Hilbert Group CEO says ‘de-dollarization' is crypto's opportunity
Barnali Biswal, CEO of Hilbert Group, believes the global pivot away from the U.S. dollar could usher in a defining moment for crypto — even as short-term volatility grips traditional and digital markets.
As U.S. markets continue to process the economic uncertainty triggered by President Trump's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs, crypto experts are watching macro signals closely.
On the latest episode of Deribit's Crypto Options Unplugged podcast with Imran Lekha, Hilbert Group CEO Barnali Biswal said that while the policy noise is rattling short-term price action, it might actually be laying the groundwork for a more favorable long-term environment for crypto.
'Structurally, everyone feels at a very, very good place in crypto market in general,' said Biswal. But when it comes to traditional risk assets, 'there is clear weight due to the uncertainty — that policy uncertainty.'
Hilbert Group is a Swedish investment company specializing in quantitative, algorithmic trading strategies within digital asset markets. Founded in 2018, the firm focuses on leveraging statistical characteristics of cryptocurrencies, such as volatility and decorrelation, to inform its trading algorithms.
She pointed to a more fundamental shift behind the volatility: the potential rise of a 'multipolar world' and the slow erosion of the U.S. dollar's dominance. 'We are shifting substantially into a multipolar world where there could be a period of de-dollarization,' Biswal noted. 'That's a pretty significant change, and markets will take some time to adjust to that new normal.'
While crypto markets may be experiencing short-term dips, Biswal sees increasing adoption, evolving regulations, and macro headwinds as strong tailwinds for the digital asset space in the medium to long term.
David Brickell, Head of International Distribution at FRNT Financial, echoed this, pointing out that current stagflation fears — slower growth alongside persistent inflation — are weighing heavily on risk assets. 'It's the worst scenario for risk,' he said, noting Friday's stronger-than-expected PCE inflation data paired with weaker spending and consumer sentiment.
As for whether this marks a turning point, Brickell added, 'We're in this slowing, not collapsing, growth environment.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Advertisement Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. Advertisement 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' Advertisement In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Advertisement Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Advertisement Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.'
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
US goods import drop by a record 20% in April
US goods imports fell 20% in April, a record drop reported by the US Census Bureau, coming off of President Trump's April 8 "Liberation Day" tariffs. Yahoo Finance senior columnist Rick Newman discusses supply chain shocks and whether Elon Musk can rally opposition to Trump's "Big, Beautiful" tax and spending bill. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime here. US goods imports plummeted in April, falling by 20% from the prior month. The numbers giving some startling insights into the challenges everyday shoppers may be facing over the next few months. For more on the looming import shortage, let's welcome in Yahoo Finance's Rick Newman for this week's rendition of Trumpnomics. So, Rick, what do we learn from those numbers? Hey, guys. Uh, you know, most people pay no attention to import data, export data. I do. Uh, and, uh, it's pretty startling when you see the biggest drop month to month in imports on record, in data that goes back to 1992. We know why that is, because, uh, companies do not want to import, uh, stuff from other countries with the Trump tariffs in place. So, a lot of companies that import stuff, there's big companies like Walmart, Walmart, and a bunch of very small businesses. Um, a lot of them are just waiting. They they think maybe Trump will make some of these trade deals, and the current tariff rates will go lower. And if they can get pay a lower tax in the future, uh, they'd rather do that. Others, we know they are actually paying the higher tariffs because, uh, tariff revenue actually went up, even though imports went down in April and May. This is all coming to a store near you sometime soon. I mean, these are not these seem like abstract numbers, but this is telling you that the amount of stuff coming into the United States is declining. Uh, I've been talking to some economists and other analysts who are likening this to the early days of the Covid pandemic in 2020, when there were, uh, huge disruptions in supply chains. I mean, think back to what that was like. We had some product shortages on store shelves. After a while, we saw a lot of big price increases. Now, that is not baked in yet. Um, if Trump relents on, uh, his tariffs, then maybe we it won't be quite that bad. But if things stay like they are, we're going to start to see COVID style shortages and price hikes within one, two, or three months. Rick, switching gears, I have a different question for you, which is, I am curious whether you think the Trump Musk bromance breakup could impact Trump's budget bill. And here I have a note from Brian Gardner, very smart strategist over at Stifel. Here was his take, Rick. Here's what he told his clients, speaking of the bromance breakup. Brian says, unlikely to result in meaningful changes to the One Big Beautiful Bill. He says that does not mean that some Senate Republicans won't try to reduce spending by more than what the House proposed, but Musk's sway among Republican voters, he says, is limited. It's unlikely that he'll be able to influence a legislative process that has already moved well down the tracks. You agree with Brian, Rick? Disagree? What do you say? Man, I was wondering what your out