Bitcoin continues to gain support from major companies that have recently unveiled plans of accepting bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as payment forms. Yet concerns on how the U.S. Treasury Department plans to regulate the use of cryptocurrencies still loom as potential factor that could affect the benefits of using crypto money for online transactions.
Prior to President Biden’s assumption of office, the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement (FinCen) put forward a proposed rule to the Treasury Department. The FinCen rule recommends requiring all businesses handling money services to collect information about the identity of their respective customers. The proposed rule, specifically mention the inclusion of cryptocurrency exchange operators, for which the collection of information will also include those pertaining to other individuals with whom their customers transacted using the ewallet of the cryptocurrency exchange site. .
Moreover, the proposed rule published in December by the U.S. FinCen, require licensed businesses to maintain a record of all cryptocurrency transactions amounting to more than $3,000; as well as submit a report of the record to the government, if the a specific transaction involves a transfer of $10,000 worth of cryptocurrency.
While the rule has not yet been adopted, the possibility that stipulations cited will be enforced by the Treasury Department now headed by Biden’s appointee, Janet Yellen. Although Ms. Yellen conveyed in the Senate Appointment Committee that she is open to the regulated use of cryptocurrency, she made it clear that intends to curtail the use of cryptocurrency in the country. Many believe that is is unlikely that the new Treasury Secretary will scrap the proposed rule, but instead, will support its enforcement.
The pronouncement of course validated the concerns over the potential regulation of cryptocurrency in the U.S.
Atty. Marta Belcher, a special counsel for the non-profit digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the FinCen Ruling, will make it difficult for people who use self-hosted wallet to remain anonymous when transacting with cryptocurrency users who use traditional storage or exchange services.
Atty Belcher asserted that the most important advantage of using cryptocurrency is the ability to keep one’s identity protected via secrecy part of cryptocurrency, from a civil liberties perspective, is the ability to transact anonymously online. FinCen’s proposed ruling will take away the ability to maintain privacy protections, particularly the secrecy of the cash being imported it into the online world.
Many cryptocurrency miners initially thought that FinCen’s latest ruling will not affect their crypto currency mining operations in light of an earlier ruling that FinCen issued in 2014. The said ruling excluded cryptocurrency miners from being recognized as Money Service Businesses. The 2014 ruling was mainly based on the premise that their mining activities are mainly for their personal use and not for purposes of trading crypto money to other users or potential investors.
While cryptocurrency miners keep their rewards stored in their self-hosted wallets in order to maintain anonymity, It became apparent that the new FinCen ruling will affect their ability to use such rewards without having to reveal their identity and that of the users who will receive their mined rewards.
Not every high-net-worth individuals (HNWI) and ultra-high-net individuals (UHNI) have similar approach towards their money. But how do HNWIs and UHNIs differ? The former are those with a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, whereas the latter have a net worth of $30 million and over. By simply looking at the numbers, you would be able to get a good picture.

While it is a wonderful blessing to have such kind of wealth, this goes along with great responsibility as wealth needs to be handled the right way in order to maintain it as well as allow it to continue growing. This is why HNWIs and UHNIs need wealth management. As the wealth of HNWIs and UHNIs grow over time, their financial situations may turn out to be more complex and where certain factors threaten their wealth, such as inflation and estate taxes. With a professional wealth manager, they can greatly help in navigating through those issues as well as getting around some of these serious financial drawbacks.
Wealth management offered by wealth management firms such as pillar wm is purposely designed to help out HNWIs or UHNIs clients to continuously grow the wealth that they already have earned, protect their assets as well as lessen their financial risks. It is a kind of financial advising that goes beyond looking for and selecting investments. It combines a set of financial services so as to meet the requirements of their clients.
Wealth managers of these wealth management firms are more than financial advisors as they are able to offer counsel on an extensive scope of financial situations and issues that are unique to clients who are handling assets that are worth millions of dollars. Among the services that wealth management firms like pillar wm offer are:

In terms of managing finances that’s worth millions, doing it alone could be overwhelming and daunting as you make an attempt to formulate an effective strategy. If you decide to get help from experts, make certain you seek advice from the right professional wealth managers, such as pillar wm.
Wealth managers are simply a subclass of financial advisors. However, they primarily cater to high-net-worth individuals and ultra-high-net-worth individuals. Hence, they have the knowledge and skills to help clients to manage their enormous amounts of wealth. Their services are more personalized since they need to match the needs as well as the financial goals of their clients. Wealth managers are quite hands-on as well as comprehensive in the services they provide their clients. HNW and UHNW clients work with one wealth manager or advisor for all their financial requirements and goals. Hence, the services that wealth managers provide will vary.
In a recent CBS interview, Pres. Biden disclosed that the provision aiming to raise federal minimum wage to $15 could be excluded from the $1.9 relief package. Nonetheless, the President added that he would be urging Congress to pass a separate bill that will see to the promised $15 per hour minimum wage increase. He believes that it isn’t right for workers to still live below poverty wage while working more than 40 hours a week.
