Opinion by: Genny Ngai and Will Roth of Morrison Cohen LLP

Since taking office, the Trump administration has designated several drug and violent cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). US President Donald Trump has also called for the “total elimination” of these cartels and the like. These executive directives are not good developments for the cryptocurrency industry. On their face, these mandates appear focused only on criminal cartels. Make no mistake: These executive actions will cause unforeseen collateral damage to the digital asset community. Crypto actors, including software developers and investors, may very well get caught in the crosshairs of aggressive anti-terrorism prosecutions and follow-on civil lawsuits.

Increased threat of criminal anti-terrorism investigations 

The biggest threat stemming from Trump’s executive order on cartels is the Department of Justice (DOJ). Almost immediately after President Trump called for the designation of cartels as terrorists, the DOJ issued a memo directing federal prosecutors to use “the most serious and broad charges,” including anti-terrorism charges, against cartels and transnational criminal organizations.

This is a new and serious development for prosecutors. Now that cartels are designated as terrorist organizations, prosecutors can go beyond the traditional drug and money-laundering statutes and rely on criminal anti-terrorism statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2339B — the material-support statute — to investigate cartels and anyone who they believe “knowingly provides material support or resources” to the designated cartels. 

Why should the crypto industry be concerned with these developments? Because “material support or resources” is not just limited to providing physical weapons to terrorists. “Material support or resources” is broadly defined as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” Anyone who knowingly provides anything of value to a designated cartel could now conceivably violate § 2339B. 

Even though cryptocurrency platforms are not financial institutions and never take custody of users’ assets, aggressive prosecutors may take the hardline view that software developers who design crypto platforms — and those who fund these protocols — are providing “material support or resources” to terrorists and launch harmful investigations against them.

This is not some abstract possibility. The government has already demonstrated a willingness to take this aggressive position against the crypto industry. For example, the DOJ indicted the developers of the blockchain-based software protocol Tornado Cash on money laundering and sanction charges and accused them of operating a large-scale money laundering operation that laundered at least $1 billion in criminal proceeds for cybercriminals, including a sanctioned North Korean hacking group.

Recent: Crypto crime in 2024 likely exceeded $51B, far higher than reported: Chainalysis

Moreover, the government already believes that cartels use cryptocurrency to launder drug proceeds and has brought numerous cases charging individuals for laundering drug proceeds through cryptocurrency on behalf of Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. TRM Labs, a blockchain intelligence company that helps detect crypto crime, has even identified how the Sinaloa drug cartel — a recently designated FTO/SDGT — has used cryptocurrency platforms to launder drug proceeds.

The digital asset community faces real risks here. Putting aside the reputational damage and costs that come from defending criminal anti-terrorism investigations, violations of § 2339B impose a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years (or life if a death occurred) and monetary penalties. Anti-terrorism statutes also have extraterritorial reach, so crypto companies outside the US are not immune to investigation or prosecution.

Civil anti-terrorism lawsuits will escalate 

The designation of cartels as FTOs/SDGTs will also increase the rate at which crypto companies will be sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). Under the ATA, private citizens, or their representatives, can sue terrorists for their injuries, and anyone “who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.” 

Aggressive plaintiffs’ counsel have already relied on the ATA to sue cryptocurrency companies in court. After Binance and its founder pled guilty to criminal charges in late 2023, US victims of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack in Israel sued Binance and its founder under the ATA, alleging that the defendants knowingly provided a “mechanism for Hamas and other terrorist groups to raise funds and transact illicit business in support of terrorist activities” and that Binance processed nearly $60 million in crypto transactions for these terrorists. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part. For now, the district court permits the Ranaan plaintiffs to proceed against Binance with their aiding-and-abetting theory. Crypto companies should expect to see more ATA lawsuits now that drug cartels are on the official terrorist list. 

Vigilance is key 

Crypto companies may think that Trump’s war against cartels has nothing to do with them. The reality is, however, that the effects of this war will be widespread, and crypto companies may be unwittingly drawn into the crossfire. Now is not the time for the digital asset community to relax internal compliance measures. With anti-terrorism statutes in play, crypto companies must ensure that transactions with all FTOs/SDGTs are identified and blocked, monitor for new terrorist designations, and understand areas of new geographical risks.

Opinion by: Genny Ngai and Will Roth of Morrison Cohen LLP.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

On March 19, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse announced that the company had been cleared by the US Securities and Exchange Commission regarding an alleged $1.3 billion unregistered securities offering. Following the news, XRP (XRP) surged to $2.59, but the gains gradually faded as the cryptocurrency experienced a 22% correction, dropping to $2.02 by March 31.

Investors worry that a deeper price correction is imminent, as XRP is trading 39% below its all-time high of $3.40 from Jan. 16. Additionally, XRP perpetual futures (inverse swaps) indicate strong demand for leveraged bearish bets. 