of left field question was going to be, and I'm like, Musk, Musk, Musk, it's got to be Musk, I guess, right. Um, I think it depends what happens next. I think it depends how hard Elon Musk wants to go after this bill. And you have to keep in mind that, um, Musk does not need to persuade five or 10 or 20% of Republican voters that this bill stinks. I mean, most most Americans are not paying attention to this bill. They'll they'll, you know, figure out what's in it after it passes. What who Musk is talking to is a small number of conservatives in the House and Senate, um, who who don't like the bill. They do not almost none of them want to be the lone Republican who goes up against Trump and bucks his legislation, uh, and might bring down the whole bill. But if Musk gives them top cover, maybe something will happen. So, I think, you know, having tweeted about this bill a few times in the last week, that's not enough. If he really wants to go to the mat and kill this thing, um, he's going to have to keep at it. He's going to have to start talking to people in Congress, um, and and and see what kind of, uh, muscle twisting he can really do. Um, now we do we know where this is headed? I think we have no idea. He is completely unpredictable. Um, he's created a firestorm here. Is he just going to retreat? I think he's going to continue to agitate. I just don't know if it's going to be enough to make a difference. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump sends Bessent and Lutnick to haggle with Chinese on tariff war after Xi chat
Three members of Donald Trump's cabinet will meet with Chinese officials in London on Monday in an effort to deescalate or resolve the unprovoked trade war which Trump started with Beijing two months ago. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was 'pleased to announce' that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Lutnick would travel to London along with U.S. Trade Representative Jameson Greer for a sit-down with 'Representatives of China, with reference to the Trade Deal.' He added: 'The meeting should go very well. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' The president's announcement of yet more trade talks between Washington and Beijing comes just a day after a 90-minute phone call with Chinese president Xi Jinping, which Trump described as a 'very good' discussion of 'some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal.' A day earlier, he had complained that Xi was 'VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH' in a separate Truth Social post which was made as he was reportedly pushing for a leader-to-leader call with his Chinese counterpart. Last month, Trump cut the tariffs he'd imposed on Chinese imports from a whopping 154 percent to 30 percent after Bessent and Greer met with Chinese negotiators in Switzerland to deescalate the trade war the president had kicked off on April 2, the day he declared 'Liberation Day' to mark his decision to unilaterally tax American imports of goods from nearly every nation on earth. Trump and other administration officials have been frustrated by what they describe as China's failure to relax restrictions on the export of rare earth metals, which are used in manufacturing for advanced electric motors and other electronic products, including those with military applications, while China's government has bristled at a recent decision by the U.S. to impose export controls that will prevent American companies from selling Chinese buyers software used for semiconductor design, and by plans announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to to 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students' who are studying in the U.S. The meeting between American and Chinese negotiators will take place amid continued uncertainty as to the viability of Trump's expansive use of tariffs as a Swiss Army knife-type policy instrument under emergency powers he has claimed using a decades-old law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Last month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that President Donald Trump 'exceeded his authority' when he imposed his so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs on April 2. The court also struck down the tariffs Trump imposed on Mexican, Canadian and Chinese imports with the stated aim of combatting fentanyl and drug trafficking from those countries. That decision was put on hold by an appeals court while arguments play out in the case, but Trump and his allies are making plans to use other, more well-defined authorities to continue his use of import taxes as a way of driving manufacturing to return to American shores after decades of globalization and integration of supply chains. White House officials have been plumbing the depths of the U.S. legal code to find ways to get around judicial orders and carry out the president's plans despite the rulings of what they call have labeled the 'rogue judges' that have repeatedly ruled against Trump. Trump and his advisers are understood to be looking at invoking a never-before-used section of the 1974 Trade Act known as Section 122, which allows for a 15-percent tariff to be placed on imports for up to 150 days, in order to deal with trade imbalances with other countries. During that period, the White House would then start the process to impose alternative tariffs on individual countries' exports under Section 301 of the same 1974 law. Trump used Section 301 on multiple occasions during his first term to impose tariffs on some Chinese steel and aluminum imports, but using that authority takes time because it requires a notice-and-comment period. It's unclear whether the White House will seek to employ either of those alternate strategies while the case against Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs proceeds. Doing so might be seen by the appeals court — or the Supreme Court — as a concession that the Court for International Trade's decision was, in fact, correct. More follows...
