided a very accurate analysis of this systemic issue on Joe Rogan's show. This reminded me of his accurate prediction of the German energy crisis during his first term, where he boldly spoke his mind to the German diplomatic delegation at the United Nations.
Peter Robinson: He said, "You will rely on Russian energy, and that will be a disaster for you." And indeed it was.
Marc Andreessen: Yes. It was an extremely precise and forward-thinking analysis; he connected various issues within the system, pointing out the impacts of nuclear shutdown, water resource allocation issues, and the consequences of energy policy. He is very good at understanding these issues. Although I don't expect him to spend time researching and coding large language models, I believe he can understand these technical issues well and address them.
Peter Robinson: Alright, let's talk about energy. Over the past 25 years, the United States has had 104 nuclear power plants in operation, but today there are only 94. The average age of U.S. nuclear power plants is 42 years. How would a technological optimist respond to these figures?
Marc Andreessen: This was a huge tragedy in domestic policy during the Nixon administration. At that time, Richard Nixon foresaw the impending energy crisis and announced an initiative called "Project Independence" during his second term. He said, "This is ridiculous; we cannot rely on fossil fuels from the Middle East. It entangles us in various crazy diplomatic affairs. We need independence." He proposed to build 1000 new nuclear power plants by the year 2000, completely relying on nuclear energy generation. This was not just energy independence but also a green revolution with zero carbon emissions. Nuclear power plants only produce a small amount of easily manageable waste, making it a completely green solution. However, the Nixon administration also established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which ultimately hindered the implementation of the Independence Plan.
Peter Robinson: So, a plan that could have changed everything was shut down.
Marc Andreessen: Yes. These institutions halted the implementation of the independent plan.
Peter Robinson: I once had a bold idea. The U.S. has been building nuclear submarines since 1955, which means we have been using small nuclear reactors for six or seven decades. These technologies are very mature, so much so that they can be operated by 19-year-olds. This technology is owned by the American taxpayers. Why haven't we utilized these technologies?
Marc Andreessen: I completely agree with your point. The U.S. Navy can train 19-year-olds to be nuclear engineers, have them stay on submarines for six consecutive months, and there has never been a nuclear accident. This demonstrates the safety and reliability of the technology. Furthermore, these military reactors are exempt from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, providing insights for the proliferation of civilian technologies. If we can use these military nuclear energy technologies for civilian purposes, there will be tremendous potential.
Peter Robinson: Okay, so can we say that we already have the technology to solve many problems, and we just need to liberate these technologies and let the market operate freely?
Marc Andreessen: Yes, we know exactly what to do. Moreover, compared to decades ago, today we can build safer and more efficient new nuclear power plants. One idea of mine is to revive Nixon's independent plan, build another 1000 new nuclear power plants, and fully realize his vision. However, to make it more politically acceptable, we can hand the project over to Charles Koch. He is a staunch supporter of the free market and a very successful entrepreneur. He will execute the project well and satisfy environmentalists. This way, everyone can get the results they want.
Peter Robinson: Well, I'm not sure how much support this proposal would receive, but it's an interesting idea. I'd like to expand on this theme of "technological optimism" and see what other problems we already know how to solve. Next is the border issue. During the Biden administration, U.S. Customs recorded 11 million border crossings, with about 2.5 million individuals being released into the U.S. for processing. At the same time, the government also acknowledges around 2 million "absconders," meaning that at least 4.5 million people illegally entered the U.S. during Biden's four years. Additionally, I noticed that Donald Trump only built 80 miles of new border wall during his first term, mostly just repairing or reinforcing existing barriers. So, aside from all this, don't we have technologies like ground sensors and drones to effectively control the border? Of course, the U.S. has the technology to address border issues. Isn't that right?
Techno-Optimism's Answer: Examining Future War's Tech Trends from the Ukrainian Battlefield
Marc Andreessen: Let me tell you a story about Anduril. We invested in a company called Anduril. The founder of this company is a super genius, a real-life Tony Stark—Palmer Luckey. He's a modern-day Howard Hughes, a true "Iron Man." He's a super genius. We've known him for a long time because he was the founder of Oculus, which was later acquired by Meta. We were investors in Oculus, so we know him very well. Palmer used the money he made from Oculus to start Anduril and launched this company with a group of partners.
In 2016, when Trump's "Build the Wall" slogan reached its peak, Palmer emerged. He said, "I know how to solve the border problem. We can establish a mesh network at the border for monitoring through sensor towers and drones." He proposed the fusion of sensors to integrate data from multiple sensors onto one screen, real-time tracking of cross-border individual behavior, and providing rapid response capability.
Peter Robinson: If there's a problem, can you dispatch personnel or drones promptly?
Marc Andreessen: Yes, exactly. Furthermore, this technology is not only used for border enforcement but also for rescue operations. For example, if someone is lost or near death at the border, you can quickly find them with a drone, deliver water and food to them, or even perform a rescue. Another issue is child trafficking. If you see two adults with twenty children, that's clearly worth investigating. Through sensors and drones, you can better understand these situations and respond quickly.
Peter Robinson: So Palmer's technological solution is entirely feasible.
Marc Andreessen: Yes, these technologies are entirely feasible. However, at that time, amidst the political fervor of "Build the Wall," Palmer's proposal did not receive attention from the Trump team because Trump was, after all, a real estate developer...
Peter Robinson: He wanted a physical wall.
Marc Andreessen: Yes, he wanted a wall. And even to this day, he's still adamant about it. However, this time he might succeed because he now knows how to do it. But Palmer didn't give up; instead, he redirected these technologies towards military applications. For example, at a remote military base in Afghanistan, you would encounter similar border security issues. He leveraged these technologies to develop defense systems for the military, including sensor networks, drones, and data fusion technology, used to protect military bases.
Then, a very interesting thing happened. Palmer had long been a solitary figure in Silicon Valley, portrayed as a "fascist Nazi" with almost no supporters. However, everything changed drastically on February 24, 2022, the day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Suddenly, the liberal-minded individuals in Silicon Valley began to view Palmer as a hero. This was because they believed, "We absolutely must not defend the southern border of the U.S., but we must defend Ukraine's border at all costs." It was a truly perplexing double standard.
Palmer's company has grown into a highly successful defense company. In fact, he has not only excelled in defense systems but has also developed offensive weapon systems. The technological needs on the Ukrainian battlefield turned his theories into reality, and his technology has been widely applied in drone tactics.
Peter Robinson: The Ukrainian youth operating drones repelled the Russian Navy in the Black Sea, which is indeed a remarkable achievement.
Marc Andreessen: Yes, they also used these drones to destroy main battle tanks. The Ukrainian battlefield is full of innovation and learning opportunities.
Peter Robinson: This leads me to a broader question. If we continue to uphold the "Tech Optimist Manifesto" mindset, our long-term advantage will be technological innovation. Faced with adversaries like China, our only sustainable advantage is the rapid development of technology. So, does the U.S. Department of Defense have the capability to connect with innovators in Silicon Valley and find talent like Palmer Luckey?
Marc Andreessen: Let me tell you some good news: the newly appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense is Steve Feinberg. Steve Feinberg has been a longtime leader at Cerberus Capital Management. He is one of the world's top corporate operators. He previously led the President's Intelligence Advisory Board during Trump's first term. His background and abilities make him well-suited for this position.
Marc Andreessen: He is outstanding. He is one of the most suitable individuals for this position in decades. He understands the needs of the defense sector very well and is also very familiar with the potential of technological innovation. Moreover, there are many excellent talents willing to join the new government's team. The learning curve of this war has just begun. We have already seen how the battlefield in Ukraine has undergone significant changes through technological innovation. Next, potential conflicts in China or other regions will accelerate this change even further.
Peter Robinson: If a conflict really breaks out in Taiwan, how close can US aircraft carriers get? I recently asked a Navy admiral this question. His answer was that all US aircraft carriers must maintain a safe distance of at least 1000 miles. In other words, China has pushed its defense perimeter outwards by 1000 miles. Whether it's hypersonic weapons or drones, these technologies force us to reexamine traditional military strategies.
Marc Andreessen: Yes, these issues need to be addressed very quickly. Especially in drone technology, we are just beginning to explore its potential. Most of the drones you see in Ukraine today are low-end consumer drones. But in the future, drones will become more sophisticated and can be manufactured in higher numbers. What you see as one drone today may be a scenario of 1000 drones appearing simultaneously in the future. Faced with an attack of 1000 drones carrying explosive devices, what can a warship do? What's even more surprising is that Ukraine is even using modified jet skis as weapons. Ukraine has used modified jet skis to engage in attacks against the Russian Navy fleet. They have converted commercial jet skis into suicide unmanned boats. These innovative technologies demonstrate the importance of learning and rapid adaptation in war.
Peter Robinson: This reminds me of a famous general's quote: "War is a process of testing who can learn faster."
Marc Andreessen: Yes, one of the unique aspects of the military is that during peacetime, they are in training and preparedness, but there is no actual customer. There is no real market feedback, so you don't know if your preparation is effective. However, once a war breaks out, a rapid learning process is immediately initiated. Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza are all going through this process. If China takes any action, this learning will accelerate rapidly. For example, there is currently a lot of discussion about whether surface warships are still effective. Because the development of hypersonic weapons and drones is changing the nature of warfare. Military theories of the past few decades may need to be completely rewritten.
Peter Robinson: I recently read that the role of modern aircraft carriers in conflicts may be completely redefined. Many military strategists have begun to question the survivability of carriers on the future battlefield.
Marc Andreessen: Yes, carriers and other large surface vessels are facing significant technological challenges. The development of hypersonic weapons, drone swarms, and automated weapon systems is disrupting our understanding of traditional warfare.
