UAE fund buys $100 million of Trump's World Liberty tokens
LONDON :A United Arab Emirates-based fund has bought $100 million worth of digital tokens issued by World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture of U.S. President Donald Trump's family, becoming its largest publicly known investor.
Aqua 1 Foundation said in a statement on Thursday its purchase of the tokens, known as $WLFI, sought to speed up the creation of a "blockchain-powered financial ecosystem" with stablecoins and tokenised traditional assets at its heart.
A spokesperson for World Liberty confirmed the investment to Reuters.
A so-called governance token, $WLFI cannot be traded but gives holders the right to vote on changes to the business' underlying code. World Liberty said this week it was "working behind the scenes" to make the token transferable.
"WLFI and Aqua 1 will jointly identify and nurture high-potential blockchain projects together," Aqua 1 founding partner Dave Lee said in the statement. The fund's investment and compliance teams would help World Liberty expand in South America, Europe and Asia, it added.
Despite its investment, Aqua 1 maintains a minimal online presence. Its X account has only three posts and approximately 1,120 followers while its website was created on May 28, according to data from two web domain trackers.
World Liberty also plans to support the launch of a separate Aqua 1 fund aimed at boosting the "digital economy transformation" in the Middle East through blockchain and artificial intelligence, the statement said.
Aqua 1 did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and the World Liberty spokesperson had no further immediate comment.
Launched two months before the 2024 U.S. presidential election by Trump and his business partners, World Liberty has yielded hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the Republican president's family business.
World Liberty has drawn criticism from Democratic lawmakers and government ethics watchdogs over potential conflicts of interest. The Trump Organization has said the president's investments, assets and business interests are held in a trust managed by his children.
World Liberty aims to open access to financial services via digital tokens, without intermediaries such as banks.
It has launched a stablecoin called USD1 that was bolstered in May when an Abu Dhabi investment firm chose it for a $2 billion investment in giant crypto exchange Binance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo set to sign peace agreement in Washington
FILE PHOTO: A Congolese civilian pushes a Tshukudu (a wooden bike used for transporting goods) as they flee near the Congolese border with Rwanda after fightings broke out in Kibumba, outside Goma in the North Kivu province of the Democratic Republic of Congo May 24, 2022. REUTERS/Djaffar Sabiti/File photo WASHINGTON/PARIS/DAKAR - Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo are set to sign a U.S.-brokered peace agreement in Washington on Friday, raising hopes for an end to years of fighting that has displaced hundreds of thousands of people. The agreement marks a breakthrough in talks held by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, which aim to end the violence and bring billions of dollars of Western investment to the region, which is rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium and other minerals. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will host the Rwandan and Congolese foreign ministers at the Department of State for a signing ceremony on Friday afternoon, according to the State Department schedule. The ministers are set to meet with President Trump at the White House after the ceremony. A source familiar with the matter said another agreement on a regional economic integration framework - part of a push to bring Western investment to the region - would be signed by the heads of state at a separate White House event at an unspecified time. There is an understanding that progress in ongoing talks in Doha - a separate but parallel mediation effort with delegations from the Congolese government and the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group - is essential before the signing of the economic framework, the source said. Technical experts from the two countries initialed the draft peace agreement last week, saying it addressed issues related to territorial integrity, "a prohibition of hostilities" and the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups. It also referred to a mechanism agreed as part of an earlier Angolan-backed peace effort to monitor and verify the withdrawal of Rwandan soldiers within three months. Congolese military operations targeting the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Congo-based armed group that includes remnants of Rwanda's former army and militias that carried out the 1994 genocide, were to conclude over the same timeframe. Reuters reported on Thursday that Congolese negotiators had dropped a demand that Rwandan troops immediately leave eastern Congo, paving the way for the two longtime foes to sign the agreement on Friday. Rwanda has sent at least 7,000 soldiers over the border, according to analysts and diplomats, in support of the M23 rebels, who seized eastern Congo's two largest cities and lucrative mining areas in a lightning advance earlier this year. Congo says Rwanda is supporting M23 by sending troops and arms. Rwanda has long denied helping M23, saying its forces are acting in self-defence against Congo's army and ethnic Hutu militiamen linked to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Sources told Reuters earlier this month that Washington was pushing for Rwanda to withdraw its troops before the deal's signing, a pre-condition that was also included in a U.S.-prepared draft authenticated by diplomats. But that timeline was certain to face resistance from Rwanda. Kigali considers Congo-based armed groups an existential threat, particularly the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR). REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
Dollar weakest since 2021 against euro as Fed rate cuts bets rise
NEW YORK :The dollar hit a fresh three-and-a-half-year low against the euro on Friday as traders bet that the Federal Reserve will cut rates more times and possibly sooner than previously expected as some U.S. data points to a weakening economy. A report on Friday showed that U.S. consumer spending unexpectedly fell in May as the boost from the pre-emptive buying of goods like motor vehicles ahead of tariffs faded, while monthly inflation increases remained moderate. A weekly jobs report on Thursday showed that continuing unemployment claims rose to the highest level since November 2021 while gross domestic product figures for the first quarter reflected a sharp downgrade to consumer spending. 'Some of the data that we've had has not been particularly good over the last few days,' said Lou Brien, strategist at DRW Trading in Chicago. Fed Chair Jerome Powell's testimony to U.S. Congress this week was interpreted as dovish after he noted that rate cuts are likely if inflation doesn't increase this summer as he expects. Reports that U.S. President Donald Trump could also appoint a replacement for Powell in the coming months have added to dollar weakness. The new Fed chair is expected to be more dovish and an early appointment could undermine Powell's influence by acting as a shadow chair before Powell's term ends in May. Trump has not decided on Powell's replacement and a decision isn't imminent, a person familiar with the White House's deliberations said on Thursday. The dollar index fell 0.15 per cent to 97.23 while the euro was last up 0.21 per cent to $1.1723. The single currency reached $1.1754, the highest since September 2021. The euro got a small uplift after data showed French consumer prices rose more than expected in June, while Spain's 12-month EU-harmonised inflation also inched higher. Fed rate cuts would reduce the interest rate advantage of the dollar relative to peers. Traders are pricing in 65 basis points of cuts by year end, up from 46 basis points a week ago. The long-term outlook for the dollar is also seen as challenging as foreign investors reevaluate the 'American exceptionalism' that has drawn investment to the country. Brien said that the impact of the Biden administration's policies was also still weighing on the currency. Former President Joe Biden cut off Russia's access to the U.S. dollar, froze its assets and imposed sanctions following the country's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which analysts say led other countries to accelerate shifts away from U.S. dollar reliance. 'The Biden administration weaponized the dollar as it really had not been weaponized before,' Brien said. 'That aspect of it is still in the back of people's heads.' Against the Japanese yen, the dollar strengthened 0.19 per cent to 144.65. Core consumer inflation in Japan's capital slowed sharply in June due to temporary cuts to utility bills but stayed well above the central bank's 2 per cent target, keeping alive market expectations for further interest rate hikes. In cryptocurrencies, bitcoin fell 1.13 per cent to $106,594.
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
US Supreme Court limits power of judges to block Trump's birthright citizenship order
WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday (Jun 27) to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The court ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of their injunctions and specified that Trump's order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal", injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. Federal judges have taken steps, including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861 to 1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside". The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. In a Jun 11 to 12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24 per cent of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52 per cent opposed it. Among Democrats, 5 per cent supported ending it, with 84 per cent opposed. Among Republicans, 43 per cent supported ending it, with 24 per cent opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harm they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. US Solicitor General D John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors". An 1898 US Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v Wong Kim Ark has long been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States". Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy.
