Trump has sent bitcoin soaring. Is it the right time to invest?
The dinner raises the prospect of a revival of campaign-era promises, including looser regulatory oversight and broader support for digital assets.
With many attendees likely to be prominent crypto advocates, there is a credible possibility that Trump could use the platform to signal a renewed pro-crypto stance. Should that materialise, it could provide a stronger foundation for bitcoin's current rally.
Another notable undercurrent supporting bitcoin's price action is the accelerating de-dollarisation trend. In April, bitcoin appeared to benefit from capital rotation associated with 'sell-America' positioning and growing scepticism around US monetary dominance.
While still in early stages, this narrative is gaining traction among investors seeking neutral assets in an increasingly fragmented global system. Bitcoin's finite supply, global accessibility, and resistance to centralised control make it uniquely suited to ride this wave of monetary realignment.
These bullish catalysts are being reflected in capital flows. Global bitcoin ETFs saw $US2.9 billion in new flows in April, a stark reversal from February and March when more than $US5 billion in total was pulled from the space.
Australian bitcoin ETFs have also attracted $148 million in inflows so far this year – more than double the $68 million recorded over the same period last year. But unlike the US, Australian investors have been consistent net buyers of bitcoin ETFs throughout 2025. In April, local bitcoin ETFs saw $20.5 million in new flows, up sharply from $6.9 million in March 2025.
Loading
So, should investors be rushing to buy bitcoin? Is it truly 'headed for the moon', as crypto enthusiasts often claim? Well, as always with crypto, there are still meaningful risks to consider.
Regulatory inconsistency remains a major challenge, with policy frameworks fragmented across jurisdictions and subject to sudden change. Political reversals are also a persistent risk, particularly as digital assets re-enter the spotlight.
On the market side, bitcoin's correlation with risk assets – especially technology and growth stocks – means it remains sensitive to shifts in investor sentiment. In a low-growth, high-volatility environment, or if central banks turn more hawkish in response to tariff-driven inflation, bitcoin could come under renewed pressure.
But that being said, given the strength of the above catalysts, we do think the potential for bitcoin to achieve a higher price has become more evident.
In terms of price targets, we believe bitcoin could reach somewhere between $US150,000 to $US200,000 by the year's end – assuming all key catalysts align, i.e. positive political engagement, institutional rotation, and a favourable macroeconomic environment.
Ultimately, while investing in cryptocurrencies will always carry a degree of intrinsic risk, we believe bitcoin presents a diversification opportunity – particularly for Australian investors not yet exposed to the asset class.
And for those unfamiliar with the complexities of crypto exchanges and decentralised finance, bitcoin ETFs offer a straightforward, regulated entry point, removing the technical barriers associated with managing digital wallets and private keys.
Investors can also access bitcoin exposure through the same online brokerage platforms they use for equities and traditional ETFs, making it easy to integrate digital assets into an existing portfolio.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Tax on superannuation robs retirees of self-respect by turning them into wards of state, a ploy straight out of the socialist playbook
If you earn more than $350 a week and are not yet old enough for retirement, you are classified as a "taxable person" by the Australian government. The income tax the Australian Taxation Office claws from your pay packet provides services for non-taxable citizens, be they young, old, poor or infirm. The social compact, in which the nation insures its citizens against misfortune, works well as long as the number of net-contributors and net-recipients remains in balance. Yet the inescapable fact is that the number of taxpayers relative to the number of non-taxpayers will shrink over the next half century as Australians grow older and fewer future taxpayers are born. The old-age dependency ratio, which measures the number of people aged 65 and over for every 100 working-age people, is expected to increase from 26.6 per cent to 38.2 per cent by 2062. This explains why Jim Chalmers is looking to retirement savings rather than income, as he seeks ways to increase government revenue. The $4.4 trillion we have collectively invested in superannuation is too tempting to resist. The government's plan to extract money from superannuation savings by taxing unrealised gains on investments is partly born out of desperation and partly because taxing and spending are what socialist governments like to do. The $3 million threshold will fool few. The Treasurer's refusal to link it to inflation means it will eventually apply to most superannuation savers. Like all forms of taxation, it will transfer wealth from private citizens to the public purse, where it will be spent on the whim of politicians and bureaucrats rather than at the discretion of individuals. Taxing people's retirement savings is particularly egregious. Thrifty individuals who forgo spending during their working years to provide for the necessities of old age should be given every incentive to do so. Every self-funded retiree is one less recipient of public pensions. Those who accumulate enough capital are more likely