Stablecoin firm Circle targets $6.71B valuation in New York IPO
Investing.com -- Circle Internet, the New York-based stablecoin giant, announced on Tuesday that it aims to achieve a fully-diluted valuation of up to $6.71 billion in its initial public offering (IPO) in New York. This move comes amidst a growing interest in cryptocurrency.
The company and some of its current investors plan to raise up to $624 million through the sale of 24 million shares, with a price range of $24 to $26 per share. ARK Investment Management, led by Cathie Wood, has expressed its intention to purchase up to $150 million worth of Circle's shares in the IPO.
In this offering, Circle will put up 9.6 million shares, while the remaining 14.4 million shares will be sold by existing shareholders. These include venture capital firms Accel and General Catalyst, who have decided to sell their shares.
Circle, established in 2013, is the primary operator of the stablecoin USDC. According to CoinGecko, a crypto market tracking platform, USDC has a market capitalization exceeding $60 billion.
Related articles
Stablecoin firm Circle targets $6.71B valuation in New York IPO
Nexo announces U.S. return at event with Donald Trump Jr
Are altcoins stuck in crypto winter for longer?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Why Trump's unpredictable tariffs are so devastating for small businesses
Small U.S. businesses that trade with China have over the years been largely overlooked, including by Presidents Biden and Trump, Congress and the media. Additional tariffs up to 135 percent on goods imported from China pose an existential threat to these businesses, which sustain jobs and pay taxes in every state in the country. It's time to recognize these businesses' contributions and take steps to save them and others engaged in this trade. Most disheartening for these folks is that when they attempt to educate their congressional representatives they are lectured about how bad China is, about how most of the tariffs have been reduced to 30 percent for 90 days, and about how they will be made whole when President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is passed with tax relief for all. In fact, none of these things will help these businesses avoid disaster. However, they did receive a temporary reprieve this week when a specialized court in New York ruled that many of the tariffs are illegal, suspending their imposition. And even then, hours later, an appeals court overruled the lower court, allowing the tariffs to continue — for now. Some of the plaintiffs in the cases are small, owner-operated businesses that claim the president lacks authority to impose such sweeping, draconian policies without the consent of Congress. The administration will appeal any ruling that suspends tariffs, creating yet more uncertainty for companies engaged in international trade. The effect of U.S. trade policy on small businesses is often illogical. Two examples are illustrative. The first: A family business in Minnesota makes loudspeakers, employing older workers who are probably not employable elsewhere in the local economy. The owner imports parts from China, but most of the product's value is local. The tariffs he pays substantially increase his customers' prices. Meanwhile, loudspeakers from a competitor in Asia can be imported at a much lower tariff rate, effectively making his product uncompetitive. He has applied for an exemption from the tariffs based on unfair and illogical treatment, but the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has not budged. A second example: A small business makes leather furniture in North Carolina. The leather is sourced from a supplier in China that is willing to do the dirty work of dealing with animal hides and has the skill to cut the material to exacting specifications. None of this work is done in the U.S., nor is it likely to be done here in the future. There is no one to protect in the U.S., no jobs to be lost to cheaper foreign workers. The blunt instrument tariffs are increased by a ridiculous amount one day, only to be slashed the next. Sure, lower is better, but even at 30 percentm prices will increase, and business will suffer and may disappear. The business owner has been to Capitol Hill for a hearing but never got to read his statement. He is his own lobbyist because he can't afford to pay for one. He feels powerless and angry — at Trump and Biden, at Democrats and Republicans. Americans who import goods from China are damaged by such one-size-fits-all tariffs. Many of the imports are consumer products with Made in China labels, but there are other small companies that import intermediate goods and combine them with U.S intellectual property, and items manufactured here that form final goods sold in the U.S., other international markets and sometimes back to China. These U.S. micro multinationals are important innovators and local job creators. But mindless, excessive tariffs put them at grave risk. Then there are small businesses that sell American food and other products to Chinese buyers. They sell pig sperm, fresh fruit, candy, ice cream, hydraulic fluid for wind turbines, high-end cuts of beef, used commercial aircraft parts, wine, seatbelts and many other things. Their existence is threatened by high retaliatory tariffs on the Chinese side, cutting them off from a market of over a billion consumers, negating what in many cases has been years of developing relationships and creating supply chains even while other Americans gave up on China as too complicated or politically toxic. The people-to-people diplomacy through business can often be more meaningful than the rare phone calls between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping. What to do? Start by acknowledging the economic contributions made by small businesses. Of the estimated 2.6 million jobs dependent on China trade, many are generated by entrepreneurial small firms. For every direct job created, others are generated to support the imports and exports. Elected officials need to listen and thoughtfully respond to their small-business constituents. They must recognize the contradiction of praising the importance of the almost mythical small businessperson while ignoring their pleas for tariff exemptions and other assistance. Then tell Trump's Department of Government Efficiency to leave alone any government programs that help small businesses engage in international trade, such as the Small Business Administration, the Export-Import Bank and the International Trade Administration of the Commerce Department. Businesses involved in trade tend to be more profitable, grow faster and fail less frequently — that is, unless their government pulls the rug out from under them. Douglas Barry teaches at The George Washington University and is the author of 'Smart Rabbits: Small American Businesspeople, Trade Wars and the Future of the U.S.-China Relationship.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans eye changes to Trump's megabill after House win
