There are more Americans experiencing food insecurity now than there were during the pandemic, a new survey from the Federal Reserve of New York found.
In the survey from Feb. 2026, the New York Fed asked American households about their spending habits, just as consumer sentiment reached an all-time low this month and as the economic effects of the Iran war were starting to be felt at home. The survey asked Americans questions such as if someone in their household dipped into savings to cover expenses; had trouble finding enough food to eat; had children miss meals: received food donations; or received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
The Fed said the results are concerning, as the percentages of economic hardships increased across the board, compared to when the Fed conducted the Survey of Consumer Expectations early in the pandemic.
“We find a remarkable increase in food insecurity, particularly among lower-educated and lower-income households and households with young children,” the researchers wrote.
One-tenth of respondents reported not having enough food to eat or that their children missed meals, more than double the 4% who reported so in June 2020. More than a third of households reported dipping into savings to pay for groceries, compared to just 21.8% early in the pandemic.
“Such financial stress is reflected in concerns about affordability due to the high cost of living, persistent inflation, and high interest rates, and in high delinquency rates for credit cards and auto and student loans,” the researchers wrote.
The findings come as more low and middle-income households feel the pressure of higher housing and food costs, and experience higher effective inflation rates. Inflation reached 3.8% in April, the highest level seen in almost three years. The Fed economists say the findings show signs of a growing “K-shaped” economy, as lower-income Americans face financial stress and affordability issues while higher earners seem to drive productivity and wage growth.
As food insecurity increases, the researchers found that there has also been an increase in consumer pessimism. The University of Michigan monthly consumer sentiment survey fell to 44.8 this month, a rating lower than the Great Recession and the pandemic. The percentage of families who believe they will be financially better off in a year is also rapidly declining, the New York Fed found.
Low consumer sentiment comes as the Trump administration has celebrated what he called “lifting” 2.4 million Americans off of SNAP benefits. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act cut $186 billion from SNAP over 10 years, amounting to a 20% funding reduction. The cuts have hit children and the elderly particularly hard. Before the cut, they made up 39% and 20% of SNAP recipients, respectively. Additional cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act subsidies have also raised the cost of living for lower- and middle-income families.
Some Capital One cardholders are seeing targeted Capital One Offers that award 1,000 bonus miles after spending $20 at select retailers.
Some of the reported merchants include:
eBay
Home Depot
Dollar General
Sam’s Club
Cumberland Farms
and more
These offers are for Capital One account holders only and may vary by user. Like many Capital One Offers, you’ll generally want to activate the deal before making your purchase. Also make sure to carefully read the details of your offers before using them.
Guru’s Wrap-up
1,000 Capital One miles for only $20 in spend is actually pretty solid deal, especially if you can trigger it with something you already planned to buy anyway.
The recent near halving of Bitcoin’s price has reignited debate about its true value. As a store of value, net present value asset pricing models suggest it should be worth zero because it pays no dividend. Yet its price remains far above zero, and its total value is still large despite recent turbulence. In this post I explore the question: what’s Bitcoin’s value as a means of exchange? I show that using a simple quantity theory of money framework helps explain its extreme volatility, the powerful influence of sentiment, how prices can surge even when transaction usage is low, and – crucially – why innovations by competitors and limited retail payment adoption pose significant downside price risks.
Economics textbooks present four functions for money: medium of exchange, store of value, unit of account and a standard of deferred payment. In this post I focus on solely on the first. The original white paper, presents Bitcoin exclusively in ‘medium of exchange’ terms, as a ‘peer-to-peer version of electronic cash’ allowing payments ‘without going through a financial institution’. The words ‘asset’ or ‘investment’ are entirely absent.
Just like fiat, Bitcoin pays no dividend and has no intrinsic value (you can’t eat it, smoke it or make jewellery out of it). Fiat nevertheless has value because people are willing to accept it as payment for real stuff (ie labour, goods, services). If Bitcoin did become a medium of exchange could it, by the same logic, have value too?
Elsewhere, I and many others have argued that keeping accounts and/or managing payments in cryptocurrency is not viable because of the day-to-day volatility in its price and lack of singularity. But setting those issues and interactions aside here, I run a ‘what if you’re wrong’ type thought experiment.