to maintain their private health insurance payments and enjoy the added comforts of private aged care homes. A tax incentive for working-age individuals to save reduces the burden on future generations of taxpayers. When the government pockets that tax, it improves the books in the short term but creates a long-term public liability. The costs quickly add up. The nominal lifetime cost of paying the average pension is $430,000 for men and $550,000 for women. When you add to that the average cost of public health in retirement ($140,000 for men, $180,000 for women) and aged care, the case for allowing people to look after themselves becomes clear. Yet the explicit assumption in Treasury's forecasts is that an expanded welfare state will provide those things. Treasury's 2023 Intergenerational Report (IGR) frames the ageing population as an inevitable fiscal and economic burden — a "challenge" that will strain public finances, depress productivity, and expand the cost of government services. In the Treasury's perverse logic, the absence of tax on superannuation savings is branded as an expenditure. Yet, if we follow this twisted line of thinking and assume that refraining from taxing superannuation is a cost to the state, it must be set against the money the government will save on pension spending. As the report concedes, while the cost of public pensions is expected to increase by an average of 1.4 per cent of GDP in most OECD countries by the middle of the century, in Australia, it will decrease from 2.3 per cent of GDP in 2022-23 to two per cent in 2062-63. For this, we must thank the Hawke and Keating Labour governments, who had the foresight to use both carrots and sticks to encourage workers to save for retirement. Today, 44 per cent of retirees claim the full government pension, while 25 per cent are self-funded. By 2063, however, those figures are expected to be reversed, as 43 per cent of retirees will be fully self-funded, and only 21 per cent will rely on the state, according to the IGR forecast. The report misses a fundamental opportunity: to recognise older Australians not as dependants but as contributors. From the outset, the report assumes that an ageing population means fewer workers, slower economic growth, and ballooning government expenditure on health, aged care and pensions. It tells us, for example, that government payments for health, aged care, and the NDIS will rise from 6.2 per cent to 10.7 per cent of GDP over the next 40 years. It forecasts the need to double the size of the care workforce, funded primarily through public outlays. It fails to explore how those costs might be reduced, or at least better managed, with the right incentives to encourage personal responsibility. It ignores the potential for Australians of independent means to contribute more directly to their own health and aged care costs if given the freedom and incentive to do so. There is no meaningful discussion of co-contribution models, private health strategies, or reforms that might allow wealthier retirees to opt out of publicly funded care in favour of private arrangements. If government policy continues to penalise thrift and reward dependency, we should not be surprised that more Australians turn to the public purse. The government appears to accept the rise in state dependency as a given. The old are to be cared for, not empowered. Indeed, this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if the government discourages people from saving for retirement. It presents us with a fatalistic vision of a dystopian welfare state, the kind of future Robert Menzies railed against in 1942 Forgotten People radio talk, a world in which an all-powerful State "will nurse us and rear us and maintain us and pension us and bury us". Menzies's objection to the dependency-driven welfare state was not primarily fiscal or even against the evils of big government. It was that it robbed individuals of the dignity that comes from paying their way in life and the freedom to strive for something better. 'If the motto is to be 'Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you will die, and if it chances you don't die, the State will look after you; but if you don't eat, drink and be merry and save, we shall take your savings from you', then the whole business of life would become foundation-less,' he said. If today's Liberal leaders remain true to the principles of their intellectual founder, they will oppose Chalmers' superannuation tax unconditionally. Taxing paper profits that may never be realised is fundamentally unfair. Nick Cater is a senior fellow at Menzies Research Centre and a regular contributor to Sky News Australia
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Australians curb their enthusiasm for US holidays
Flight Centre chief executive Graham Turner said business travel to the US was holding up, but fewer Australians were booking holidays there. 'Certainly compared to the pre-Trump era, everything that we see … is the leisure market in particular is down. There's no doubt that April and May have been down,' Turner said. 'US carriers have increased their capacity [to Australia] over the last six to 12 months, and there's no doubt they'll be suffering a bit. 