House Republicans eked out a win in May with their advancement of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," filled with negotiations and compromises on thorny policy issues that barely passed muster in the lower chamber. Next week, Senate Republicans will get their turn to parse through the colossal package and are eying changes that could be a hard sell for House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who can only afford to lose three votes. Inside The Late-night Drama That Led To Trump's Tax Bill Passing By 1 Vote Congressional Republicans are in a dead sprint to get the megabill — filled with Trump's policy desires on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt — onto the president's desk by early July. Trump has thrown his support behind the current product, but said during a press conference in the Oval Office on Friday that he expected the package to be "jiggered around a little bit." "It's going to be negotiated with the Senate, with the House, but the end result is it extends the Trump tax cuts," he said. Read On The Fox News App "If it doesn't get approved, you'll have a 68% tax increase," the president continued. "You're going to go up 68%. That's a number that nobody has ever heard of before. You'll have a massive tax increase." Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has an identical margin to Johnson, and will need to cultivate support from a Senate GOP that wants to put its own fingerprints on the bill. Senators have signaled they'd like to make changes to a litany of House proposals, including reforms to Medicaid and the timeline for phasing out green energy tax credits, among others, and have grumbled about the hike to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap pushed for by moderate House Republicans. Scoop: House Gop Memo Highlights Republican Wins In Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Thune said many Republicans are largely in favor of the tax portion of the bill, which seeks to make Trump's first-term tax policy permanent, and particularly the tax policies that are "stimulative, that are pro-growth, that will create greater growth in the economy." Much of the debate, and prospective tweaks, from the upper chamber would likely focus on whether the House's offering has deep enough spending cuts, he said. "When it comes to the spending side of the equation, this is a unique moment in time and in history where we have the House and the Senate and the White House and an opportunity to do something meaningful about controlled government spending," Thune said. The House package set a benchmark of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. Some in the Senate GOP would like to see that number cranked up marginally to at least $2 trillion, largely because the tax portion of the package is expected to add nearly $4 trillion to the deficit, according to recent findings from the Joint Committee on Taxation. "There's just so many great things in this bill," Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., told Fox News Digital. "The only thing I would like to do is try to cut the spending, and I would love to take a little bit from a lot of places, rather than a lot from just one place." Speaker Johnson Clashes With Rand Paul Over 'Wimpy' Spending Cuts In Trump's Bill Others, like Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., want to see the cuts in the package return to pre-pandemic spending levels, which would amount to roughly a $6 trillion slash in spending. Johnson has remained unflinching in his opposition to the current bill, and warned that "no amount of pressure" from Trump could change his mind. "President Trump made a bunch of promises," Johnson said at an event in Wisconsin on Wednesday. "My promise has been, consistently, we have to stop mortgaging our children's future. OK, so I think there are enough [Republicans] to slow this process down until the president, our leadership, gets serious about returning to a pre-pandemic level." Others are concerned over the proposed slashes to Medicaid spending, which congressional Republicans have largely pitched as reform efforts designed to root out waste, fraud and abuse in the program used by millions of Americans. The House package would see a roughly $700 billion cut from the program, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and some Senate Republicans have signaled that they wouldn't support the changes if benefits were cut for their constituents. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., warned in an op-ed for The New York Times last month that cutting benefits was "both morally wrong and politically suicidal." Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, raised concerns about what proposed cuts to the program would do to rural hospitals in her state. "I cannot support proposals that would create more duress for our hospitals and providers that are already teetering on the edge of insolvency," she article source: Senate Republicans eye changes to Trump's megabill after House win
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Kevin Hassett 'very, very confident' courts will back Trump's tariffs amid legal setback
White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett says he remains "very, very confident" that courts will support President Donald Trump's tariff agenda. Hassett made the statement during a Sunday morning appearance on ABC's "This Week," telling host George Stephanopoulos that the White House still expects "Plan A" to work out. "And so we're very thrilled. We are very confident that the judges would uphold this law. And so I think that that's Plan A, and we're very, very confident that Plan A is all we're ever going to need," Hassett said. "But if, for some reason, some judge were to say that it's not a national emergency when more Americans die from fentanyl than have ever died in all American wars combined, that's not an emergency that the president has authority over – if that ludicrous statement is made by a judge somewhere, then we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make American trade fair again," he added. Hassett's appearance comes after a federal court struck down Trump's tariffs in a ruling last week, only for an appeals court to issue a temporary stay protecting the tariffs during litigation. The appeals court ruling paused a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), thus allowing Trump to continue to enact the 10% baseline tariff and the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" that he announced April 2 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The CIT had ruled unanimously to block the tariffs the day before. Members of the three-judge panel who were appointed by Trump, former President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, ruled unanimously that Trump had overstepped his authority under IEEPA. They noted that, as commander in chief, Trump does not have "unbounded authority" to impose tariffs under the emergency law. For now, the burden of proof shifts to the government, which must convince the court it will suffer "irreparable harm" if the injunction remains in place, a high legal standard the Trump administration must meet.