Peter Robinson: So, do you think these issues can be addressed through technological innovation? Can technological optimism provide answers to future military issues?
Marc Andreessen: I firmly believe that technological optimism can provide answers. We still have some of the smartest people in the world, especially in the field of tech design and development. But we need closer collaboration between the government and the tech sector. The new administration is already attempting to bridge this gap. We have seen talents like Steve Feinberg enter the Department of Defense, which is a very positive sign. In the future, we need more tech innovators like Palmer Luckey to join the defense sector.
Peter Robinson: But the issue is that the United States is a democratic country, and we tend to have delays in policy decisions. How do we rapidly respond to the rapid development of technology in such a system?
Marc Andreessen: Yes, the strengths and weaknesses of a democratic system are very apparent here. A democratic system can ensure greater transparency and accountability, but it can also lead to decision delays. In the face of rapidly changing technology and international situations, we need a new level of flexibility. Luckily, the new government is working towards pushing for faster decision-making mechanisms. Especially with the rapid advancement of technology, we need to break down the barriers between government and the private sector.
How to Achieve Economic Growth: Leveraging Technological Innovation to Enhance Productivity is the Only Way Out
Peter Robinson: The issues you mentioned are very important, but let's change the topic. You, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and other "technological optimists" are driving government reform. Will this bring about economic pains? For example, when we talk about downsizing the government, what about the federal employees who will lose their jobs? How do we handle it when technological developments replace some professions?
Marc Andreessen: Yes, these are all important issues. Every technological change brings about short-term unemployment and industry transformation. Over the past few decades, technological innovation has created numerous new professions, but has also replaced many old ones. However, if we do not drive technological progress, then we will fall into a zero-growth economic state. In a zero-growth economy, politics becomes a zero-sum game, as the only way to allocate resources is to take from one group to give to another. Economic growth is the only way to address these issues. High productivity growth can create more wealth, more opportunities, and greater social stability.
Peter Robinson: So, is economic growth and technological advancement the key to solving societal problems?
Marc Andreessen: Yes, absolutely. We need high productivity growth. This is the sole driver of economic growth. If we can achieve rapid technological innovation and productivity gains, then society will experience prosperity and stability.
Peter Robinson: Alright, let's go back to your point. You mentioned that productivity growth is key. We are currently facing a very dire fiscal situation. You know, when Ronald Reagan took office, the federal debt as a percentage of GDP was about 32%. Today, that ratio has reached 122%. Is economic growth sufficient to address such a severe debt issue?
Marc Andreessen: Yes, this is indeed a huge challenge. The current debt situation is even worse than what you described. The federal debt is now increasing at a rate of $1 trillion every 100 days. This is a staggering number, and this growth rate is accelerating. Thomas Massie, an MIT-educated engineer and one of the few libertarians in Congress, has created a debt clock that can display the real-time growth rate of the debt. Recently, he told me that he needs to redesign the clock as it needs to add another digit to show the scenario when the debt crosses $100 trillion. The 122% debt-to-GDP ratio you mentioned will actually continue to climb. This is not just a numerical issue; it will have significant impacts on the actual economy, such as a vicious cycle between interest rates and inflation.
Peter Robinson: The federal government's interest payments now exceed the Pentagon's budget.
Marc Andreessen: Yes, that is the problem. As debt grows, interest payments will further squeeze other budget items. Even worse, the pressures of inflation and rising interest rates will only accelerate this cycle. We must find a way to address this issue. Economic growth is our only way out. Productivity growth is at the core of achieving economic growth. If we cannot drive technological progress to enhance productivity, the nation's fiscal situation will only deteriorate further.
Policy, Application, System: How to Win in the US-China Game
Peter Robinson: So, when facing a more competitive opponent like China, can our economic growth provide enough resources to support national defense and technological competition?
Marc Andreessen: This is a key question. China is a very complex adversary. Unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, China's economic size is massive and has become a crucial part of the global supply chain. Take the drone market, for example, China has nearly monopolized the global consumer drone market. Over 90% of US military drones rely on Chinese-manufactured parts. This is not just a market dominance issue; it is an entire supply chain ecosystem controlled by China.
Even more concerning, a similar situation is unfolding in the automotive and robotics fields. China's electric vehicle market is already globally competitive, with their product prices being only one-third or even one-fourth of Western competitors. Next, robot technology may also be dominated by China. This poses a dual threat to our economy and national security.
Peter Robinson: It sounds like China is already ahead in multiple key areas. How can we respond?
Marc Andreessen: We need to reassess our technology policy. First, we need to protect and develop our own supply chain, especially in strategic areas such as drones, electric vehicles, and robots. Second, we need to accelerate the pace of technological innovation and application, which requires closer collaboration between government and the private sector. Third, we need to systematically review the nation's overall technology strategy. Currently, the government's technology policies are very fragmented, even contradictory. We need a 'whole-of-government strategy' to clarify our technological priorities and resource allocation.
Peter Robinson: So, are you optimistic about future technology policy? Do you believe that the government and the private sector can come together to address these challenges?
Marc Andreessen: Yes, I am optimistic about this. Especially in the new government, we have seen some very positive signs. Leaders like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are driving technological policy reform. I believe that as long as we can focus on technological innovation and productivity enhancement, we can address the current fiscal and economic challenges. At the same time, this is also the only way to ensure that we maintain our lead in global technological competition.
Peter Robinson: This reminds me of your "Statement of Technological Optimism." In the last part of the article, you talk about how "technology is the glory of human ambition and achievement." Could you please read a paragraph from it for us?
Marc Andreessen: I would be honored. Let me find that paragraph... Okay, this is my favorite passage:
"We believe in the romance of technology, the romance of industry. Trains, cars, electric lights, skyscrapers, microchips, neural networks, rockets, split atoms... all of these convey the passion and charm of technology. We believe in the spirit of adventure, in the hero’s journey, in defying the status quo, in exploring unmapped territories, in slaying dragons and bringing back the loot to the village.
We believe that we have always been and will always be the masters of technology, not slaves to it. To be a victim of technology is a curse, a mindset that is both unnecessary and self-defeating. We are not victims; we are conquerors.
We believe that America and its allies should be strong, not weak. Economic, cultural, and military power all stem from technological power. A technologically strong America is a force for good in this dangerous world. We believe in greatness."
Peter Robinson: Marc Andreessen, thank you very much for your time.
Marc Andreessen: Thank you, Peter, it has been a very enjoyable conversation.
Peter Robinson: Thank you all for watching the program "Uncommon Knowledge" produced jointly by the Hoover Institution and Fox Nation. See you next time!
You may also like
This Week in Review | Trump to Host Dinner for TRUMP Holders; Musk and US Treasury Secretary Engage in Heated Argument at the White House
One Month Left in Office, Has Trump and Musk's Political Alliance Broken Down?
Recently, a high-profile dispute at the White House once again brought the U.S. government into the spotlight. The head of the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk, and the U.S. Treasury Secretary Bennett engaged in a heated argument due to ideological differences, almost escalating into a physical confrontation. In the end, Trump accepted Bennett's appointment proposal, raising concerns about cracks in the relationship between Trump and Musk. Behind this conflict is not only a power clash between Silicon Valley and Washington but also a revealing of the complex game from "close allies" to "power balancing" between Trump and Musk.
Looking back to the beginning of the year, Trump's most significant political reform involving Musk was the establishment of the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) to promote radical reform under the guise of "streamlining the government." Its core objectives include reducing government spending, digitizing the bureaucratic system, and replacing human decision-making with algorithms. The core team consists of 6 technical elites aged 19-25. Since Trump took office on January 20th, DOGE has swiftly carried out its restructuring, from shutting down the U.S. International Development Agency to significantly reducing the number of federal government employees, and even obtaining taxpayer privacy information to enhance fiscal efficiency. Under Trump's direction and support, Musk has bravely faced the challenges and spearheaded a radical reform storm in the United States.
Related Reading: "Terminating hundreds of contracts in 18 days, Musk and six post-00s revolutionize the United States" "Cutting billions of dollars in contracts again, what peculiar government departments has Musk's D.O.G.E identified?"
According to DOGE's official website data, as of April 20, 2025, DOGE has saved approximately $160 billion in total, averaging about $993.79 saved per taxpayer, with savings in various areas:
Contract Terminations: 8,454 contracts terminated, saving about $30 billion. For example, terminating the Risk Management Agency's lease in Topeka, Kansas, with an annual rent of $121,800, is expected to save approximately $964,000 over multiple years.
Grant Cancellations: 9,699 grants terminated, saving about $33 billion. For example, terminating grants from the U.S. International Development Agency to the Global Vaccine and Immunization Alliance Foundation, saving a total of $1.75 billion.
Lease Terminations: 643 leases terminated, saving about $3 billion.
However, an NPR analysis points out that some contract terminations did not result in actual savings. For example, 794 contract cancellations were expected to bring no savings as the funds were already fully committed. Additionally, the DOGE calculated savings using the potential highest value of the contract rather than actual expenditures, leading to controversy.
As early as the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Musk began frequent interactions with Trump. At that time, Musk contributed $259 million, mobilized all Silicon Valley resources, and with his personal influence endorsement, became a key supporter for Trump's return to the White House. After Trump took office, as his "angel investor," Musk naturally gained unprecedented political status and power.
On February 7, Musk publicly expressed his support for Trump on social media. He said his love for Trump was "the maximum love that a straight man can give to another man."
On March 4, while attending Trump's State of the Union address, Musk was wearing a tie borrowed from Trump.