The quantity theory of Bitcoin
I approach this through the lens of the quantity theory of money which can represent vastly different views about the value of Bitcoin within a common framework.
Let’s begin with the textbook equation:
MV=PT
This says that the supply of money, M, times the velocity, V (how often each unit changes hands) is equal to the price level times the total transaction value T (sometimes replaced by real GDP, Y). P here is expressed as price of goods in currency, whereas we normally think about Bitcoin prices the other way round (ie how much stuff do you need to buy one Bitcoin). It’s easier to work with if we rearrange it a little:
US$ price of Bitcoin = T/MV
The price of Bitcoin equals the real value of transactions it’s used for, all divided by supply (M) times velocity (V). Quantity is fixed at 21 million Bitcoin, so its price is determined by the value of transactions it services and how fast it whizzes round. The bullish case is that transaction use will grow, so T gets bigger; and so, for a given velocity, the price has to rise.
How much will Bitcoin be worth?
It all depends on your long-run view on T and V. Let’s start with T – currently 2025 payments on the lightning network, are estimated to be $14 billion and the latest estimate of Bitcoin use for transactions under $10,000 (a plausible retail cutoff) is $146 billion annually. What about some other benchmarks? Bitcoin is currently used for some illicit payments, so another thought experiment is to assume Bitcoin takes on all of them: then adding drugs ($800 billion), money laundering ($800 billion) and tax evasion ($171 billion) gets you about $2 trillion. If it becomes visa-sized payment medium then T is $17 trillion. If it takes over all digital transactions it’s $26 trillion. Or if, as Bitcoin maximalists argue, it becomes the world’s money, then T is world GDP: $155 trillion.
What about V? At the higher end, if someone loads up a payment card each and spends the balance down to zero each month, velocity is 24. For illicit transactions, studies suggest a velocity of about five. For broad money pre-GFC this was around two. Or if you are looking at GDP, then velocity can be as low as one. The table shows what these imply for the price:
In short, you can get wildly different valuations depending on what you plug in.
No coiners think it’s largely useless for real world payments and so T is zero, rendering Bitcoin worthless, regardless of velocity. The upper grey panel shows that that current T implies prices a fraction the current $70,000 or so.
The lower panels show the hypothetical scenarios. If use is confined to illicit payments, and velocity is five the price settles at $19,000. Visa-style volumes with payment card type velocity, the price is around $34,000. If takes over all electronic payments and has an M2 like velocity you are at $619,000. Or if takes over as the world’s currency your valuation could surpass £5 million.
What does this say about price dynamics?
To justify current valuations from such a model, the story must be of (beliefs about) the *future* rather than current scale of transactions, which are far too low to support current prices. And the vast range of potential prices creates highly volatile expectations.
Even small changes in the perceived probability of a future scenario can generate sizeable swings in prices.
The model also implies a paradox about hoarding: the less holders use their Bitcoin for real transactions, the lower velocity is, and the higher the price. There is ample evidence that a large chunk of Bitcoin is not actively circulating but rather lies idle in wallets.
Hoarding can amplify price swings. If you think Bitcoin will surge in price, you won’t spend it today, instead you’ll hoard it. But if sentiment swings and you think Bitcoin will lose value, then you want to spend it, or sell it for dollars, further depressing the price.
For more optimistic valuations to be validated in this framework, Bitcoin must at some point start to move towards those bullish long run usage levels. How have things progressed on that front over the past few years?
The recent history of Bitcoin and payment systems
In the late 2010s sceptics argued the argued the triad of scalability, delays and cost would prevent Bitcoin’s widespread adoption as a payment medium. But bulls countered that takeoff was imminent, with comparisons to internet adoption, and some even suggesting Bitcoin might become the world’s primary means of payment sometime in the 2020s.
That disagreement was less about the technical limits of Bitcoin *at the time* and more about whether/how/how fast the system could develop to overcome them *in the future*. Central to the optimistic case was confidence in an emerging ‘second layer’ of infrastructure, led by the Lightning Network to enable Bitcoin to scale-up. Simply put, the idea was apparatus sitting below (and crucially off) the main protocol to handle most transactions. Freed from the technical limitations of the main blockchain, advocates argued this could deliver faster settlement, lower fees and – crucially – a much higher transactions volume.