Demand for bearish bets increased amid XRP’s decline

The funding rate turns positive when longs (buyers) seek more leverage and negative when demand for shorts (sellers) dominates. In neutral markets, it typically fluctuates between 0.1% and 0.3% per seven days to offset exchange risks and capital costs. Conversely, negative funding rates are considered strong bearish signals.

XRP futures 8-hour funding rate. Source: Laevitas.ch

Currently, the XRP funding rate stands at -0.14% per eight hours, translating to a 0.3% weekly cost. This indicates that bearish traders are paying for leverage, reflecting weak investor confidence in XRP. However, traders should also assess XRP margin demand to determine whether the bearish sentiment extends beyond futures markets.

Unlike derivative contracts, which always require both a buyer and a seller, margin markets let traders borrow stablecoins to buy spot XRP. Likewise, bearish traders can borrow XRP to open short positions, anticipating a price drop.

XRP margin long-to-short ratio at OKX. Source: OKX

The XRP long-to-short margin ratio at OKX stands at 2x in favor of longs (buyers), near its lowest level in over six months. Historically, extreme confidence has pushed this metric above 40x, while readings below 5x favoring longs are typically seen as bearish signals.

President Trump boosted XRP awareness, paving the way for future price gains

Both XRP derivatives and margin markets signal bearish momentum, even as the cryptocurrency gains mainstream media attention. Notably, on March 2, US President Donald Trump mentioned XRP, along with Solana (SOL) and Cardano (ADA), as potential candidates for the country’s digital asset strategic reserves.

Google search trends for XRP and BTC. Source: GoogleTrends / Cointelegraph

For a brief period, Google search trends for XRP outpaced those of BTC between March 2 and March 3. A similar spike occurred on March 19 following Ripple CEO Garlinghouse’s comments on the anticipated SEC ruling. As the third-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization (excluding stablecoins), XRP benefits from its early adoption and high liquidity.

Related: Is XRP price around $2 an opportunity or the bull market’s end? Analysts weigh in

Interactive Brokers, a global traditional finance brokerage, announced on March 26 its expansion of cryptocurrency offerings to include SOL, ADA, XRP, and Dogecoin (DOGE). Since 2021, the platform has supported trading in Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), Litecoin (LTC), and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) pairs.

The wider adoption by traditional intermediaries, combined with rising Google search trends, further reinforces XRP’s position as a leading altcoin. It also sets the stage for increased inflows once macroeconomic conditions improve and retail investors actively seek altcoins with strong marketing appeal as alternatives to traditional finance, such as Ripple.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

The US dollar could lose its status as the world’s reserve currency to Bitcoin or other digital assets if the United States does not get its debt under control, according to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.

Fink wrote in his Annual Chairman’s Letter to Investors that “decentralized finance is an extraordinary innovation” that makes “markets faster, cheaper, and more transparent.” But “that same innovation could undermine America’s economic advantage if investors begin seeing Bitcoin as a safer bet than the dollar.”

According to Trading Economics, the US debt equaled 122.3% of the country’s gross domestic product in 2023. That is a considerably higher percentage than the 105% observed in 2018. Moody’s Ratings retains the US’s AAA credit rating but has downgraded its outlook to negative, indicating a possible future rating downgrade.

The US’s Joint Economic Committee wrote that as of March 5, the country’s gross national debt was $36.2 trillion, growing $1.8 trillion, or roughly $4.9 billion per day, over the past year and $12.8 trillion in the past five years. The Bipartisan Policy Center warned this month that the US could default on its debt as early as July 2025.

Bitcoin (BTC) has been branded as a safe haven for investors who are looking to avoid the perils of fiat currency, including inflation. Some believe that the end of the debt ceiling suspension could lead to a Bitcoin price boom. Others think, as Fink has stated, that the dangers of the national debt could increase Bitcoin adoption.

Related: Bitcoin reserve won’t solve US debt crisis: Think tank co-founder

In 2025, cryptocurrency has gained prominence as an asset class due to adoption by countries such as the US and companies like Strategy. However, some argue that stablecoins could, in fact, increase the dominance of the US dollar.

Fink: Tokenization is democratization

In the letter, Fink says that “tokenization is democratization” with the technological innovation “enabling instant buying, selling, and transferring without cumbersome paperwork or waiting periods.”

If every asset ends up being tokenized, Fink said, “it will revolutionize investing. Markets wouldn’t need to close. Transactions that currently take days would clear in seconds. And billions of dollars currently immobilized by settlement delays could be reinvested immediately back into the economy, generating more growth.”

Related: Centralization and the dark side of asset tokenization — MEXC exec

Tokenization democratizes access, shareholder voting, and yield, Fink wrote. According to RWA.xyz, the tokenized real-world assets market amounts to $19.6 billion. There are currently around 93,000 asset holders, with 174 issuers. Industry projections indicate that the market could reach $4 trillion to $30 trillion by 2030.

BlackRock’s own BUIDL real-world tokenized asset fund is currently the largest such fund available for trading, with Tether Gold and Franklin Templeton’s BENJI funds coming in second and third place, respectively.

Magazine: Tokenizing music royalties as NFTs could help the next Taylor Swift