As Musk massively laid off federal employees from government agencies, a wave of vandalism against Tesla cars, intimidation of owners, and protests at dealership stores erupted nationwide. Tesla factories faced peaceful demonstrations and acts of destruction, including charging station fires. Vandalism of Cybertrucks surged across the U.S., with some owners even graffitiing their own Tesla vehicles to protest against Musk.
Reports of Tesla car and dealership vandalism as well as protest activities suggest that opposition to Musk has reached a boiling point. Bell Analyst Ben Carlo stated on CNBC, "When people's cars are at risk of being scratched or burned, even those who support Musk or are indifferent to Musk may have second thoughts about whether to buy a Tesla."
Musk has also stated multiple times that running his own businesses is "very challenging." Tesla's stock price has experienced its most severe drop in five years, and his social media company X has also suffered multiple outages.
However, such swift reforms are bound to harm the interests of a considerable portion of people. From the day Musk entered politics, opposition voices have been constant. Tesla's stock has plummeted since Musk took office, nearly halving its market value, marking the most severe decline in five years. This has led to Musk's personal assets evaporating by approximately $121 billion since the beginning of the year.
As Musk's biggest political backer and ally, Trump inevitably had to stand up for him when Musk came under attack.
On the afternoon of March 11th, local time in the U.S., Trump held a 30-minute press conference on the White House driveway. The press conference looked more like a large-scale Tesla car show—accompanied by Musk, Trump answered questions about the U.S. stock market, Canadian tariffs, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict while test-driving five different types and colors of Tesla cars.
"The one I like is that one," Trump pointed to a bright red Model S priced at about $80,000, saying. In the end, Trump chose the Model S and said he would write an $80,000 check to buy the car in full.
Trump also criticized those who were boycotting Tesla, believing that they were harming a great American company. He claimed that if the boycotters continued to treat Tesla this way, he would root out these people and "curse" them to "hell." White House spokesperson Harrison Fields also stated: "The despicable acts of violence being continuously carried out by radical left-wing activists against Tesla are no different from domestic terrorism."
Under Trump's "endorsement," Tesla's stock price rebounded during trading on Tuesday, rising 3.79% at the close.
To show loyalty, on March 24th, at Trump's third cabinet meeting, Musk wore a red hat with the words "Trump is always right."
During this period, the two were still intimate comrades-in-arms dedicated to advancing reform. Trump needed a "sharp tool" to expand his territory, while Musk needed a platform to realize his political ambitions. Both were highly aligned in their goals and interests.
Since Trump announced his high tariffs policy, a conflict arose between Trump's political goals and Musk's personal interests, leading to a crack in their relationship. The high tariffs caused a sharp drop in the U.S. stock market in a short period, and Musk's assets have shrunk by over $100 billion since the beginning of the year. Musk, as an entrepreneur, views issues from an economic rather than political perspective, supporting barrier reduction and free trade. He has also repeatedly expressed his opposition to the tariff policy.
On April 5, during the Italian Alliance Assembly held in Florence, Musk, in a video call interview with Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, expressed, "Ultimately, I hope that Europe and the United States can reach an agreement. In my view, ideally, we should move towards zero tariffs, effectively establishing a free trade area between Europe and North America." On April 7, Musk shared a video on Twitter featuring the late free-market economist Milton Friedman discussing the benefits of free trade. Musk did not add any text, but this move was widely interpreted as a criticism of Trump's tariff policies.
Musk's brother, Kimbal Musk, also criticized Trump's tariff policy on Twitter, pointing out that "Taxing consumption means less consumption, which also means fewer job opportunities, leading to even less consumption and fewer job opportunities." He believes that taxation is a "structural, permanent tax on American consumers."
Particularly targeted at trade advisor Peter Navarro, Musk has also made many criticisms and sarcastic comments. On April 8, he replied to a post quoting Navarro's interview where Navarro referred to Tesla more as an "assembler" than a "manufacturer," criticizing its components coming from China, Japan, and Taiwan. Musk directly responded in a heated manner, stating, "Navarro is a complete idiot, what he said here is obviously false," followed by a community note proving the Tesla Model Y is the "most American-made car." One retort apparently wasn't enough, as Musk further referred to Navarro as "dumber than a sack of bricks" in another post.
Their contradictory stances on the tariff issue gradually fermented in the intricate power struggle.
On April 23, local time, it was reported by insiders that on April 17, Musk and Treasury Secretary Bezos had a heated clash during a meeting in the West Wing of the White House. Bezos lost control of his emotions and erupted with profanity, to which Musk provocatively responded with a "raise your voice." The confrontation even escalated to personal attacks, with Bezos angrily accusing Musk of exaggerating the DOGE budget cut issue, leading to no progress. Musk, in turn, directly retorted that Bezos was a "Soros puppet" and mocked him for his previous hedge fund debacle. The argument alarmed Trump and visiting Italian Prime Minister Meloni, and it took assistant intervention to separate the two.
The direct cause of this conflict was the controversy over the appointment of the IRS Commissioner. As Elon Musk, serving as the head of the U.S. Department of Efficiency, proposed the appointment of Gary Sharply as the Acting Commissioner of the IRS without the approval of Treasury Secretary Bennett, Bennett viewed this as a violation of his authority. He lobbied President Trump to revoke the appointment and instead support his own deputy, Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Falkend, for the position of IRS Commissioner.
The outcome of this power struggle seemed to favor Bennett as President Trump eventually supported Bennett's proposal, revoked Musk's nomination of Sharply, and appointed Falkend as the Acting Commissioner of the IRS.
The fact that two top U.S. officials could be so enraged as to publicly curse each other at the White House gates despite their public image was due to their long-standing animosity. Back when Trump first took office, Musk had strongly advocated for nominating Howard Lutnick as Treasury Secretary, but Trump ultimately chose Bennett and appointed Lutnick to lead the Department of Commerce. Perhaps from the beginning, Trump had strategically set up a situation where his subordinates would check each other, siding with whoever aligned more with his own ideas. This set the stage for future conflicts.
The conflict between the two was fundamentally a power struggle and game of influence between two factions within the Trump administration. The reformist faction represented by Musk sought to reshape the landscape through new policies, while the traditional faction represented by Bennett resisted actions that harmed their own interests. Trump's handling of this event was seen as a sign of Musk's diminished influence within the government.
It is worth noting that, regarding tariff policies, Bennett, unlike Musk's clear opposition, had publicly supported tariff policies, believing that implementing new tariffs in the U.S. was necessary. He also refuted the idea that new tariffs would cause an economic downturn. Perhaps the consistency in policy preferences was also a reason why Trump gradually leaned towards Bennett and distanced himself from Musk. After all, to Trump, a businessman by background, permanent interests matter more than permanent friends.
Musk's role was constrained by the 130-day term limit for special government employees, which began counting from Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025, and is expected to expire at the end of May. Anonymous sources within the White House hinted at the end of February that Musk "will stay," but on March 31, Trump himself openly acknowledged Musk's prioritization of his commercial duties and showed no signs of insisting on retention. Perhaps as the mission of DOGE is accomplished, Musk's 130-day government employee term enters its final phase, and Trump will gradually sideline Musk from the power center, shifting to new allies who align more with his current interests. In retrospect, it's a poignant reminder of how fleeting alliances can be.
The world's richest person, Musk, experienced the thrill of a "Tech Disruption Workplace" at the center of American politics. He ignited a fire for Trump's "New Sheriff in Town," touching the interests of countless people. He reformed the behemoth of the American government at an incredible speed, leaving behind not only a controversial outline of "Algorithmic Governance" but also exposing the deep-seated contradictions between capital and power in American politics. This radical experiment of "Tech Transforming Politics" seems to be nearing its conclusion. When Musk truly departs, that red hat proclaiming "Trump Is Always Right" may perhaps become the most dramatic footnote to this brief "political marriage."
April 23 Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?
Arthur Hayes New Article: Bitcoin to Return to “Gold Tier” Safe Haven, Altseason to Potentially Follow
ArkStream Capital: The Power Play of WLFI's CEX-DEX Convergence
29-Year-Old Storms the White House! Trump's "Youngest Crypto Advisor" Bo Hines Leads Regulatory Reform
Trump Administration Official's Crypto Holdings Revealed, BTC Still the Top Choice
SEC Watershed Moment? 2025 Could Be the 'Altcoin ETF' Year, Which Tokens Are Most Likely to Be Approved
This Week in Review | Strategy Adds BTC Sell Risk Warning Sparking Debate; US Tariff Policy Flip-Flops Cause Market Turbulence
Is Being Wordy Equal to Researching? Crypto KOL Grassroots Movement Award
Rate Cut Countdown: $9 Trillion National Debt "Maturity Wall" Could Be the Cryptocurrency Market's Most Powerful Catalyst
bit.com Exchange Platform Opens a New Chapter in Cloud Mining, Power Trading Enters a New C2C Era
X Space Review | The Future of Memes, Exploring the Development Trends of the Meme Space Post-Hype
Surging 200%, Can Musk-themed Meme Coin RFC Become the Next DOGE?
BitMEX: Trump's Trade View Doesn't Hold Water, He Just Likes Tariffs
Under the Deadly "Tariff Drug" Impact, How to Interpret the Crypto Market? | Trader's Observation
Musk publicly criticizes "Tariff Man" Navarro, calls for free trade, even EU-US "zero tariffs"
This Week in Review | US Imposes Additional Tariffs Leading to Market Plunge; Blockchain Gaming Projects Face Financial Crisis
BlockBeats will summarize the industry's key news content for the week (3.31-4.6) in this article and recommend in-depth articles to help readers better understand the market and grasp industry trends.
