Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez, author of “Powered by Projects,” on balancing operations with transformation, reducing hierarchy, and more.
The Bank of Canada said the financial system has functioned well through recent global shocks, but highlighted the risk of an asset price correction as well as vulnerabilities related to the role hedge funds are playing in debt markets.
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:
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.
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.
HT: FM
John Lewis
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?”
investing.com Pro 訂閱計劃 !
Ragafinance 專屬連結:
————————————————————————–
成為文錦Sir Patreon :
成為一名經人Patreon :
《財富BB Club》💵
Coffee support☕
————————————————————————–
「Raga股市寶」註冊連結 :
————————————————————————–
成為 RF 鐵粉團的一分子！只需港幣 $40 一個月，即享獨家影片及專屬貼圖優惠！
————————————————————————–
◎◎◎ 追蹤/訂閱 ◎◎◎
▶️
Raga 財經台 Facebook 專頁連結：
▶️
Raga Finance :
▶️
RF Plus :
#顧芷筠 #羅尚沛 #羅家聰
————————————————————————–
免責聲明：《Raga Finance》竭力提供準確資訊，惟不保證絕對無誤，資訊如有錯漏而令閣下蒙受損失（不論公司是否與侵權行為、訂立契約或其他方面有關），本公司概不負責。
同時，《Raga Finance》所提供之投資分析技巧與建議，只可作為參考之用，並不構成要約、招攬、邀請、誘使、任何不論種類或形式之申述或訂立任何建議及推薦，讀者務請運用個人獨立思考能力自行作出投資決定，如因相關建議招致損失，概與《Raga Finance》主持、嘉賓、編輯及記者無關。
同時，《Raga Finance》所有節目或資訊，相關內容屬作者個人意見，並不代表《Raga Finance》立場。
source
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.
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.
Don’t Miss These Other Stories:
The post Warren Asks GAO To Probe Whether Education Department Cuts Have Crippled College Oversight appeared first on The College Investor.
Don’t underestimate what you’ve already built. You have what it takes to survive AI.
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.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| AUM | $2.3 billion |
| Expense ratio | 0.45% |
| Dividend yield | 1.28% |
| 1-year return (as of 5/27/26) | 43.57% |
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.
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.
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.
