Update 6/15/26: American Express has provided the following statement:
We have added a Resy Credit eligible badge to Resy venues pages to provide additional clarity to diners at the time of booking. We have not removed Resy venues that are eligible today and will be adding more eligible venues later this year when Tock venues become bookable on Resy
I’m still of the opinion that in the fullness of time this will lead to a nerf, but in the short to medium term it seems that is incorrect.
Original post: American Express is nerfing the Resy credits that Platinum & Gold cards offer by restricting the credits to select restaurants. Statements are showing the following:
Update to the Resy Credit Benefit
Effective August 1, 2026, U.S. restaurants and other food and beverage establishments (e.g., wineries, cafes) must be indicated as eligible for the Resy Credit on the Resy website or the Resy app at the time of purchase to qualify for the benefit. Qualifying restaurants and other food and beverage establishments will be indicated as eligible on their booking page onthe Resy website or the Resy app and are subject to change at any time.
When you check the Resy app it now lists restaurants as ‘This venue qualifies for the Resy Credit…’. Currently it seems like all restaurants are listed as being eligible, which makes sense as this change doesn’t come into effect until August 1, 2026. Even after that date I suspect most restaurants will remain eligible, the problem is that this can change at any moment and doesn’t give you any certainty going forward. It’s only a matter of time until restaurants begin to not be eligible.
I suspect American Express will either start charging restaurants directly if they want to be eligible for this credit or use it to upsell other services. Some people are saying this is actually a good thing as some restaurants are on Resy but don’t accept American Express for example, I think in time we will definitely see that this is not a good thing.
For more than two decades, putting a number on a Tesla-SpaceX merger was guesswork because only one of the two companies traded publicly. That changed on June 12, when SpaceX(SPCX +19.79%) completed the largest initial public offering (IPO) in history at a valuation near $1.8 trillion. With a public price finally attached to the rocket company, long-running speculation that Elon Musk will fold his two trillion-dollar businesses into one resurfaced.
The figures involved are enormous. Electric-car maker Tesla(TSLA +0.98%) carries a market capitalization of about $1.5 trillion as of this writing, while SpaceX rose above a $2 trillion market value in its first session. Put the two together, and you get a company worth more than $3 trillion — enough to rank among the four most valuable in the world.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives recently put the odds of such a tie-up within a year at about 80%.
So what would a combination actually mean for the people who own Tesla today?
Here’s a closer look.
Image source: The Motley Fool.
The case for a combination
The argument for merging starts with the extent of overlap between the two companies. Musk increasingly pitches Tesla as an artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics company — think self-driving software and the Optimus humanoid robot — even though most of its revenue still comes from selling cars. SpaceX brings satellite internet through Starlink and launch capacity, and its February acquisition of Musk’s AI start-up xAI added the Grok chatbot.
Ives frames a tie-up as Musk’s clearest path to controlling more of the AI ecosystem under one roof.
A path to a merger seems plausible. Tesla invested $2 billion in xAI in January. When SpaceX absorbed xAI a month later, that stake converted into nearly 19 million SpaceX shares, worth about $2.6 billion at the IPO price. And the two are also jointly building a chip-making plant in Austin, known as Terafab, meant to supply processors for Tesla’s robots and SpaceX’s satellites alike.
Additionally, a merger between the two companies could help settle the case once and for all that Tesla is more than just a car company. Rather than Tesla shareholders owning a car company trying to become an AI company, they would hold a slice of an operation spanning electric vehicles, robotics, rockets, satellite internet, and AI.
The bull case is essentially that the market would stop valuing Tesla mainly on its car sales and start treating it as one pillar of a multitrillion-dollar Musk empire.
Why it may not play out the way bulls hope
But SpaceX’s own leadership sounds far more measured than the headline odds.
“Right now I’m focused on keeping the lights on here,” said SpaceX president and chief operating officer Gwynne Shotwell in a CNBC interview on the day of the IPO. She allowed that the two businesses share long-term goals but stopped well short of calling a merger imminent.
The betting markets offer a more conservative view, too. As of this writing, prediction platforms put the near-term odds of a deal well below Ives’s 80% — in the range of 25% to 40% for a combination this year.
Additionally, there’s the issue of who would set the terms for such a merger. Musk holds more than 80% of the voting power at SpaceX through a dual-class share structure, yet he owns only about a fifth of Tesla. That gap matters. A merger would be a related-party transaction with Musk on both sides of the table, and any deal would almost certainly be built largely around the company he controls outright.