On April 3, Trump announced in the White House Rose Garden that the U.S. would impose a comprehensive 10% tariff on all imports. The detailed tariff measures for each country are as follows: 46% tariff on Vietnam; 10% tariff on the UK; 31% tariff on Switzerland; 49% tariff on Cambodia; 36% tariff on Thailand; 30% tariff on South Africa; 32% tariff on Indonesia; 10% tariff on Brazil; 10% tariff on Singapore. A 20% retaliatory tariff will be imposed on the EU on a country-by-country basis; a 24% tariff will be imposed on goods imported from Japan. Due to the 10% comprehensive tariff, which was at the low end of the previous expectations (10%-20%), Bitcoin briefly surged by 2.7% that evening, breaking through $88,000. However, after the detailed tariff announcement, Bitcoin quickly fell by 3.35%, Nasdaq futures plummeted, widening the decline to 1.2%, and the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) also experienced a 0.5% fluctuation. Additionally, it is worth noting that energy commodities are exempt from Trump's comprehensive tariff, including crude oil, natural gas, and refined oil products.
On the same day, U.S. Treasury Secretary Benson wrote, "I suggest that all countries refrain from taking retaliatory action. We can see if there will be a different lower limit for tariffs (from the announced numbers). Trump's mindset might be to temporarily stabilize things. I was not part of the negotiations, but we will see if there are any negotiations before April 9 (the effective date of retaliatory tariffs)." Previously, senior White House officials stated that the base tariff rate (10%) would take effect early on April 5, and the retaliatory tariffs would take effect early on April 9. Related Readings: "U.S. Stock Market Evaporates $2 Trillion in 15 Minutes, Is the 'Retaliatory Tariff' the Last Straw for the Bull Market?", "How Do Tariffs Stir Up Cryptocurrency Prices?"
On April 2, Justin Sun posted on social media claiming that the FDUSD issuer, First Digital Trust (FDT), had actually gone bankrupt and was unable to fulfill customer fund redemption obligations. He strongly advised users to take immediate action to protect their assets. Subsequently, FDUSD temporarily plummeted below $0.9. As a result, several FDUSD-related trading pairs on Binance experienced extreme price surges: BTC reached a high of 98,950 FDUSD, and ETH reached a high of 2165 FDUSD. Since FDUSD is the new stablecoin supported by Binance after BUSD was delisted, Binance, as the primary use case, responded to this news by stating that a 1:1 redemption is possible.
In the early hours of the 3rd, Justin Sun once again posted stating that this FUD was only directed at FDT and not at Binance. At noon on the 3rd, First Digital issued a statement denying Sun's claims, mentioning that the initial redemptions after the FUD had already been processed. FDUSD is still fully backed at a 1:1 ratio, its redemption channels are operating smoothly, and all redemption requests will continue to be processed promptly.
According to reports from Hong Kong media, Wu Kit-chee, Chairman of the Web3 and Virtual Asset Development Subcommittee of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, responded to the dispute between Justin Sun and FDT by suggesting that regulatory systems should be reviewed as soon as possible. Wu Kit-chee stated that due to the current lack of regulated custodianship, Web3 companies rely on trust companies to help third parties custody assets. While conducting this properly is not an issue, there are individuals who may take advantage of this gap to engage in illegal activities, raising concerns about trust in Hong Kong's financial center. He recommended that the authorities should do more in terms of education and review to optimize the existing framework.
On April 3, during a live press conference, Justin Sun stated, "We have over $500 million USD deposited in FDT but cannot withdraw." He also called on FDT to hire a third-party auditing firm to conduct an audit, believing that the audit results would show FDT is insolvent. He further mentioned that due to FDT's failure to pay investment interest in 2023, Techteryx conducted an investigation and found a significant amount of client funds had been misappropriated. Justin Sun personally provided assistance to Techteryx to ensure TUSD had sufficient liquidity to protect the interests of all TUSD holders. TrueCoin was implicated in colluding with FDT and illegally transferring $456 million USD of TUSD reserves to a company in Dubai. Justin Sun stated, "I will provide a $50 million reward to law enforcement agencies and tipsters to recover the $456 million USD." First Digital later responded to the allegations stating that the dispute only involved TUSD and was completely unrelated to FDUSD. First Digital has more than enough liquidity to meet its obligations. It also described this as a typical smear campaign by Justin Sun aimed at undermining its business competitors. Related Reading: "FDUSD Depegging Crisis: Justin Sun Accuses FDT of Embezzling $456 Million, Latter Denies Insolvency"
On April 1st, several meme tokens experienced a sharp decline in prices, with ACT plummeting over 50% briefly; DEXE dropping over 28% briefly; and DF plunging over 17.7% briefly, among others. This sell-off was triggered by a large number of short-term sell orders, leading to a significant increase in spot trading volume. Subsequently, crypto influencer Benson Sun analyzed in a post stating, "ACT suddenly flash crashed by 50%, as Binance adjusted ACT's leverage position limit, allowing a maximum position of only $4.5 million at 1x leverage. Some market makers' positions exceeded the limit, leading to liquidation at market price, causing a collapse in the contract price and a massive price spread between the contract and spot markets, resulting in a cascade sell-off in the spot market as well." Wintermute's founder and CEO, Evgeny Gaevoy, responded to community skepticism claiming, "The flash crash was initiated by Wintermute's dumping," stating, "It has nothing to do with us, but I'm curious to know what happened in the aftermath analysis." He also added, "If you ask me to guess, we reacted only after the price violently fluctuated, arbitraging the AMM pools."
In the early hours of April 2nd, Binance responded to the sudden fall in prices of certain meme coins like ACT, stating, "Upon preliminary investigation, we found that individual low-market-cap tokens experienced a cascading drop event, including 3 VIP users engaging in roughly $514,000 USDT worth of token cross-market sell-offs within a short period and a non-VIP user transferring a large amount of ACT from another platform, selling around $540,000 USDT worth of tokens on the spot market in a brief timeframe. As prices dropped, some users' futures contracts were liquidated, leading to a drop in other tokens as well." It is worth noting that in the following days, tokens such as MASK, LEVER, TROY, CATI, among others, once again experienced a significant volume-driven decline, with trading volume spiking 5 to 10 times higher than usual. Related Read: "ACT Flash Crash Night: When Exchange 'Circuit Breaker' Turns into a Bearish Bullet"
On April 1st, according to Slow Mist monitoring, the zkLend hacker (from an incident in February) mistakenly clicked on a phishing website while attempting to use Tornado Cash, leading to the theft of 2930 ETH. The hacker then sent an on-chain message to zkLend, stating, "Hello, I intended to transfer the funds to Tornado Cash, but I mistakenly used a phishing site, and as a result, all funds were lost. I am devastated. I deeply apologize for the chaos and loss caused by this. All 2930 ETH has been taken by the operators of that site. I have no coins left in my possession. Please focus your efforts on those site operators to see if any funds can be recovered."
On the same day, the zkLend team released a statement indicating that the phishing website appears to have been operational for over 5 years. At this stage, the security team has no concrete evidence linking the phishing site to the attackers. As a precautionary measure, zkLend has incorporated these new wallet addresses from the phishing site into its fund tracking efforts for real-time monitoring and has been in contact with CEX and authorities. The team will continue to actively track these funds. Related reading: "zkLend Hacker Also Hacked, Is the On-Chain Apology Truly Remorseful or Staged?"
On April 1, according to HTX market data, Bitcoin had a first-quarter return of -11.82%, and Ethereum had a first-quarter return of -45.41%, marking their worst performances to date since 2019. In 2018, Bitcoin saw a first-quarter return of -49.7%, and Ethereum had a first-quarter return of -46.61%. Additionally, historical data indicates that Bitcoin typically performs well in the second quarter, with a 12-year average quarterly return of 24.86% and a median quarterly return of 7.19%. However, its performance has been lackluster in the past five years as follows: a 42.33% increase in Q2 2020, a 40.36% decline in Q2 2021, a 56.2% decline in Q2 2022, a 7.19% increase in Q2 2023, and an 11.92% decline in Q2 2024. In April over the past 12 years, Bitcoin has seen 7 increases and 5 declines, with a monthly average return of 12.03% and a monthly median return of 2.81%. However, its performance has been mediocre in the past five years with: a 34.26% increase in April 2020, a 1.98% decline in April 2021, a 17.3% decline in April 2022, a 2.81% increase in April 2023, and a 14.76% decline in April 2024.
On April 1, the publicly traded U.S. cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase experienced its worst quarter performance since the 2022 FTX exchange crash, with its stock price declining by 33% in the first quarter of 2025. Despite strong revenue expectations, Coinbase's stock price still suffered. Coinbase is expected to release its 2025 financial data in early May. The company's recent shareholder letter indicated that as of February 11, the company had generated approximately $750 million in transaction revenue and expects subscription revenue to be between $685 million and $765 million. While Coinbase has not yet disclosed first-quarter profit data, MarketBeat analysis estimates its profit to be around $1.87 billion. Coinbase is not alone as most publicly listed crypto companies reported similar results in the first quarter of 2025. Leading crypto mining company Marathon Digital Holdings saw its stock price near $17.5 at the beginning of the first quarter and closed at $11, a loss of over 37%.
On March 30, according to 8marketcap data, Ethereum's market cap dropped to $218.73 billion, with a 7-day decrease of 9.98%, ranking it 68th on the global asset market cap list. McDonald's surpassed Ethereum with a market cap of $219.4 billion, placing it 67th on the global asset market cap list.