Evidently, that higher volume hasn’t come to pass. Bitcoin has seen little to no growth as a payment medium since the late 2010s as adoption flatlined. And it is increasingly hoarded – around 60% of Bitcoin supply has not changed hands in the past year. Even in El Salvador, where it became legal tender, it was used for less than 5% of transactions and accepted by less than fifth of firms. And, like in 2018, Bitcoin conferences still aren’t taking crypto.
Lightning was too expensive because opening and closing a bilateral ‘payment channel’ between two parties still requires an on-chain Bitcoin transaction which creates a high fixed cost, with rising Bitcoin transaction fees passed on to lightning fees. Not to mention problems with liquidity and network reliability.
Many of the most far-reaching innovations in payments technology over the past two decades have actually come from Bitcoin’s competitors in digital payments, providing challenges. Gone are the days when cheques were a key payment tool, or bank transfers needed several days to clear. In most jurisdictions, fast payments now offers free and near instantaneous domestic payments between accounts. On cross border payments, Swift Go introduced near instant settlement of transfers for small-value high-volume transactions, and multiple rails have been developed for transfers outside of SWIFT. Since the late 2010s, stablecoins have grown dramatically, especially for cross-border payments, taking on many of the purported advantages of Bitcoin: ‘open all hours’, quick online payments, and even programmability, but without Bitcoin’s price gyrations.
What next?
Current valuations of Bitcoin as a payment medium are incompatible with current low usage levels. And the experience since the late 2010s is that progress towards adoption stalled. Perhaps the most high-valuation yet plausible scenario for the price of Bitcoin is that Bitcoin retreats to illicit payments where its anonymity and secrecy are particularly advantageous. But then authorities would surely take a more hostile approach. And with fewer legitimate, users it’s harder to disguise transactions, especially moving funds between Bitcoin and the regular system. Is that a viable longer-run business model? Without a compelling and sizeable use case I see little value in Bitcoin as a means of payment.
John Lewis works in the Bank’s Centre for Central Banking Studies Division.
If you want to get in touch, please email us at bankunderground@bankofengland.co.uk or leave a comment below.
Comments will only appear once approved by a moderator, and are only published where a full name is supplied. Bank Underground is a blog for Bank of England staff to share views that challenge – or support – prevailing policy orthodoxies. The views expressed here are those of the authors, and are not necessarily those of the Bank of England, or its policy committees.
Share the post “The quantity theory of crypto: what is Bitcoin worth as a medium of exchange?”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is asking the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether the Trump administration’s staffing cuts at the U.S. Department of Education have hobbled the agency’s ability to stop fraud, waste, and abuse of federal student aid funds.
Why It Matters: Federal Student Aid (FSA) is the office responsible for monitoring colleges that receive Title IV funds: the money that finances Pell Grants, federal student loans, and work-study. If oversight has weakened, taxpayers and students both pick up the tab when colleges misuse aid or misrepresent their programs to prospective enrollees.
While there have been headlines about cracking down on ghost students, there are still other types of financial aid fraud and waste that can happen.
By The Numbers
ED has laid off roughly half of its workforce since January 2025.
FSA alone lost about 46% of its employees, per a March 2026 GAO report (PDF File).
The majority of FSA regional offices that conducted college program reviews were eliminated.
However, it appears that FSA is hiring back upwards of 380 positions that are needed.
What Warren Is Asking: In a May 20 letter to Acting Comptroller General Orice Williams Brown (PDF File), Warren requested that GAO quantify the potential dollar cost to the government from reduced oversight, including drops in financial penalties on schools and reductions in identified repayments owed by colleges. She also wants data on how many program reviews, investigations, and enforcement actions ED has opened since the cuts, broken down by institution type.
