Secret Deals, Foreign Investments: The Rise of Trump’s Crypto Firm

Perceived Corruption and Nature of the “Trump Coin”

• Many see the coin and related firm as a direct, legalized bribery channel, analogous to earlier hotel, social media, and inauguration–fund schemes.
• The ability of large holders to buy proximity (e.g., dinners, access) is viewed as selling influence in a way that evades campaign finance and anti‑bribery rules.
• The article’s mention of lockups and possible future lifting of sale restrictions is recognized as a pattern from past crypto schemes.
• Some argue this is simply a more transparent version of practices all presidents use (expensive dinners, donations to affiliated entities), while others reject that normalization as morally corrosive.

Crypto, Corruption, and the Possibility of Bans

• Several commenters argue that crypto, especially Bitcoin, structurally “turbocharges” corruption, black markets, and political grift, with little legitimate use beyond speculation and crime.
• Supporters counter that Bitcoin cannot realistically be stopped without extreme surveillance and authoritarian measures; skeptics respond that harsh criminal penalties and loss of liquidity could still collapse it.
• There is limited agreement that stablecoins and cross‑border settlement may be the only genuinely useful applications, but even those are seen as mostly regulatory arbitrage.

Crypto Insiders’ Disillusionment

• Self‑described former builders in the space describe leaving after concluding the ecosystem is dominated by speculation and scams.
• Trump‑branded tokens are seen as the final proof that, in practice, crypto has become an open vehicle for corruption, underscoring the need for effective regulation.
• Others reply that regulation already exists and is selectively applied; if elites are above the rules, more regulation alone won’t help.

Broader Political and Systemic Debates

• The thread widens into arguments about “the swamp,” selective outrage, and whether corruption is symmetric across parties. Some insist one side is plainly worse; others emphasize that both are deeply compromised and insufficiently policed by their own supporters.
• Foreign investment in relatives and associates, pardons, and family business deals (on both sides) are cited as evidence of normalized nepotistic corruption.
• Several comments frame support for this behavior as a reaction to a system perceived as ignoring ordinary people, with immigration and culture‑war issues serving as scapegoats.
• A subset express fear of democratic backsliding, potential authoritarian entrenchment, and the erosion of earlier ethical norms (e.g., past divestments by presidents).