On April 1, according to CNBC, OpenAI completed a $40 billion funding round, bringing its post-investment valuation to $300 billion (including new capital). According to CB Insights data, this valuation makes OpenAI one of the highest-valued private companies globally, second only to SpaceX at $350 billion, alongside TikTok's parent company ByteDance. This round of funding was led by SoftBank from Japan, with an investment of $30 billion, and received support from a group of other investors, including key investor Microsoft, as well as institutions like Coatue, Altimeter, and Thrive. Sources revealed that the initial investment was $10 billion, with the remaining $30 billion expected to be in place by the end of 2025. However, this round of funding comes with a condition: if OpenAI fails to restructure into a profitable entity by December 31, 2025, the funding amount may be reduced by up to $10 billion.
On March 31, the SpaceX Crew Dragon began its sixth manned space mission (Fram-2) on April 1, marking humanity's first polar orbit manned spaceflight lasting 3 to 5 days. The launch took place from Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, USA, on April 1. The crew for this mission consists of 4 astronauts, namely F2Pool co-founder Wang Chun, Janick Michelsen, Labéaurogue, and Anärykphillips. Wang Chun's team independently funded nearly $200 million for this flight plan, making it the first privately contracted polar orbit mission in commercial spaceflight history, with Wang Chun serving as the mission's commander. The spacecraft will enter a polar orbit with an inclination of 90° at an altitude between 425 and 450 kilometers. It will travel along the polar orbit, flying from over the South Pole to the North Pole, and then back from the North Pole to the South Pole, repeating this path. Related Read: "From Bitcoin Miner to Polar Astronaut: Wangchun's Magical Realism Rags-to-Riches Story"
On March 31, Elon Musk, during the "America PAC" town hall meeting held in Green Bay, Wisconsin on March 30, stated that the US government has no plans to use the cryptocurrency Dogecoin. He pointed out that the federal "Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.)" is not associated with Dogecoin, saying "they are just namesake, the government is not going to use Dogecoin, at least not that I know of." Despite this, the D.O.G.E. official website briefly displayed Dogecoin's Shiba Inu mascot in February, sparking market speculation about the government's relationship with cryptocurrency and driving DOGE up by 14%, with a market cap exceeding $580 billion. Related reading: "Musk Denies Relationship Between DOGE and US Government, Is Dogecoin Really Over?"
On April 3, Bitcoin developer Ruben Somsen wrote that the Bitcoin Development Group BitcoinDev's email list was "permanently removed" by Google. Ruben had previously stated, "To my knowledge, no inappropriate content has been posted." An update later stated, "It turns out we did receive more information, but it was all thrown into the spam folder (the irony). It's clear we have been 'permanently removed.' What was our fault? We were deemed 'unwanted content.' Really, Google? Is open-source development 'unwelcome'? It looks like we have to migrate again." Block CEO Jack Dorsey has retweeted in support of Ruben Somsen's tweet and questioned Google CEO Sundar Pichai.
On April 3, John, the Chief Contributor of the blockchain gaming ecosystem Treasure DAO, announced that due to worsening financial conditions, they are facing restructuring and will terminate game operations and the Treasure Chain. Documents show that their annual operating expenses are as high as $8.3 million, while the current treasury holds only $2.4 million, originally estimated to be sustainable only until July 2025. John, the Chief Contributor, has resumed a leadership role, revealing that the team once reached 40 people, with annual personnel costs of $6.1 million and infrastructure costs of $3 million, including a fixed annual cost of $450,000 for the Treasure Chain. Faced with survival pressure, the DAO has laid off 15 people, decided to terminate game issuance support and the Treasure Chain, and assist partners in migrating to other chains.
To extend the runway, John proposed withdrawing $785,000 in idle funds from the liquidity provider Flowdesk. If approved, the stablecoin balance will increase to $3.2 million, and operations can be optimistically extended until February 2026. Additionally, the ecosystem fund holds 22.3 million MAGIC tokens (valued at $2.3 million), but if the MAGIC price experiences a sharp decline, the DAO may struggle to continue between December of this year and February of next year. The future strategy will focus on four main products: Market, Bridgeworld, Smolworld, and AI Agent Expansion Technology, aimed at showcasing the utility of MAGIC through Smols and Bridgeworld and developing the Neurochimp agent to enhance market competitiveness.
According to Blockworks, the cryptocurrency shooting game "Shrapnel" developer Neon Machine is in a severe financial predicament. The company has now depleted nearly $86.9 million in operating funds. Despite generating $21.7 million in revenue in 2024, a net loss of $11.4 million was incurred due to $33 million in operating costs.
The company is currently burning $2-3.5 million per month, with cash reserves depleted and owing external vendors millions of dollars in debt. A new round of financing planned for early 2025 has failed to materialize. The company has already gone through at least three rounds of layoffs, reducing the workforce from nearly a hundred people to just over ten, with the Seattle headquarters closed at the end of March. Despite the concerning financial situation, Neon Machine still publicly claims to be in its "strongest state ever" and plans to globally launch "Shrapnel" by the end of 2025. However, insiders are skeptical of this assertion.
The social media app Phaver has ceased operations, with its token price plummeting by 99% since the September 2024 TGE. Phaver team members cited several reasons for the shutdown: first, technical issues during the TGE and airdrop prevented users from timely claiming their tokens, leading to FUD; second, Phaver spent over $1 million to list on five CEXs; and third, due to the depressed market sentiment, the team did not sell tokens during the TGE, resulting in insufficient operational funds.
As a Finnish company, Phaver still needs to pay severance costs equivalent to 1 to 2 months' salary to its employees. Some former team members are now developing SocialDAO to explore new use cases for the SOCIAL token.
On April 2nd, Binance announced the start of the second round of its Coin Listing Vote. The coins participating in this event include: VIRTUAL, BIGTIME, UXLINK, MORPHO, GRASS, ATH, WAL, SAFE, ZETA, IP, ONDO, PLUME. The voting period is from April 2, 2025, 21:30 to April 10, 2025, 07:59. During the voting period, users must be logged in with a verified account, hold at least 0.01 BNB in their main account for their vote to count. Each user can vote for up to 5 projects, with a maximum of one vote per project.
On April 1st, Binance Wallet announced a joint TGE event with PancakeSwap for the AI-driven Bitcoin asset management solution, PumpBTC, with a subscription line of 3BNB. On the same day, PumpBTC unveiled the PUMP tokenomics, with a total supply of 1 billion tokens, 9% of which will be used for airdrops. The breakdown is as follows: Community Ecosystem 38%; Initial PUMP Claim 9%; Marketing 5%; Liquidity 3.5%; Contributors 19.5%; Investors 20%; IDO 5%. In the early hours of April 2nd, PumpBTC concluded its allocation and token distribution, with a final input of 406,023 BNB, oversubscribed by 327.56 times.
On April 3rd, Binance Wallet listed the StakeStone TGE, with a total fundraising amount of $1,000,000 in BNB, and an open subscription of 50,000,000 STO tokens (5% of the total supply). The final input was 369,445 BNB, oversubscribed by 218.2 times.
On April 1st, according to a cybersecurity firm's monitoring, there were over 60 cryptocurrency hacking incidents in the first quarter of 2025, resulting in a total loss of $1.63 billion, a 131% increase from the first quarter of 2024's $706 million. In March 2025, there were 20 cryptocurrency hacking incidents, with losses totaling $33.46 million, including a $5 million hack affecting 1inch, of which 90% has been recovered.
On March 31, according to WSJ, the Trump family is actively advancing its cryptocurrency strategy, this time targeting Bitcoin mining. The president's two sons are investing in a Bitcoin mining company, further expanding the Trump family's footprint in the cryptocurrency business sector. The Trump sons' American Data Centers will merge with American Bitcoin and hold a 20% stake. American Bitcoin is a mining operation majority-owned by the publicly traded cryptocurrency mining company Hut 8. They plan to jointly build the world's largest digital currency mining enterprise and intend to establish their own "Bitcoin reserve."
On March 31, crypto reporter Eleanor Terrett tweeted that the House of Representatives will hold a hearing on cryptocurrency market structure legislation. The House Financial Services Committee's Digital Assets Subcommittee will hold a hearing next Wednesday, April 9, to discuss issues surrounding establishing a federal regulatory framework for digital assets. The hearing, titled "American Innovation and the Future of Digital Assets: Adjusting the US Securities Laws to the Digital Age," marks the first public push by the 119th Congress to establish rules regulating the operation of the $2.7 trillion crypto industry in the United States.
"US Stocks Evaporate $2 Trillion in 15 Minutes, Is 'Reciprocal Tariffs' the Final Straw that Broke the Bull Market's Back?"
Trump signed an executive order for "reciprocal tariffs," with the US imposing a 10% baseline tariff on trading partners and higher rates, up to 49%, on some countries. This move triggered intense market fluctuations, with Bitcoin and the stock market first rising and then falling, while gold hit a historic high. The tariff calculation method has been criticized as "pseudoscience," with widespread concern in the economic community that it will raise inflation, hit manufacturing and consumer confidence, and backlash against US companies, keeping the market in a wait-and-see mode on whether negotiations will be initiated.
"FDUSD Unpegging Crisis: Justin Sun Accuses FDT of Defrauding $456 Million, the Latter Denies Insolvency"
In the late night of April 2, Justin Sun accused the stablecoin FDUSD's issuer, First Digital Trust (FDT), of being insolvent, leading to a severe temporary depegging of FDUSD, causing market panic and user sell-offs, with the price dropping to as low as $0.76; despite Binance later debunking this and stating that FDUSD's reserve was sufficient, the price gradually recovered to $0.98. However, the incident exposed a trust crisis between Sun and FDT due to a TUSD custody dispute, also triggering community doubts about Binance's untimely disclosure of information and suspicion of "rug pulling."