Space Exploration Technologies
Today’s Change
(19.79%) $31.85
Current Price
$192.80
Key Data Points
Market Cap
$2.5T
Day’s Range
$168.40 – $192.87
52wk Range
$135.00 – $193.00
Volume
7.2M
Avg Vol
259.5M
Then there’s price. Tesla shares trade at about 370 times earnings as of this writing, a valuation that already assumes the company will succeed in autonomy and robotics on its own. And a merger likely wouldn’t help. It would add SpaceX’s own unproven, money-losing space and AI ambitions to an already expensive stock.
So where does this leave Tesla investors? I think the honest answer is that a merger is a real possibility, but not a sure thing — and that the more important question isn’t whether it happens but on whose terms. Because Musk controls SpaceX and only a minority of Tesla, any combination would likely look less like a merger of equals and more like SpaceX absorbing Tesla.
Whatever the case, investors should make their investment decisions today based on each company’s underlying fundamentals relative to the price they are paying, not because of merger prospects. Because one thing is certain: It’s unclear what a merger or acquisition could look like, and under what terms it would happen.
Sir Lucian Grainge, Chairman and CEO of Universal Music Group (UMG), returned to Tokyo this week to celebrate Japan’s creative talent and attend the second annual Music Awards Japan.
UMG artists Fujii Kaze and Mrs. GREEN APPLE won two of the top prizes at the event, organized by the Culture and Entertainment Industry Promotion Association (CEIPA). Fujii Kaze won Best Album for Prema, while Mrs. GREEN APPLE was named Best Artist at the ceremony in Tokyo on Saturday (June 13).
During the visit, Grainge met artists, songwriters, entrepreneurs, and policymakers, including Ryosei Akazawa, Japan’s Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry.
Akazawa led Japan’s tariff negotiations with the United States.
Akazawa described the meeting in a post on X: “The chairman remarked that Japan‘s music industry has strong global potential from both cultural and market perspectives,” Akazawa wrote.
“We agreed to work together with the United States to strengthen the international expansion of music originating from Japan.”
Ahead of the ceremony, Grainge delivered remarks at an official gala for Music Awards Japan, according to UMG.
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi also spoke at the gala, the company said.
The event drew around 1,000 guests, including representatives of the organizations behind CEIPA, the Culture and Entertainment Industry Promotion Association that organizes the awards.
“Japan has always been one of the world’s greatest music nations, home to extraordinary creativity, passionate fans, and artists and songwriters who continually push boundaries.”
Sir Lucian Grainge
Grainge said: “Japan has always been one of the world’s greatest music nations, home to extraordinary creativity, passionate fans, and artists and songwriters who continually push boundaries.
“My congratulations to CEIPA and everyone who has helped bring Music Awards Japan to life. The return of these awards for a second year reflects both that creative strength and the growing opportunity for Japanese artists to reach new audiences around the world.”
Mrs. GREEN APPLE also took the top artist prize at the inaugural awards in 2025, while Fujii Kaze won the top album award that year for LOVE ALL SERVE ALL.
Photo credit: Hiroki SugiuraSir Lucian Grainge with Mrs. GREEN APPLE
Music Awards Japan launched in 2025 and is voted on by more than 5,000 music professionals from Japan and abroad.
This year’s edition spanned around 70 award categories.
In February, Mrs. GREEN APPLE became the highest-ranked Japanese act in the history of the IFPI Global Artist Chart, placing at No. 13 on the 2025 ranking.
They were the only Japanese act on the 2025 chart, which was topped by Taylor Swift.
The band’s anniversary album 10, which has sold more than 1 million copies, also reached No. 10 on the IFPI‘s Global Album Chart for 2025.
UMG says the band was Japan’s best-selling act last year, and the No. 2 act in Asia behind South Korea’s Stray Kids.
In July 2025, Mrs. GREEN APPLE became the first act in J-pop history to surpass 10 billion cumulative domestic streams, according to Billboard Japan.
Both Fujii Kaze and Mrs. GREEN APPLE are signed to Universal Music Japan.
UMG operates in Japan through Universal Music Japan, whose President and CEO Naoshi Fujikura told MBW last year that the company has tripled its sales over his tenure.
Photo credit: Hiroki SugiuraSir Lucian Grainge and Naoshi Fujikura, along with King & Prince.
The company describes itself as the market leader in Japan, the world’s second-largest recorded music market after the US.