Concerns Over For-Profit Schools: Warren flagged for-profit colleges as a particular concern. Under the Biden administration, for-profit colleges saw the majority of FSA’s enforcement actions. She argued reduced oversight is more troubling given recent Trump administration policies poised to expand the for-profit sector, including the upcoming rollout of Workforce Pell (which extends Pell Grant eligibility to short-term programs) and the rollback of financial accountability rules for corporate college owners.
How This Connects: Federal Student Aid distributes more than $120 billion in aid each year across Pell Grants, federal student loans, and other aid programs. Borrower defense to repayment (the program that erases loans for students defrauded by their colleges) has already cost the government billions in discharges tied to past for-profit collapses such as Corinthian Colleges and ITT Tech. When oversight gaps let misconduct go undetected longer, the eventual bill for discharges and recovery actions lands on taxpayers and, in many cases, the borrowers who were misled in the first place.
What Happens Next: GAO will decide whether to open the investigation. Even if it accepts the request, full audits typically take 12 to 18 months. Workforce Pell is on track to take effect this summer, opening a new federal revenue stream for short-term for-profit programs while ED’s enforcement capacity remains diminished.
According to a recent SEC filing, Focus Partners Wealth increased its position in the EA Bridgeway Omni Small-Cap Value ETF(BSVO 0.09%) by 886,680 shares during the first quarter of 2026. The estimated transaction value was $22.4 million, based on the quarter’s average closing price. The fund ended Q1 2026 holding 37,257,857 shares, with a reported position value of $945.2 million as of March 31, 2026.
What else to know
Focus Partners Wealth’s BSVO stake now represents 1.1% of the firm’s 13F reportable assets under management (AUM) — placing it outside the fund’s top five holdings.
Top holdings after the filing:
NASDAQ: GOOGL: $2.6 billion (2.9% of AUM)
NASDAQ: AAPL: $2.5 billion (2.8% of AUM)
NASDAQ: NVDA: $2.1 billion (2.4% of AUM)
NASDAQ: MSFT: $2.0 billion (2.2% of AUM)
NYSE: XLK: $1.7 billion (1.9% of AUM)
As of May 27, 2026, BSVO shares were priced at $27.92, up about 44% over the past year — outperforming the S&P 500 by roughly 17 percentage points and outperforming its Small Value category benchmark by roughly 7 percentage points.
ETF overview
Metric
Value
AUM
$2.3 billion
Expense ratio
0.45%
Dividend yield
1.28%
1-year return (as of 5/27/26)
43.57%
ETF snapshot
The EA Bridgeway Omni Small-Cap Value ETF (BSVO) is a passively structured, rules-based ETF that provides broad exposure to U.S. small-cap value stocks.
The fund uses a systematic, quantitative process to identify and hold a diversified basket of U.S. small-cap equities that screen as undervalued, with a focus on long-term capital appreciation.
Offered as an exchange-traded fund, BSVO provides daily liquidity and portfolio transparency for both institutional and retail investors.
The fund’s 0.45% expense ratio is competitive within the small-cap value ETF category.
What this transaction means for investors
This transaction is worth noting — not because a single institutional buy changes the investment thesis for BSVO, but because of the context. Focus Partners Wealth manages roughly $90 billion in 13F reportable AUM. Adding nearly $22.4 million to an already substantial BSVO position suggests continued conviction in the small-cap value space, at a time when many institutional investors remain concentrated in mega-cap growth names.
Small-cap value stocks have historically tended to outperform over long periods, though that outperformance can be lumpy and requires patience. The fact that BSVO has already delivered roughly 44% gains over the past year, handily beating both the broader S&P 500 and its Small Value category benchmark, may itself be a reason to take note: institutional buyers aren’t always chasing momentum, but when a systematic value strategy is running ahead of the market, it tends to attract fresh attention.
Focus Partners Wealth’s top holdings — Alphabet (GOOGL +0.03%), Apple (AAPL +0.87%), Nvidia (NVDA 0.99%), and Microsoft (MSFT 0.81%) — are firmly in the large-cap growth camp. But its growing $945 million BSVO position suggests Focus is deliberately diversifying, using this low-cost, rules-based ETF to get small-cap value exposure it can’t easily replicate through individual stock picking. For retail investors, that’s a reminder that even the biggest wealth managers lean on ETFs to fill gaps in their portfolios — and BSVO’s strong recent performance and competitive expense ratio make it a reasonable tool for doing the same.