"When ETH Fell Below $1800, What Is Vitalik Pondering?"
Vitalik recently published two blog posts expressing his in-depth thoughts on the relationship between real-world political culture and technological development, calling for a shift in focus from "public goods funding" to a clearer, more actionable "open-source funding." He proposed the "Tree Ring Model," suggesting that culture's attitude towards new and old things is deeply influenced by historical stages and is difficult to change rapidly, while the crypto space provides a relatively free soil suitable for nurturing new behavioral patterns. At the same time, he believes that the term "public goods" has been overused in practice, with "open source" having a clearer definition and more explicit practices, making it more suitable as a core concept for funding and innovation in the digital age.
"ACT's Flash Crash Nightmare: When the Exchange's 'Circuit Breaker Mechanism' Turns into a Short Selling Bullet"
On April 1, Binance adjusted the contract rules for some low-market-cap tokens, causing several tokens, including ACT, to halve in price in a short period, with a drastic drop in contract positions, triggering market panic and stampedes. Although Binance attributed the cause to whale sell-offs, on-chain anomalies of market maker Wintermute, synchronous price drops of some tokens, and user liquidation data all indicate that this flash crash was not a random event, but rather the result of factors such as the exchange's risk control adjustments, MEME coin liquidity fragility, and market maker high leverage strategies, exposing the limits of risk control in the crypto market and the structural disadvantages of retail traders.
"Circle's IPO Rush to a $50 Billion Valuation, Do Stablecoins Now Have Blue-Chip Stocks?"
Circle is accelerating its IPO plan, aiming for a valuation of 40 to 50 billion USD, and plans to submit its prospectus by the end of April. This is its second attempt to go public after the failed 2021 SPAC merger, amid clearer global stablecoin regulations and improved policy environment. With USDC gradually narrowing the gap with USDT through compliance and transparency, and receiving support from institutions like Visa, Mastercard, and BlackRock, Circle's IPO success is expected to not only provide funding for its expansion but also potentially drive reshuffling in the stablecoin market, further challenging Tether's market dominance.
"New Article by Arthur Hayes: Signals of the Fed's Policy Shift Emerging, Can Bitcoin Break $250,000 by the End of the Year?"
Powell, under pressure from Treasury Secretary Benson, found himself in a psychological dilemma and sought counseling, reflecting the limited independence of the Fed in the "fiscal dominance" scenario. Against the backdrop of high debt and persistent deficits, the Fed faces the realistic pressure to loosen policy to sustain government financing, potentially restarting quantitative easing and exempting banks from leverage restrictions. Despite strong economic indicators and high inflation, the Fed has shown signs of a policy shift, indicating a gradual softening of its anti-inflation stance. The changing global liquidity landscape has provided an opportunity for assets like Bitcoin to rise, and the entanglement of politics, mathematics, and history has also revealed the increasingly complex role of central banks.
"Exclusive Interview with Independent Developer Haole: Working at a Tech Giant During the Day, Building Dreams on the Blockchain at Night | Base Builder Talk"
In the third episode of Base Builder Talk, Haole, a steadfast independent developer driven by technical ideals, who has witnessed the rise and fall of Steemit and DeFi, is now actively building the Recaster client on the Farcaster protocol, exploring the possibilities of decentralized social media. Using minimal cost to invest his spare time in product development, not for commercialization but to respond to his belief in data sovereignty and open networks. In the current AI frenzy and mainstream focus on centralization, he has chosen a more difficult yet more authentic path, practicing the belief that "data belongs to the users," demonstrating a rare perseverance and clarity.
"40 Million Token Liquidity Stalemate: How Do Project Teams 'Make a Living' in a Bear Market?"
The liquidity of stablecoins in the cryptocurrency space has significantly decreased, reflecting the current zero-sum game situation in the industry—where the number of projects has surged, but funding has not grown in sync, leading to resource dispersion and community weakening. Short-term attention cannot bring about sustainable development; only projects with cash flow and real demand can survive. Depending on the stage of development, crypto protocols should adopt corresponding revenue strategies: early stages should focus on survival and experimentation, mid-term should balance growth and distribution, and mature projects should focus on robust operation and value feedback. Additionally, good investor relations and transparency become key moats for building trust and driving long-term development.
"Unveiling Funding Rate Arbitrage: How Institutions 'Earn While Sleeping,' and Retail Investors 'See but Can't Taste'?"
Perpetual contracts are a type of derivative with no settlement date, using the funding rate mechanism to keep their price anchored to the spot market long-term. When there is an imbalance of long and short forces, the funding rate acts as a market regulation tool, encouraging one party to pay the other to restore price balance. Arbitrageurs can earn funding rate returns through position hedging, with mainstream strategies including single-platform arbitrage, cross-platform arbitrage, and multi-currency arbitrage, focusing on risk hedging and compounding effects. While the theoretical threshold is not high, institutions have an advantage in systematic risk management, data monitoring, and execution efficiency, making it difficult for retail investors to implement despite understanding the strategy. Retail investors are suitable for participating in compliant institutional products to earn stable returns.
"ETH Hangzhou On-site Survey: ETH Has Become a Middle-aged ‘Greasy Uncle,’ Price Unlikely to Reach New High in 3 Years?"
In the first quarter of 2025, Ethereum faced a trough, with the ETH/BTC exchange rate hitting a nearly five-year low, and the price falling below $1800, causing community anxiety. However, at the ETH Hangzhou event, many developers remained actively engaged in ecosystem development. A small-scale survey showed that most participants held a limited amount of ETH and believed that Ethereum has entered its "middle-aged" phase. While the ecosystem infrastructure is sound, it lacks support from new narratives. Expectations for future prices are generally pessimistic, with many believing it will be challenging to reach a new high in three years, depending mainly on new asset forms, application development, or major breakthroughs. Although ETH is seen as replaceable, it remains the core battlefield in the current crypto space.
"Exclusive Interview with Cat President: I'm in Japan, Selling Houses with Cryptocurrency"
Cat President is an executor who combines traditional finance with crypto assets. With years of experience in banking and wealth management, coupled with a sharp sense of cryptocurrency, he successfully pioneered the path of buying houses with digital currencies like USDT in Japan. Understanding both the crypto language and the Japanese real estate process, in an information asymmetric market, he provides trustworthy services to crypto investors. Rather than chasing trends, he steadily navigates through each transaction process, accumulating word-of-mouth through real delivery and personalized content, turning "crypto buying houses" into a realistic and trusted choice.
"After Translating Circle's IPO Prospectus, Executive Compensation Keeps Rising, Company's Gross Profit Keeps Falling"
Stablecoin issuer Circle has officially launched its U.S. listing plan, aiming to be listed on the NYSE with a valuation expected to reach $5 billion, under the ticker symbol CRCL. Its core product USDC is the world's second-largest stablecoin, with a market value projected to reach $60.1 billion in 2024, capturing a 24% market share of the stablecoin market. Circle mainly earns revenue through reserve asset interest, with total revenue reaching $1.68 billion in 2024, 99% of which comes from reserve earnings, but heavily reliant on interest rates. Despite enhancing USDC's ecosystem penetration through partnerships with Coinbase, Binance, and others, high distribution costs have eroded profits. This IPO is Circle's reattempt after the failed SPAC merger, and if successful, it will become the first stablecoin issuing company to go public, facing tough competition from Tether, PayPal, and other strong rivals, while also hoping to seize a compliance advantage amid increasingly clear regulatory frameworks.
"a16z Accelerator CSX Accelerates 'Money Spray Mode' Again, Are the Next Explosive Hits Here?"
a16z's crypto startup accelerator CSX is becoming a key driver in the Web3 startup community, assisting early-stage companies in quickly realizing their ideas through funding, intensive mentoring, and industry resources, attracting significant follow-up investments. Even during market downturns, CSX continues to incubate innovative projects such as AminoChain, Cork Protocol, and Cambrian Network, spanning multiple areas such as biotech, fintech, and AI blockchain. Its "star-making factory" model and strong mentor team are accelerating the development and breakthrough of the entire crypto ecosystem.
"Laughter Continues, but the Crypto World Has 'Alienated': When All Narratives Collapse into Just Selling Coins"
The crypto world is no longer in a traditional bull-bear market pattern but rather in an alienated state centered around "selling coins." Project teams and VCs no longer focus on product and innovation, with only the trading end remaining active. Intermediaries extract resources through promotions, listings, etc., leading to value creation exhaustion and a gradual disappearance of entrepreneurs. The entire market has degenerated into a high-spread distribution chain, losing its ability for a positive feedback loop and will face long-term ecological decline. Nevertheless, the market will eventually return to cyclical patterns, and breakthroughs in technological innovation and usage scenarios may still bring about a new round of rebuilding. However, before that, a difficult and chaotic period must be traversed.
"In-Depth Analysis: Timeline and Landscape of Traditional Institutions Embracing the Crypto Industry"
Since 2020, traditional financial institutions have gradually deepened their integration with the crypto industry. By early 2025, around 15% of Bitcoin is held by institutions, with major banks and asset management companies launching various crypto-related products. Key factors driving this process include the approval of Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, the rise of real asset tokenization, and the widespread use of stablecoins in settlements. Despite regulatory uncertainty, technological integration, and market volatility remaining obstacles, a clearer global compliance framework is emerging, allowing institutions to explore blockchain efficiency and innovation potential through permissioned DeFi and other means. The tokenization trend has become a bridge connecting TradFi and DeFi, signaling that the next few years will be a crucial period for deep integration of the financial system.