Japan returned to growth in 2025, with recorded music revenues rising 8.9% year-on-year, according to the IFPI.Music Business Worldwide
🎯 নবম–দশম শ্রেণির জন্য টেকনিক ইজি এডুকেশন কর্তৃক রচিত ৫০০ এমসিকিউ সাজেশন বই থেকে MCQ গুলো সমাধান করা হয়েছে। ৫০০ এমসিকিউ সাজেশন বইটি তোমাদের কাছে থাকলে এই MCQ গুলো সমাধান করা অনেক সহজ হয়ে যাবে। তাই ভালো প্রস্তুতির জন্য অবশ্যই ৫০০ এমসিকিউ সাজেশন বইটি সংগ্রহ করবে। 📚
———
বইয়ের পিডিএফ, মূল্য ও অর্ডার সংক্রান্ত সকল তথ্য পেতে ওয়েবসাইট ভিজিট করুন:
👉 www.tpl.com.bd
যেকোনো তথ্য বা সহায়তার জন্য যোগাযোগ করুন:
📞 01775 777 774
📱 01765 222 222 (WhatsApp)
————
#500mcq #suggestion #EasyLearning #Finance&Banking #ssc
Mortgage rates got a little boost today thanks to an apparent peace deal between the U.S. and Iran.
However, the 30-year fixed remains well above the average seen before the war began a few months ago.
At last glance, it was still priced about 5/8 higher than where it stood at the very end of February.
This tells me investors are cautious about a possible accord.
And that peace deal or no peace deal, it will take time for mortgage rates to sink back to those lows.
If You’re Waiting for Lower Mortgage Rates You Need to Be Patient
Those hoping for an immediate return to sub-6% mortgage rates might need to be patient.
While it’s certainly encouraging to hear that a peace deal is in the works, there are still a lot of question marks.
And there’s always the possibility that something erupts that puts it all into question again.
As such, bond traders and investors of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) seem to be overly cautious.
It might explain why the 10-year bond yield remains closer to 4.50% instead of sub-4% as it was back in February.
What that means for home buyers and homeowners looking to refinance is that mortgage rates will stay elevated all else equal.
We had a 30-year fixed mortgage rate below 6% prior to the war. But now we’re facing rates above 6.5% for the most part.
You can call it the war premium, or perhaps tie it to higher inflation concerns related to the spike in oil prices.
Whatever the case, it’s going to take time for mortgage rates to get back to those low levels.
Even if the oil starts flowing again and the ships start moving, the damage is already done.
There’s also the thought that a premium will remain in place regardless on concerns that things could unravel or ratchet up again.
In other words, mortgage rates might just remain an eighth to a quarter higher on these risks that we didn’t have a few months ago.
So if the peace deal is for real and it holds, we might get mortgage rates back to the low-6s, but not quite where they were before this whole thing got going.
Are Mortgage Rates Higher for Other Reasons Too?
There’s also the thought that interest rates aren’t just higher because of the war with Iran.
We’ve had a really strong stock market rally driven by a frenzy in tech stocks this year.
Namely, semiconductors and anything to do with artificial intelligence (AI).
The sky-high valuations might be adding to fears of a bubble and the need for rate hikes instead of cuts to cool things down.
If that’s the case, Fed rate expectations can certainly put upward pressure on mortgage rates as well.
So even if the war piece is figured out, we could still have issues that keep mortgage rates elevated for the remainder of the year.
Long story short, it might mean that a sub-6% 30-year fixed continues to be elusive.
And possibly something we won’t see in 2026.
In fact, the only way we might see it is if there’s an economic downturn such as a recession, which clearly nobody wants to save a few bucks on their mortgage.
Read on: Try out my new mortgage rate calculator to quickly compare monthly payments.
Before creating this site, I worked as an account executive for a wholesale mortgage lender in Los Angeles. My hands-on experience in the early 2000s inspired me to begin writing about mortgages 20 years ago to help prospective (and existing) home buyers better navigate the home loan process. Follow me on X for hot takes.
Online investment marketplace Republic listed an offering for a digital representation of SpaceX shares via the platform’s “Mirror Tokens,” or rSPAX, which is a tokenized Contingent Payout Note. The offering had a funding cap of $8 million.
The successful initial public offering (IPO) of SpaceX (NASDAQ:SPCX) should provide an exit opportunity for investors in the vehicle as a Qualified Liquidity Event.