'There's been cheaper airfares through sales and there will be [more] over the next few months unless things dramatically improve.' More than a million Australians visited the US last year. The country's latest official figures show 291,230 Australians visited the US from January to April, down 0.2 per cent on the same period last year. In April, Australian visitor numbers to the US grew 1 per cent year-on-year to 89,363. Meanwhile, 83,460 Americans arrived in Australia this March, making the US the second-largest source of visitors behind New Zealand. Australia's favourite destinations over the same period were New Zealand, Indonesia and Japan. Mitchell said young people most affected by the cost of living were choosing cheaper destinations such as Latin America or Asia, instead. He said the April slump in the Australian dollar sparked by Trump's tariff wars had 'spooked a lot of people' from booking trips to the US. 'The feedback we're getting is the US is an expensive destination to go to, with the service taxes and the tipping. And I think that word of mouth has honestly been getting around for a while now,' Mitchell said. He said even those who could afford to visit the US were cutting back on costs. 'I don't think it's stopping some people from going there, but it probably does change how they travel a bit. They might not go for 2½, three weeks; they might go for two weeks. They might not go five-star, they might go four-star or three-star,' he said. Qantas, which operates about 40 return flights a week between Australia and the US, said demand for US travel was holding up locally. Chief executive Vanessa Hudson recently said the airline was feeling optimistic about demand for the US, and 'business-purpose travel and business travel in premium cabins remains strong'. The airline said this year's sale for flights to the US had outperformed similar sales last year. Loading Michael Feller, an ex-diplomat and foreign policy adviser, said the second Trump presidency had caused enormous damage to US soft power and prestige. But he said it was difficult to trace that into consumer behaviour beyond unique cases like Canada. 'Boycotts are really tricky,' said Feller, who is now chief strategist at Geopolitical Strategy, which provides advice to companies around the world. 'US products are ubiquitous. And when you consume a quintessential US product like Coke, it's manufactured and bottled in Australia. And then there are other quintessential products like iPhones, which are manufactured and assembled in China. So, it's hard to disentangle 'Brand US'.' Despite gloom over Trump's trade wars, Feller said there were two silver linings for Australia. Loading 'The Australian consumer will probably benefit from Trump's trade wars insofar as cheap Chinese goods will be dumped on our shores, leading to lower costs,' he said. 'And if Trump cracks down on international students, those students will presumably look to a country like ours to study.'
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
‘Losses will continue to mount': Bank staff's security warnings before massive scam cost customers millions
Similar warnings were made repeatedly in the years to come, according to the ASIC statement of claim filed to the federal court. '[C]urrently, HSBC do not have the capability to stop an online transfer of funds from one bank account to another,' said another presentation given in October 2022 to HSBC's Australian wealth and personal banking fraud steering committee. By July 2023, the court documents show that Matthew Hannan, HSBC Australia's head of fraud management, was making a 'special' presentation about an 'HSBC impersonation scam' in which he had said that 50 customers had lost money in the emerging scam, sometimes after receiving text messages that tricked them into sharing personal information. In September the same year, a slide pack for an HSBC Australia committee meeting discussing impersonation scams said that 'current limitations on desktop banking monitoring and real-time interception are impacting our ability to disrupt and prevent these attacks'. ASIC alleges that HSBC Australia didn't implement adequate real-time fraud payment monitoring, including capabilities to detect and block suspicious activity, across both mobile and online banking until about May 2024, at the tail end of the swindle. The corporate regulator also highlighted other alleged security deficiencies, claiming HSBC did not implement a digital fraud behavioral biometric system called BioCatch, and digital fraud device identification capabilities, via ThreatMetrix, for online banking until June 2024. In January 2022, the minutes of one of the bank's fraud steering committee meetings noted that 'losses resulting from these scam cases and determinations would likely have been avoided with BioCatch/ThreatMetrix implementation for transactional monitoring'. In December 2023, as the reports from the impersonation scam mounted, another internal presentation warned that until these systems were implemented for online banking, the fraud team 'cannot disrupt scams, and losses will continue to mount'. HSBC Australia customers lost $18 million via impersonation scams in the 2023 financial year, and $24 million in the first nine months of 2024, according to court documents. About 950 reports of unauthorised transactions were made to HSBC Australia between January 2020 to August last year. HSBC was due to file its defence in the case early last month, but failed to do so. At a hearing in May, Justice Elizabeth Bennett ordered the bank to provide a written explanation of their non-compliance. A solicitor acting for HSBC Australia earlier submitted that the bank had identified inaccuracies in data presented to the court that it needed to correct before it would be appropriate to file its defence. Asked about the repeated internal warnings of the bank's inability to halt suspicious transactions highlighted in ASIC's statement of claim, an HSBC spokesperson replied, 'as the matter is before the court, we are unable to comment'.