"Decoding Saylor's Bitcoin Financial Magic: Stock Price Triples Since Last October"
Under the leadership of founder Michael Saylor, MicroStrategy (MSTR) has raised significant funds to purchase Bitcoin through efficient and flexible financial means, holding over 506,000 BTC. Its core strategy involves issuing options, convertible bonds, and preferred shares to generate cash flow, while opportunistically issuing new shares to achieve a low-cost, high-leverage yet low-risk Bitcoin reserve model. This model operates similarly to a bank in terms of logic but does not rely on government backing, instead primarily relying on Bitcoin's capital appreciation for returns. As market recognition of this model grows, its potential impact and sustainability continue to strengthen.
"Web3 New Tale of Two Cities: Stablecoins and Money Market Funds"
The regulatory controversy surrounding stablecoins mirrors what money market funds (MMFs) experienced half a century ago. MMFs initially provided cash management for corporations but faced criticism due to lack of deposit insurance and susceptibility to runs, impacting bank stability and monetary policy. Nevertheless, MMF assets now exceed $7.2 trillion. The 2008 financial crisis led to the collapse of the Reserve Fund, and in 2023, the SEC is still advancing MMF regulatory reform. The history of MMFs suggests that stablecoins may face similar regulatory challenges but could ultimately become a key part of the financial system.
"Analyzing Current Market 'HODL Anxiety' from Binance Launchpool Data"
Binance's disclosed LaunchPool data reveals market sentiment and fund flows: despite cautiousness in the market, idle funds within the ecosystem have increased rather than decreased. The growing number of participants indicates that investors are choosing to cash out but not exit the market. The increase in average lock-up amount shows that funds are concentrated in the hands of large holders, who, after completing wealth redistribution, remain optimistic about the future and patiently await the next opportunity.
"From Bitcoin Miner to Polar Astronaut: Wangchun's Magical Realism Success Story"
Wangchun, who dreamt of "landing on the moon" at the age of 7, transitioned from an early Bitcoin player to building the world's largest mining pool, F2Pool, and then spending $200 million to board SpaceX's spacecraft. Using a combination of "geek spirit + business acumen," he turned science fiction into reality. Not only did he send the mining pool's logo into space but also participated in the space economy by collecting climate data in polar orbits, completing a magnificent transformation from a coder to an astronaut. With a Casio watch, a Bitcoin cold wallet, and the phrase "giving light-years to time," he made idealism shine brightly in the vacuum of space.
"VC Perspective: Hyperliquid Incident Reveals the Power Struggle Between CEX and DEX"
The short-selling squeeze triggered by the memecoin JELLYJELLY exposed significant flaws in Hyperliquid's decentralized exchange mechanism, including opaque market-making mechanisms, a virtually non-existent governance process, and internal conflicts of interest. In an effort to salvage its HLP liquidity pool, the platform intervened in the market by manipulating oracle prices, leading to widespread questioning of its "decentralization" credibility. At the same time, Binance's and OKX's swift interventions are seen as competitive strikes against Hyperliquid. This event not only reflects the vulnerability of DeFi platforms in extreme situations but also ignites a new round of contemplation on topics such as Decentralized Science (DeSci) and stablecoin regulation, revealing the deep-seated tensions among centralization of power, lack of transparency, and regulatory gamesmanship in the crypto industry.
"From Wealth to Loss: A Profound Reflection on the 'Four-Year Cycle'"
The author reviewed his own experience in the crypto market, from the excitement of 2017 to the crash of 2018, and then to the resurgence of new hot topics such as NFTs and agents. He pointed out that the market cycle continuously creates frenzy and illusions, leading investors to mistakenly believe they have grasped the pattern, only to still suffer losses in the end. Emotions drive people to repeat the same mistakes, and the market always operates counter to expectations. The only way to survive is to take profits as much as possible during the uptrend and reduce losses during the downtrend, but this is harder than imagined. The market will not change, and the real challenge lies in how to control one's emotions and decisions.
"Paradigm: Unraveling the Mystery of the North Korean Hacker Group Lazarus Group Threat"
In February 2025, the cryptocurrency exchange Bybit experienced the largest hack in history, with over $1 billion in assets stolen. The mastermind behind the attack was believed to be North Korea's Lazarus Group hacker organization. Investigations revealed that the attackers disrupted Bybit's Safe Wallet infrastructure and injected malicious code to trick engineers into signing malicious transactions, indirectly taking control of the cold wallet. North Korea's cyber attack operation is extensive, involving multiple organizations such as RGB and MID, with branches like TraderTraitor, APT38, and AppleJeus, who excel in social engineering, supply chain attacks, and disguised infiltration, posing a continuous threat to the crypto industry. To prevent such attacks, users and organizations are advised to strengthen permission management, use two-factor authentication, raise security awareness, and establish an effective industry collaboration network to swiftly respond to potential threats.
"Berachain Founder's Entrepreneurship Reflection: Don't Let Tokens Drag Down Your Project"
This article discussed the recent phenomenon of several projects in the Berachain ecosystem issuing tokens, cautioning founders not to blindly issue tokens. Tokens should drive growth when the product reaches market fit to avoid impacting user adoption. In a sluggish market environment with limited community funds, a token price drop can damage the product's image. Token issuance should avoid competing at the same time, ensure a reasonable valuation, and focus on long-term value rather than short-term exit. The author supports Berachain's development but emphasizes that success requires patience and strategy, recommending that the team prioritize profitability and user growth.
"Ethereum OG Lambasts 'ETH Dilemma': Foundation Needs to Confront Four Major Strategic Mistakes, Once Holding the World's Strongest Hash Rate but Missing Opportunities"
Ethereum has recently entered a slump, with ETH/BTC hitting a new five-year low, sparking community dissatisfaction and pessimism. The core issue is attributed to the EIP-1559 and deflation narrative driven in 2021, which not only failed to bring the expected development but also led to community division, developer exodus, and an increasingly politicized atmosphere. Additionally, Ethereum missed the opportunity to transition from PoW to AI computational power, and although upgrades continue, user experience remains lackluster, causing the brand's perceived value to gradually detach from its actual value, potentially leading to a continued weak trend in the future.
"Coinbase Hit by 'Insider Threat'? $300 Million Scam Reveals Precise Data Breach"
A large number of Coinbase users have recently fallen victim to social engineering scams, with over $46 million stolen in March and potential losses for the year reaching $300 million. Scammers have used methods such as impersonating official phone calls, phishing emails, and clone websites to induce users to transfer funds to a "secure wallet." They also seemingly have detailed user information, raising concerns about Coinbase's internal data access management. The incident of Coinbase employees inappropriately accessing account records, along with rumors of user data leaks from platforms like Gemini and Kraken, indicates that the crypto industry is facing a serious crisis in terms of information security and internal risk control.
"Ethereum at a Crossroads: To Pivot or Persevere?"
Ethereum is currently at the center of a valuation dispute: bulls believe that its position as a core infrastructure of Web3 is solid, with technical upgrades and macro trends injecting long-term value, and its ecosystem and developer advantages remaining apparent. On the other hand, bears point out its weakening value-capture ability, negative price impacts from its technical roadmap, a narrative shift, and user outflow to new public chains, with the ETH/BTC ratio hitting a five-year low. Overall, Ethereum faces a misalignment between technical progress and price lag, still holding long-term potential but requiring caution in the short term amid intensified competition and wavering market confidence.
"In-Depth Comparison of GMX, Jupiter, and Drift: Who Will Be Solana's Sustainable King?"
This article analyzes the primary on-chain derivatives protocols of Solana, including GMX-Solana, Jupiter Perps, and Drift, comparing their liquidity, trading volume, capital efficiency, and risk management. Jupiter and Drift show sustained growth but lower capital efficiency, while GMX-Solana exhibits higher capital efficiency but lower liquidity. As Solana introduces better features and incentives into the protocol, market competition will intensify, with the DEX to CEX derivatives trading volume ratio reaching a historical high. Solana is poised to benefit from this trend.
This Week in Review | Trump to Host Dinner for TRUMP Holders; Musk and US Treasury Secretary Engage in Heated Argument at the White House
One Month Left in Office, Has Trump and Musk's Political Alliance Broken Down?
Recently, a high-profile dispute at the White House once again brought the U.S. government into the spotlight. The head of the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk, and the U.S. Treasury Secretary Bennett engaged in a heated argument due to ideological differences, almost escalating into a physical confrontation. In the end, Trump accepted Bennett's appointment proposal, raising concerns about cracks in the relationship between Trump and Musk. Behind this conflict is not only a power clash between Silicon Valley and Washington but also a revealing of the complex game from "close allies" to "power balancing" between Trump and Musk.
Looking back to the beginning of the year, Trump's most significant political reform involving Musk was the establishment of the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) to promote radical reform under the guise of "streamlining the government." Its core objectives include reducing government spending, digitizing the bureaucratic system, and replacing human decision-making with algorithms. The core team consists of 6 technical elites aged 19-25. Since Trump took office on January 20th, DOGE has swiftly carried out its restructuring, from shutting down the U.S. International Development Agency to significantly reducing the number of federal government employees, and even obtaining taxpayer privacy information to enhance fiscal efficiency. Under Trump's direction and support, Musk has bravely faced the challenges and spearheaded a radical reform storm in the United States.
Related Reading: "Terminating hundreds of contracts in 18 days, Musk and six post-00s revolutionize the United States" "Cutting billions of dollars in contracts again, what peculiar government departments has Musk's D.O.G.E identified?"