Initially, Republic sought to open the offering to retail investors in the US, but apparently, outside pressure compelled the platform to provide the offering only to Accredited Investors and non-Accredited Investors outside the US. The stated valuation of SpaceX, according to the offering page, was stated at $1.35 to $1.4 trillion. The offering page outlines when investors may be paid: “at the 10-year maturity or at a qualifying event for SpaceX– like an acquisition, IPO, or company dissolution.”
While rSPAX investors may receive a good outcome on the investment, the partnership between Bitget and Republic on IPO Prime, which aimed to support a pre-IPO tokenized offering, was disappointing. The offering, which reportedly generated over $177 million in investor interest, failed when the project was unable to acquire shares.
While some in the online capital formation sector criticized Republic’s attempt to offer exposure to SpaceX prior to the IPO, the initiative highlights the discrimination that federal rules currently impose on smaller investors compared with those with larger bank accounts.
Have a crowdfunding offering you’d like to share? Submit an offering for consideration using our Submit a Tip form and we may share it on our site!
What every passive real estate investor needs to understand before they’re in this moment.
You invested passively in a real estate deal. You did your diligence on the sponsor. You signed the documents, wired the capital, and started receiving distributions. Everything was going according to plan.
Then you got an email.
Subject line: “Important Update on Your Investment.”
It wasn’t a distribution notice. It was a capital call. The sponsor needed additional capital from investors to keep the deal moving forward.
If you’ve been investing in real estate syndications for any length of time, you’ve either already received one of these or you will. And the investors who handle them well are the ones who understood what they were before they found themselves in the middle of one.
This post covers what capital calls actually are, why this market cycle has produced so many of them, what your real options are, and how to evaluate what you’re being asked to do before you make a decision.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Any investment involves risk, and you should consult your financial advisor, attorney, or CPA before making any investment decisions. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The author and associated entities disclaim any liability for loss incurred as a result of the use of this material or its content.
It’s not just the talks. Or the speakers. Or the strategies.
PIMDCON, the #1 Real Estate & Entrepreneurship Conference for Physicians, works because of what happens between the sessions.
The conversations. The clarity. The shift.
LEARN MORE ABOUT PIMDCON
What a Capital Call Actually Is
A capital call is a request from a sponsor for additional investment capital beyond what you originally committed. It is not a margin call. It doesn’t mean the deal is automatically in trouble.
Here’s something that often gets missed in these conversations: a capital call is almost always the last thing a sponsor wants to send.
Think about it from their side. They raised money from investors who trusted them with that capital. Sending a capital call means going back to those same people and saying, we need more. No operator does that lightly. By the time that email goes out, they’ve typically already looked at every other option, stress-tested the numbers, and talked to their lenders. This is where they landed.
That doesn’t mean every capital call represents good news. But it usually means the sponsor is fighting for the deal rather than walking away from it. That context matters when you’re deciding how to respond.
Why You’re Seeing More of These Right Now
If it feels like capital calls have become more common over the last two to three years, that’s because they have. And there’s a specific reason for it.
The Federal Reserve raised interest rates 525 basis points between March 2022 and July 2023. That is the fastest tightening cycle in roughly 40 years. Many real estate deals underwritten in 2020 and 2021 were built around a very different rate environment. Low rates, abundant debt, strong rent growth. That environment is gone, and the deals that were structured around it are feeling the pressure.
A few specific dynamics are driving the capital calls you’re seeing today:
Floating rate bridge loans
A lot of value-add multifamily deals were financed with short-term floating rate debt. The business plan was to renovate, stabilize, and refinance into long-term fixed debt within two to three years. When rates rose and values softened, that refinance either became impossible or required significant additional equity to close the gap. Deals that looked fine at origination ran into a wall they didn’t see coming.
Rate cap expirations
When sponsors took out floating rate debt, lenders required them to purchase interest rate caps to limit exposure. Those caps are expiring now, two to three years later. Renewing them at today’s rates costs significantly more than the original caps did. That’s a real cash need that wasn’t in the original budget.
Rising operating costs
Property insurance premiums have increased substantially in many markets, particularly in the South and Southeast. Labor and materials costs for renovations came in higher than projected. These aren’t excuses. They’re real line items that moved against deals that had little margin to absorb them.
Rent growth stalled
In many markets, the strong rent growth that operators underwrote to support their projections slowed or reversed as new supply came online. That affected cash flow and made refinancing at favorable terms harder to execute.
None of this is unique to one sponsor or one market. This is a cycle-wide pressure that has stressed deals across the industry. Many sponsors who are sending capital calls today are not bad operators. They are operators who made reasonable assumptions in 2020 and 2021 that the rate environment made untenable. The ones handling it well are the ones communicating clearly, coming to investors with a plan, and standing behind their commitments.