Andy Gould has positions in Alphabet, Apple, and Nvidia and has the following options: long January 2027 $125 calls on Nvidia and short January 2027 $125 puts on Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Buying A Home in A Cool Area May Not Be Cool for Your Finances
When considering their next move, home buyers sometimes find themselves drawn to trendy areas. Perhaps it’s a city with a big music scene or an irresistible cultural vibe. However, moving to one of these cities may be more expensive than it seems.
Update 5/27/26: Snailrock has found two other offers:
MileIQ: $200 to “link your new account wherever you’re earning business income. Receive $2,000 or more into your new account within 60 days.
Faire. Seems like you need your payment systems with Faire, but deal is for $500.
Update 1/6/26: Extended to 12/31/2026
Update 10/29/25: Extended to 12/31/2025. Hat tip to reader Bob the Bonus
Update 4/5/25: Extended to Sep 30, 2025
Update 12/27/24: Offer extended to 3/31/25
Update 11/19/24: Bonus is back until 12/31/24.
Offer at a glance
Maximum bonus amount: $125
Availability: Nationwide
Direct deposit required: No
Additional requirements: See below
Hard/soft pull: Soft pull
ChexSystems: No
Credit card funding: No
Monthly fees: None
Early account termination fee: Unknown
Household limit: None listed
Expiration date: Account must be opened by 10/31/2024
The Offer
Direct link to offer
Found is offering a $125 bonus when you open a new checking account and complete the following requirements:
Reach a $5,000 balance within the first 30 days of account opening and maintain it for an additional 30 days to receive a $125 bonus
There is also a $100 referral bonus when you spend $1,000 on the debit card, I do not think these offers stack
The Fine Print
Account must be opened by 10/31/2024.
This offer is valid through 12/31/2024 and is limited to one reward per account.
Incentive rewards are deposited into your Found account on or before 30 days of meeting the incentive requirements.
All bank account bonuses are treated as income/interest and as such you have to pay taxes on them
Avoiding Fees
Monthly Fees
This account has no monthly fees to worry about.
Early Account Termination Fee
I wasn’t able to find a fee schedule so unsure if there is any EATF.
Our Verdict
Feel free to share your referrals in the comments below, I don’t think it’s possible to stack the bonuses though and actually think the $125 bonus might be easier for most people.
Hat tip to reader RJ
Useful posts regarding bank bonuses:
A Beginners Guide To Bank Account Bonuses
Bank Account Quick Reference Table (Spreadsheet) (very useful for sorting bonuses by different parameters)
PSA: Don’t Call The Bank
Introduction To ChexSystems
Banks & Credit Unions That Are ChexSystems Inquiry Sensitive
What Banks & Credit Unions Do/Don’t Pull ChexSystems?
How To Use Our Direct Deposit Page For Bank Bonuses Page
Common Bank Bonus Misconceptions + Why You Should Give Them A Go
How Many Bank Accounts Can I Safely Open Within A Year For Bank Bonus Purposes?
Affiliate Links & Bank Bonuses – We Won’t Be Using Them
Complete List Of Ways To Close Bank Accounts At Each Bank
Banks That Allow/Don’t Allow Out Of State Checking Applications
✅ NordVPN: (Protect yourself with a Dedicated IP for Exchanges)
💎 Free Trading Community _The Coiners_ :
📢 Follow my X for Quick Alpha:
📢 Courses, Exchange Guides, and All Links:
—————————————————-
🥓My Other Videos:
My Bitcoin Investing strategy 👉
My Crypto Portfolio 2024 👉
My Top 10 Crypto Predictions for 2024 👉
—————————————————–
📜 Disclaimer 📜
The information contained herein is for informational purposes only. Nothing herein shall be construed to be financial, legal, or tax advice. The content of this video is solely the opinions of the speaker who is not a licensed financial advisor or registered investment advisor. Trading cryptocurrencies poses a considerable risk of loss. The speaker does not guarantee any particular outcome.
#crypto #cryptoinvesting #cryptotrader #trading