As President Biden promised, he and his Democratic allies in Congress will obtain the $1.9 trillion relief package, even without the support of Republican lawmakers. They did so through a congressional process known as reconciliation procedure. However, based on the rules of reconciliation, only legislation that impacts the federal budget will be passed in the final bill.
That being the case, the bill passed under reconciliation procedure Includes items like the $170 billion allocated for college institutions and K-12 schools. There is also a $30 billion allocation to provide citizens with assistance in the settlement of unpaid household expenses like utilities and rent.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders who is now the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee said he is still exerting effort, and looking for ways of including the minimum $15/hour minimum wage hike in the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill. According to the Vermont Senator, he is counting on a team of lawyers to make a case of citing the minimum wage hike as having important budget implications in accordance with the reconciliation rules.
While we often read news of civic groups taking legal action, they do so only if they have financial support to see the case throughout the entire process. Generally, settling a dispute in court is regarded as the most effective way of resolving issues. However, due to the litigation costs involved, it is not alway the most cost-efficient method.
Legal advisers recommend going to court especially on meritorious cases, such as seeking to recover costs incurred as a result of personal injury or damage done to one’s property, or even to one’s reputation. Mainly because filing a lawsuit is one way of forcing the offending party to agree to a settlement even before the case is heard in court.
Inasmuch as the financial costs of litigation can be extremely expensive, most defendants often see the practicality of settling the matter extra-judicially, or out of court, and agree to a settlement. That way, they can avoid incurring additional litigation costs that could go on for an extended period of time. After all, it is common for legal proceedings to drag on for years before the presiding judge issues a ruling to resolve a dispute.
.On the other hand, there are cases where plaintiffs become financially disadvantaged; losing financial means to pursue legal actions while awaiting a court decision. A defendant who is aware of a plaintiff’s financial handicap could leverage such situations as a way to reduce or avoid payment of the amount being claimed as settlement, by allowing the case to continue in court.
One solution to such a predicament is to seek a reliable pre settlement funding company, preferably from among those reputed to offer the best lawsuit funding loans in terms of equitability. Availing a pre settlement lawsuit loan is the most likely solution because banks and other credit institutions do not extend loans for such purposes.
Inasmuch as this type of lending is not regulated, it’s a must to carefully compare the terms and conditions, especially the interest rates applied on the amount extended as pre settlement lawsuit loan.
Just to be clear, know that a pre settlement lawsuit loan is generally regarded as an investment on the part of the pre settlement lending firm. The latter will agree to providing a lawsuit loan only if a legal case has been filed, and if the results of their assessment indicate that the plaintiff has great chances of being awarded the amount being claimed as settlement.
Usually, the agreement is for the lawsuit loan borrower to pay the lending firm the principal amount plus interests and a funding fee based on the proceeds of the amount received as extra-judicial settlement, or as awarded by the court. However, if the court hands down a ruling that will not result in the awarding of a settlement, the lawsuit tending company cannot collect from the plaintiff.
Even if President-elect Joe Biden officially assumes office as POTUS, the trade war started by Donald Trump vs. China is not likely to end all too quickly. .
While President-elect Joe Biden has plans of improving diplomatic relationships with China, economists and trade experts believe that the new POTUS will still use the U.S. tariffs imposed by Trump as leverage. Although China had responded by suspending imports coming from the U.S., the 10% tariff on the $300 billion worth of goods, will still come in useful as a bargaining tool to gain concessions from China.
Charles Skuba, a former senior official of the U.S. International Trade Administration (ITA) and a professor at Georgetown University opines that it would be impractical for the new POTUS to immediately make tariff reductions, as he could use them in negotiating trade deals with China.
Since Trump failed to recognize that the tariff increases imposed on Chinese imports adversely impact U.S. businesses that rely on raw materials imported from China, Biden as the new President could be confronted with calls to reduce, if not roll back the tariffs to the original rates. While President Biden can use them as bargaining tools, China’s retaliatory action of limiting its importation of U.S. agricultural products will likewise serve as an important tool for the Chinese government’s trade negotiations.
In the meantime, American exporters, particularly the U.S. farmers will continue to suffer greatly from the lack of export trade. Not unless, the new POTUS can secure trade deals with other countries not only to make up for the lost Chinese revenues, but also to sustainably revitalize the country’s flailing agricultural industry.
While Trump had insisted that China will bear the costs of the raised tariffs,his rhetorics and trade negotiating strategies failed to achieve the goal of reducing the trade deficits that persistently affected the country’s performance in international global trades. In fact the U.S.’ overall trade deficit went on a rise as Trump had also alienated some European governments by imposing similar tariff increases.
Moreover, under the Trump administration, several American companies moved their production facilities in other countries like Mexico and Vietnam, as a way to avoid paying the tariffs imposed on raw materials imported from China. .