That context doesn’t mean you write a check automatically. It means you evaluate the situation with the right frame.
Why They Happen
Within that broader market context, capital calls are triggered by a specific gap between what the original underwriting projected and what the deal is actually experiencing.
The most common causes:
Bridge loan maturity. The deal was financed with short-term debt, and that debt is coming due. The sponsor needs capital to extend, refinance, or pay it down.bbbbbb
Floating rate debt repricing. The numbers that worked at acquisition stopped working when rates moved.
Rate cap expiration. The caps are expiring and renewing them at current rates costs more than the original budget allowed.
Unexpected capital expenditures. Something the inspection didn’t catch. A repair the reserve fund can’t absorb.
Occupancy shortfall. The property isn’t leasing at the pace the business plan assumed, and operating income is below projections.
The size of the ask matters too. I’ve received capital calls ranging from 7% of my original investment all the way up to 40%. Those are not the same conversation. A 7% ask to renew a rate cap is relatively contained. A 40% ask to restructure debt on a struggling asset is a fundamentally different situation and deserves a fundamentally different level of scrutiny.
The size of the ask is the first signal. It tells you something about the scope of the problem before you’ve read a single word of the memo.
This Is a New Investment Decision
Here’s the most important framing for this moment.
When you receive a capital call, you are not just deciding whether to send money. You are making a new investment decision with updated information.
When you evaluated this deal the first time, you looked at the sponsor’s track record, the market conditions, the business plan, the projected returns, and the risk factors. You need to do that same work again. The situation has changed. The analysis has to change with it.
Here is what you need to get clear on before you make any decision:
What is the money specifically for?
Not a general explanation. A specific use of funds. Is it to extend a loan, cover a renovation, stabilize occupancy, shore up reserves? The more specific the answer, the better sign. Vague answers to this question are a red flag.
A sponsor who knows what they’re doing can tell you exactly where every dollar is going.
What does the revised business plan look like?
Not just what went wrong. Where is the deal going from here? What’s the updated timeline? What are the new projections given current market conditions? Does the math still make sense, or is this capital call just buying time on a deal with no real path to recovery?
Those are two very different situations.
What happens if the capital call isn’t met?
This is the question most investors forget to ask. Get a direct answer. Is there a default risk? Could the lender foreclose? Is a sale being considered? Is there a plan B? Y
ou need to understand the downside of saying no, not just the upside of saying yes.
Is the sponsor contributing additional capital alongside LPs?
A sponsor who puts more of their own money in is a meaningfully different signal than one who is not. It tells you they believe in the revised plan. It tells you they have skin in the game.
What does the capital call memo actually show you?
Sponsors send these with supporting documents. Read them carefully. Look for a clear breakdown of how the funds will be used. Look for updated financial projections that reflect current conditions, not the original underwriting. Look for a realistic exit timeline. And look for what the sponsor has already done to stabilize the deal before sending this request.
If a sponsor can’t answer these questions clearly, that is as much information as the capital call itself.
Your Two Options
Once you’ve done the diligence, you have three actual options. None of them is automatically right.
1. Contribute.
You evaluate the revised plan, it holds up under scrutiny, the ask is proportionate to what’s needed, and you decide to put in more capital. I’ve done this.
There have been deals where contributing was clearly the right call because the asset was fundamentally sound, the issue was market-driven rather than operational, the sponsor had a credible plan, and they were putting in capital alongside investors.
That combination of factors changes the calculus.
2. Pass.
The revised plan doesn’t hold up. The numbers don’t work even with new capital. The sponsor can’t give you a clear picture of the path forward. Or the ask is too large relative to what you can realistically recover.
I’ve passed on capital calls too. And I’ll be honest: passing is uncomfortable.
Here’s why. When you decline and other LPs contribute, your equity position gets diluted. Here’s what that actually looks like.
Say you invested $100,000 in a deal where total LP equity is $2 million. That’s a 5% ownership stake. Now there’s a capital call for $400,000. You decline. Other LPs contribute. Total equity is now $2.4 million. Your $100,000 stake is now roughly 4.2%.
You still own a piece of the deal. But it’s a smaller piece. That’s the real cost of passing, and it’s worth running the math before you decide. If you’re weighing how to offset potential loss from capital calls, understanding dilution is step one.
Sometimes that cost is worth absorbing if the deal doesn’t have a credible future. Sometimes it isn’t. That’s a judgment call that only you can make with the information in front of you.