According to DOGE's official website data, as of April 20, 2025, DOGE has saved approximately $160 billion in total, averaging about $993.79 saved per taxpayer, with savings in various areas:
Contract Terminations: 8,454 contracts terminated, saving about $30 billion. For example, terminating the Risk Management Agency's lease in Topeka, Kansas, with an annual rent of $121,800, is expected to save approximately $964,000 over multiple years.
Grant Cancellations: 9,699 grants terminated, saving about $33 billion. For example, terminating grants from the U.S. International Development Agency to the Global Vaccine and Immunization Alliance Foundation, saving a total of $1.75 billion.
Lease Terminations: 643 leases terminated, saving about $3 billion.
However, an NPR analysis points out that some contract terminations did not result in actual savings. For example, 794 contract cancellations were expected to bring no savings as the funds were already fully committed. Additionally, the DOGE calculated savings using the potential highest value of the contract rather than actual expenditures, leading to controversy.
As early as the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Musk began frequent interactions with Trump. At that time, Musk contributed $259 million, mobilized all Silicon Valley resources, and with his personal influence endorsement, became a key supporter for Trump's return to the White House. After Trump took office, as his "angel investor," Musk naturally gained unprecedented political status and power.
On February 7, Musk publicly expressed his support for Trump on social media. He said his love for Trump was "the maximum love that a straight man can give to another man."
On March 4, while attending Trump's State of the Union address, Musk was wearing a tie borrowed from Trump.
As Musk massively laid off federal employees from government agencies, a wave of vandalism against Tesla cars, intimidation of owners, and protests at dealership stores erupted nationwide. Tesla factories faced peaceful demonstrations and acts of destruction, including charging station fires. Vandalism of Cybertrucks surged across the U.S., with some owners even graffitiing their own Tesla vehicles to protest against Musk.
Reports of Tesla car and dealership vandalism as well as protest activities suggest that opposition to Musk has reached a boiling point. Bell Analyst Ben Carlo stated on CNBC, "When people's cars are at risk of being scratched or burned, even those who support Musk or are indifferent to Musk may have second thoughts about whether to buy a Tesla."
Musk has also stated multiple times that running his own businesses is "very challenging." Tesla's stock price has experienced its most severe drop in five years, and his social media company X has also suffered multiple outages.
However, such swift reforms are bound to harm the interests of a considerable portion of people. From the day Musk entered politics, opposition voices have been constant. Tesla's stock has plummeted since Musk took office, nearly halving its market value, marking the most severe decline in five years. This has led to Musk's personal assets evaporating by approximately $121 billion since the beginning of the year.
As Musk's biggest political backer and ally, Trump inevitably had to stand up for him when Musk came under attack.
On the afternoon of March 11th, local time in the U.S., Trump held a 30-minute press conference on the White House driveway. The press conference looked more like a large-scale Tesla car show—accompanied by Musk, Trump answered questions about the U.S. stock market, Canadian tariffs, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict while test-driving five different types and colors of Tesla cars.
"The one I like is that one," Trump pointed to a bright red Model S priced at about $80,000, saying. In the end, Trump chose the Model S and said he would write an $80,000 check to buy the car in full.
Trump also criticized those who were boycotting Tesla, believing that they were harming a great American company. He claimed that if the boycotters continued to treat Tesla this way, he would root out these people and "curse" them to "hell." White House spokesperson Harrison Fields also stated: "The despicable acts of violence being continuously carried out by radical left-wing activists against Tesla are no different from domestic terrorism."
Under Trump's "endorsement," Tesla's stock price rebounded during trading on Tuesday, rising 3.79% at the close.
To show loyalty, on March 24th, at Trump's third cabinet meeting, Musk wore a red hat with the words "Trump is always right."
During this period, the two were still intimate comrades-in-arms dedicated to advancing reform. Trump needed a "sharp tool" to expand his territory, while Musk needed a platform to realize his political ambitions. Both were highly aligned in their goals and interests.
Since Trump announced his high tariffs policy, a conflict arose between Trump's political goals and Musk's personal interests, leading to a crack in their relationship. The high tariffs caused a sharp drop in the U.S. stock market in a short period, and Musk's assets have shrunk by over $100 billion since the beginning of the year. Musk, as an entrepreneur, views issues from an economic rather than political perspective, supporting barrier reduction and free trade. He has also repeatedly expressed his opposition to the tariff policy.
On April 5, during the Italian Alliance Assembly held in Florence, Musk, in a video call interview with Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, expressed, "Ultimately, I hope that Europe and the United States can reach an agreement. In my view, ideally, we should move towards zero tariffs, effectively establishing a free trade area between Europe and North America." On April 7, Musk shared a video on Twitter featuring the late free-market economist Milton Friedman discussing the benefits of free trade. Musk did not add any text, but this move was widely interpreted as a criticism of Trump's tariff policies.
Musk's brother, Kimbal Musk, also criticized Trump's tariff policy on Twitter, pointing out that "Taxing consumption means less consumption, which also means fewer job opportunities, leading to even less consumption and fewer job opportunities." He believes that taxation is a "structural, permanent tax on American consumers."
Particularly targeted at trade advisor Peter Navarro, Musk has also made many criticisms and sarcastic comments. On April 8, he replied to a post quoting Navarro's interview where Navarro referred to Tesla more as an "assembler" than a "manufacturer," criticizing its components coming from China, Japan, and Taiwan. Musk directly responded in a heated manner, stating, "Navarro is a complete idiot, what he said here is obviously false," followed by a community note proving the Tesla Model Y is the "most American-made car." One retort apparently wasn't enough, as Musk further referred to Navarro as "dumber than a sack of bricks" in another post.
Their contradictory stances on the tariff issue gradually fermented in the intricate power struggle.
On April 23, local time, it was reported by insiders that on April 17, Musk and Treasury Secretary Bezos had a heated clash during a meeting in the West Wing of the White House. Bezos lost control of his emotions and erupted with profanity, to which Musk provocatively responded with a "raise your voice." The confrontation even escalated to personal attacks, with Bezos angrily accusing Musk of exaggerating the DOGE budget cut issue, leading to no progress. Musk, in turn, directly retorted that Bezos was a "Soros puppet" and mocked him for his previous hedge fund debacle. The argument alarmed Trump and visiting Italian Prime Minister Meloni, and it took assistant intervention to separate the two.
The direct cause of this conflict was the controversy over the appointment of the IRS Commissioner. As Elon Musk, serving as the head of the U.S. Department of Efficiency, proposed the appointment of Gary Sharply as the Acting Commissioner of the IRS without the approval of Treasury Secretary Bennett, Bennett viewed this as a violation of his authority. He lobbied President Trump to revoke the appointment and instead support his own deputy, Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Falkend, for the position of IRS Commissioner.
The outcome of this power struggle seemed to favor Bennett as President Trump eventually supported Bennett's proposal, revoked Musk's nomination of Sharply, and appointed Falkend as the Acting Commissioner of the IRS.
The fact that two top U.S. officials could be so enraged as to publicly curse each other at the White House gates despite their public image was due to their long-standing animosity. Back when Trump first took office, Musk had strongly advocated for nominating Howard Lutnick as Treasury Secretary, but Trump ultimately chose Bennett and appointed Lutnick to lead the Department of Commerce. Perhaps from the beginning, Trump had strategically set up a situation where his subordinates would check each other, siding with whoever aligned more with his own ideas. This set the stage for future conflicts.
The conflict between the two was fundamentally a power struggle and game of influence between two factions within the Trump administration. The reformist faction represented by Musk sought to reshape the landscape through new policies, while the traditional faction represented by Bennett resisted actions that harmed their own interests. Trump's handling of this event was seen as a sign of Musk's diminished influence within the government.
It is worth noting that, regarding tariff policies, Bennett, unlike Musk's clear opposition, had publicly supported tariff policies, believing that implementing new tariffs in the U.S. was necessary. He also refuted the idea that new tariffs would cause an economic downturn. Perhaps the consistency in policy preferences was also a reason why Trump gradually leaned towards Bennett and distanced himself from Musk. After all, to Trump, a businessman by background, permanent interests matter more than permanent friends.
Musk's role was constrained by the 130-day term limit for special government employees, which began counting from Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025, and is expected to expire at the end of May. Anonymous sources within the White House hinted at the end of February that Musk "will stay," but on March 31, Trump himself openly acknowledged Musk's prioritization of his commercial duties and showed no signs of insisting on retention. Perhaps as the mission of DOGE is accomplished, Musk's 130-day government employee term enters its final phase, and Trump will gradually sideline Musk from the power center, shifting to new allies who align more with his current interests. In retrospect, it's a poignant reminder of how fleeting alliances can be.
The world's richest person, Musk, experienced the thrill of a "Tech Disruption Workplace" at the center of American politics. He ignited a fire for Trump's "New Sheriff in Town," touching the interests of countless people. He reformed the behemoth of the American government at an incredible speed, leaving behind not only a controversial outline of "Algorithmic Governance" but also exposing the deep-seated contradictions between capital and power in American politics. This radical experiment of "Tech Transforming Politics" seems to be nearing its conclusion. When Musk truly departs, that red hat proclaiming "Trump Is Always Right" may perhaps become the most dramatic footnote to this brief "political marriage."
April 23 Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?
Arthur Hayes New Article: Bitcoin to Return to “Gold Tier” Safe Haven, Altseason to Potentially Follow
ArkStream Capital: The Power Play of WLFI's CEX-DEX Convergence
29-Year-Old Storms the White House! Trump's "Youngest Crypto Advisor" Bo Hines Leads Regulatory Reform
Popular coins
Latest Crypto News
Customer Support：@weikecs
Business Cooperation：@weikecs
Quant Trading & MM：bd@weex.com
VIP Services：support@weex.com
App