AdLunam

The American Securities and Exchange (SEC) commission published a staff press release on February 27, 2025 to clarify its opinion that most of the documents even do not constitute securities under federal law. Described as “similar to collectibles”, these tokens are understood as deriving mainly social feeling and speculative demand rather than expectations for profit related to managerial or entrepreneurial effort.

This pivot of interpretation, issued by the division of finance of the companies, marked a notable department of the regulatory posture of the former SEC, Gary Gensler, whose mandate was both marked and spoiled by the aggressive application of the crypto, determined by at least one federal court as being an excessive and capricious authority of regulatory authority. Under the acting president, Mark T. Uyeda, and with the laws awaiting the president of Trump dry, Paul Atkins, a long -standing supporter of deregulation – the Commission seems to adopt a more permissive approach and oriented towards the market.

Staff advice are important in its own right. It signals the transmissible progress long awaited for the cryptographic industry and a considerable return for its investment in political contribution. However, equally important legal and ethical implications have become particularly prominent in the light of recent developments involving the launch of Trump brand pieces, $ Trump and $ Melania, launched by World Liberty Financial from Trump Family.

What does a presidential meme mean?

A few days before its inauguration of January 2025, President Trump launched a name piece bearing his name through a company called CIC Digital LLC, an affiliate of the Trump organization. The token was accompanied by a similar offer associated with First Lady Melania Trump, marketed under the Symbol $ Melania. Although the two tokens have been promoted as community “support” expressions rather than speculative investment products, the market response was immediate and substantial. As indicated by RollerThe first buyers collected $ 6.6 billion in profits, while many other traders have collectively lost $ 2 billion in actual or theoretical losses, in accordance with the results of chain data.

Depending on the reports of ReutersCIC Digital LLC and a related entity, Fight Fight Fight LLC, has collectively retained control of more than 80% of the total supply of tokens. This concentration of property, in combination with a rapid increase in prices, meant that companies linked to Trump had to earn around 8 billion dollars of token value over a single weekend.

These developments are part of a much broader expansion of Trump’s family interests in cryptographic assets – non -gathered tokens (NFT) and digital collectibles to a decentralized finance project (DEFI), Stablecoin (WLF1) and Bitcoin extraction efforts. The combined approximate value of these companies now approaches $ 1 billion, even in the midst of the recent market volatility linked to geopolitical tensions and macroeconomic impacts.

From a legal point of view, the February Memo of the SEC could be interpreted as offering regulatory coverage for projects like these, provided that they are not marketed with guarantees of profit or linked to management efforts. However, this narrow lens neglects deeper ethical and governance problems, especially when an exercise president maintains direct and continuous involvement in speculative digital assets, even if his administration tries to reverse the regulatory approach to his predecessor. The two realities can coexist: a change in application priorities and an increasing conflict of interest.

This distinction underlines a broader truth: to govern a country is fundamentally different from the management of a company. Although companies exist to maximize efficiency, make profit and provide financial yields to shareholders, representative forms of government are mainly responsible for serving public good, balance competing social interests and maintain democratic responsibility towards all citizens, not just stakeholders. All built on a basis of confidence.

Ethics and national security problems

Several ethics experts and surveillance groups have made alarms on the implications of the pieces even Trump. Danielle Brian, executive director of the government’s surveillance project, described the project “a flagrant financial conflict of interests on behalf of the president”, noting in addition that the initiative “deepens her commitment to a world that raises real national security problems”.

While President Trump said his children manage his commercial interests through a trust agreement, the structure does not assure him to benefit indirectly – or to exercise a political influence on an industry in which he has personal participation.

The representative Maxine Waters, the classification democrat of the Chamber’s Financial Services Committee, has echoed ethics problems. In a statement, she warned that “anyone worldwide – even individuals sanctioned by the United States or prohibited from our capital markets – can now trade and take advantage of $ Trump through various unregulated platforms.” She reiterated these concerns during a recent audience of subcommittee of the Chamber’s financial services on the bill on the structure of the Fit21 market.

His concerns have been echoed by the legislation by the member of the Congress and former federal prosecutor Sam Liccardo, who presented the law on the same (modern emoluments and embezzlement) to prohibit federal officials and their families from emitting, promoting or benefiting financially from digital assets like $ Trump, citing the regime as “a flagrant abuse of the public office personal ends ”.

The risks here is not hypothetical. Cryptographic markets operate on decentralized, often anonymous exchanges that do not fall under the field of conventional knowledge of your customer (KYC) and anti-white (AML) protocols. Foreign actors, including those of contradictory states, could potentially acquire important issues in tokens affiliated with the presidency, raising questions about influence, access, emoluments and sweet corruption.

Regulatory legitimacy or market capture?

Some voices of the industry defended Trump tokens as new expression of digital innovation. Paul Howard, principal director at Market-Maker Winccent, described the project to “change the situation”, saying that he “brings a kind of legitimacy to space”.

Not all technology leaders are as conciliatory. Even among the leaders of technology that once defended Trump’s pro-business position, the frustration of his tangles of crypto has mounted. “None of my friends who voted for Trump is happy at the moment. Everyone is annoyed,” said Reggie James, founder of Eternal, a media startup supported by Andreessen Horowitz, as indicated by Initiate of Business. While many expect deregulation, several conservative venture capital now say that Trump’s allies “enrich our votes, our dollars and our time”, a high-level investor alleging that cryptographic initiates exploit political access to personal purposes.

Joe Lonsdale, co-founder of Palantir and a vocal Trump supporter, added that government representatives appointing specific tokens in a way that influences markets is like “choosing the winners and losers” a function that he thinks that the executive branch has nothing to play. These criticisms reflect a growing point of view among the conservatives that Trump’s alignment with speculative digital assets threatens both free enterprise and public confidence.

A legal security zone, an ethical minefield

The Trump Saga Even Coin occurs at the intersection of regulatory minimalism and ethical maximalism. While the February Declaration of the SEC presents a precious clarity for market players (in particular influencers, creators and artists), the rise of $ Trump shows how these tips can be operationalized in order to exceed its original scope.

It also illustrates the limits of a legalistic approach to cryptographic governance. Formal conformity with the Howey The test does not deny the risks of concentrated property, inadequate disclosure or public confusion on the aim and legitimacy of the token. In fact, it can exacerbate these risks by reporting tacit regulatory approval without corresponding capacity for application.

As noted by the finance professor of the University of Sussex, Carol Alexander, the $ Trump and $ Meania tokens resemble “fans”, who gained popularity in 2021. But unlike football clubs or YouTube influencers, the Trump family occupies a post of public trust – and the value of the token is inextricably linked to a simultaneous consultation.

A test case for the dry post-gensel

The unlocking of April 17, 2025 of $ Trump, involving around 40 million tokens, offers a case study in what is happening when the regulatory ambiguity encounters political political interest. Although the DSA personnel guidelines may have reduced the scope of the application of securities in the space of the same room, it has not taken into account the constitutional and normative problems that arise when a head of state also works as a main beneficiary of the even market that he supervises.

Financial regulations in the United States have never been a single question of statutory compliance; It is also based on public confidence, institutional independence and the expectation that people in power have a deduction. While digital assets are becoming more and more entangled with political identity and personal enrichment, this foundation shows signs of tension.

What is necessary now is not only a regulatory adjustment, but a wider calculation with the implications of the merger of market speculation with political influence. Whether the congress, the dry or the public are ready to face this challenge remains uncertain. But a reality is clear: the era of cryptographic governance by the personality is here. And its consequences will extend far beyond the blockchain.