Subscribe to receive the 7 Steps you can follow to achieve Financial Freedom
If financial freedom is your goal, there’s no better time to get started than right now.
Unlock actionable steps that you can take every day to fine-tune your goals, discover your interests, and avoid costly mistakes on your financial freedom journey.
Not All Capital Calls Are the Same
This is worth saying directly.
There is a meaningful difference between a sponsor who hit a market condition they couldn’t control, maintained transparent communication throughout, explored every alternative before asking investors for more, came back with a specific use of funds and a credible revised plan, and put their own capital in alongside yours.
And a sponsor who mismanaged the asset, gave vague or infrequent updates, and is now asking for more money without being able to clearly explain what changes and why the new capital solves the problem.
The capital call itself doesn’t tell you which situation you’re in. The quality of the communication, the specificity of the plan, the sponsor’s track record leading up to this moment, and how they’ve behaved when things got hard, that’s what tells you.
A good operator in a bad market is a fundamentally different situation from a bad operator in any market. How you respond should reflect that difference. Understanding when a real estate deal doesn’t go as planned — and what your options actually are — is what separates reactive investors from informed ones.
The Standard for Making the Decision
A capital call is not a verdict on your investment. It’s a decision point.
The worst thing you can do is respond emotionally. Contributing more money because you’re afraid of losing what you have is not a strategy. Passing because the ask makes you uncomfortable isn’t either.
The standard is the same one you applied going in: evaluate the sponsor, the revised plan, and the underlying asset. Ask the hard questions. Get specific answers. Run the dilution math if you’re considering passing. If you want a broader lens on managing investment risk across your portfolio, that context helps here too. Then make a decision you can stand behind.
Investors who navigate capital calls well aren’t the ones who never receive them. They’re the ones who know what to do when they do.
Were these helpful in any way? Make sure to sign up for the newsletter and join the Passive Income Docs Facebook Group for more physician-tailored content.
Peter Kim, MD is the founder of Passive Income MD, the creator of Passive Real Estate Academy, and offers weekly education through his Monday podcast, the Passive Income MD Podcast. Join our community at the Passive Income Doc Facebook Group.
Disclaimer: I am not a CPA, attorney, or financial advisor. The information in this post is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as tax, legal, or financial advice. Please consult a qualified professional about your specific situation before making any decisions.
Trump’s Ultimate Fighting Championship Freedom 250 spectacle on the White House South Lawn resulted in record bonuses for the winners. The fighters, though, didn’t get paid in U.S. dollars, which would seem to be the obvious currency for such an event. Instead, the prize money came in the form of USD1, a type of synthetic dollar known as a stablecoin, that is run by the Trump family’s cryptocurrency business, World Liberty Financial.
This arrangement created an ethics scenario that would otherwise be illegal for most federal officials and could be treated as a crime, said Richard Painter, a former chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration.
“If a Treasury secretary had a financial interest in World Liberty and then participated in any government matter that had a knowing economic impact on World Liberty, that Treasury secretary very likely would commit a felony,” Painter told Fortune.
Under the federal criminal statute 18 U.S.C. § 208, Painter noted, most executive branch employees are barred from taking part in official matters that clearly affect their own financial interests or those of close associates. The president, vice president, and members of Congress, however, are exempt.
In Trump’s case, that exemption allows him to take part in events that feature World Liberty Financial, which issues USD1. Stablecoins like USD1 are backed by cash and government debt, and their issuers earn interest on those reserves, turning every dollar held in tokens into a steady revenue stream.
World Liberty Financial was founded in 2024 by members of Trump’s family and close business associates. Since its creation, it has become one of the most lucrative parts of the president’s portfolio. According to the venture’s “gold paper,” the co‑founders include Trump, his three sons, Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff and Witkoff’s two sons. The document notes that Trump and Witkoff were removed from the listed team after taking office.
Despite Trump stepping back from the company’s formal governance, his most recent financial disclosure released on Saturday shows he has made more than $57.3 million from sales of World Liberty’s governance token. USD1, launched in 2025 and backed by cash, U.S. Treasuries, and other cash equivalents, now circulates in the billions of dollars, generating tens of millions a year for World Liberty from interest on the reserves that support the stablecoin.
UFC did not immediately respond to Fortune’s questions about which fighters received USD1 payouts, or about how much they received.
The White House did not immediately respond to questions from Fortune about whether officials had evaluated potential conflicts of interest in allowing a Trump‑linked stablecoin to be used at the event.