Goldman Sachs, Nicki Minaj, and CZ Walk Into Mar-a-Lago: Inside Crypto's Most Surreal Power Summit

crypto_chris · February 23, 2026, 5:45pm

The Scene That Broke My Brain

So let me get this straight. On February 18, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, Binance founder CZ (back on US soil for the first time since his prison release in 2024), FIFA president Gianni Infantino, Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman, rapper Nicki Minaj, and about 300 other “global leaders” all walked into Mar-a-Lago for a crypto conference hosted by… the Trump family’s DeFi project.

If you wrote this as a movie script five years ago, every studio in Hollywood would have passed on it for being too unrealistic. Yet here we are.

What Actually Happened

World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s crypto venture co-led by Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., hosted their inaugural “World Liberty Forum” at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday. The invite-only gathering was billed as a discussion about the future of finance and digital assets. The speaker lineup read like someone shuffled cards from Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Washington DC, and a VIP club section:

David Solomon (Goldman Sachs CEO) – The man who once called Bitcoin a “speculative investment” as recently as July 2024 now admits he personally holds Bitcoin and said that codifying a “rule-based system” for crypto is “very, very important.” Goldman held roughly $2.36 billion in crypto ETFs by end of 2025, including new positions in XRP and Solana ETFs. That’s one hell of a pivot.
Changpeng Zhao (CZ) – This was his first return to the US since leaving federal prison. After receiving a presidential pardon in October 2025, CZ showed up to participate in technical panels alongside the newly appointed CFTC chairman. From federal inmate to panelist at the President’s resort. The symbolism is… something.
Gianni Infantino (FIFA President) – Because apparently every power summit needs a sports governing body represented. FIFA has been exploring blockchain for ticketing and fan engagement, so there’s at least a thread of logic here.
Nicki Minaj – She closed out the entire event as the final speaker. Half the room pulled out their phones to snap pictures. Her segment reportedly involved discussion of… clip-on nails. I wish I was making this up.
Also present: Brian Armstrong (Coinbase CEO), Jenny Johnson (Franklin Templeton CEO), Kevin O’Leary, Lynn Martin (NYSE President), CFTC Chairman Michael Selig, and a roster of elected officials.

USD1: The $5 Billion Elephant in the Room

Let’s talk about the number that actually matters from a market perspective. World Liberty Financial’s USD1 stablecoin has now crossed $5 billion in circulation, making it the fifth-largest stablecoin globally. That’s a meteoric rise from $3.5 million at launch in March 2025 to $3 billion by year-end 2025, and now $5B+ in early 2026.

The Binance partnership is the engine here – roughly 85% of USD1 circulation is held on Binance. However, Binance’s exclusion of US users creates a bizarre dynamic where the most politically connected stablecoin in America is predominantly used overseas.

USD1 is backed by US Treasuries and cash equivalents, positioning itself alongside USDT and USDC. But let’s be honest – the growth trajectory is inseparable from the political connections. When the President’s sons are running your DeFi project and regulators are attending your launch party, the “level playing field” argument gets a bit strained.

The Uncomfortable Questions

Six legal and government ethics experts who reviewed the event had sharply divergent views on the conflict-of-interest implications. Here’s what keeps me up at night as a trader:

Regulatory capture or regulatory cooperation? Having CFTC Chairman Selig on a panel at a Trump-family crypto event, alongside companies he’ll regulate, is either a sign of healthy industry dialogue or the most blatant conflict of interest in modern financial history. There’s no comfortable middle ground.
The CZ pardon pipeline. CZ went from DOJ prosecution to presidential pardon to Mar-a-Lago panelist in roughly 18 months. Binance happens to be the dominant platform for USD1. Connect whatever dots you want.
TradFi capitulation. Solomon at Goldman, Friedman at Nasdaq, Johnson at Franklin Templeton – these aren’t crypto natives “going mainstream.” These are mainstream institutions bending the knee at a political resort. The power dynamics have genuinely inverted.
USD1 peg stability. Despite the $5B milestone, USD1 slipped to $0.994 just days after the summit amid what WLFI called a “coordinated attack.” A 0.6% depeg on the most politically connected stablecoin in America should concern everyone.

My Trading Take

From a pure market structure perspective, USD1’s growth is creating real liquidity effects. If you’re running DeFi strategies, you need to factor in USD1 pairs whether you like it or not. The Binance integration means significant volume, and political backing provides a floor that pure market-driven stablecoins don’t have.

But the concentration risk is enormous – 85% on one exchange, 100% tied to one political family, and regulatory “clarity” that looks suspiciously like regulatory favoritism.

I’m long-term bearish on any asset whose value proposition is primarily political rather than technical. But in the medium term? The momentum is undeniable.

What This Means for Builders

For the BlockEden community specifically: whatever your politics, this event signals that institutional capital is no longer waiting on the sidelines. Goldman’s $2.36B in crypto ETF holdings, the national trust bank charter application for USD1, and the parade of CEOs at Mar-a-Lago all point in one direction – crypto infrastructure matters more than ever.

RPC providers, oracle networks, DeFi protocols, analytics platforms – the pipes that connect all of this are where the real value accrues. The political theater is noise. The infrastructure buildout is signal.

Curious what the community thinks. Are we watching the legitimization of crypto or its capture by the political establishment? Both? Neither?

Sources: CoinDesk, CNBC, NPR, The Block, CoinMarketCap

regulatory_rachel · February 23, 2026, 5:46pm

Chris, excellent breakdown. I was watching this event closely from a regulatory perspective and want to add some texture from the compliance side.

The Conflict-of-Interest Question Is More Nuanced Than Headlines Suggest

First, let me address the CFTC Chairman Selig appearance directly. Having worked in the SEC before transitioning to private practice, I can tell you that regulators attending industry events is not inherently problematic – it is, in fact, standard practice. The SEC, CFTC, and OCC have long traditions of their chairs speaking at banking conferences, fintech summits, and industry panels. The Davos economic forum regularly features sitting regulators alongside the firms they oversee.

What makes this different, and what the ethics experts are divided on, is the commercial entanglement. This was not a neutral industry event like Consensus or Token2049. This was a forum organized by a company in which the sitting President’s family holds direct financial interests. That is a categorically different situation from a CFTC chair keynoting at a CoinDesk conference.

Under existing federal ethics law (5 CFR 2635), government employees must avoid actions that create even the appearance of partiality. Whether Selig’s attendance crosses that line depends on factors we cannot fully evaluate from the outside – was he invited in his official capacity? Did the ethics office sign off? Was there a formal determination of no conflict? These details matter enormously in how this would be evaluated.

USD1 and the Stablecoin Legislative Landscape

The more consequential development here is the national trust bank charter application for WLTC Holdings to issue and custody USD1. This is a major strategic move.

Congress has been debating stablecoin legislation for two years now. The GENIUS Act framework, which is working its way through both chambers, would create a federal licensing regime for stablecoin issuers. If WLTC obtains a national trust bank charter before that legislation is finalized, they could potentially grandfather themselves into whatever regulatory framework emerges.

This is smart corporate strategy, but it raises questions:

Will OCC approval be influenced by political considerations? The OCC is technically independent, but the Comptroller is a presidential appointee. The optics of approving a bank charter for the President’s family crypto venture would be… challenging.
State vs. federal jurisdiction. Several states are developing their own stablecoin frameworks. A national charter would allow USD1 to preempt potentially stricter state-level requirements.
Reserve requirements. USD1 claims full backing by US Treasuries and cash equivalents. A national trust charter would subject those reserves to OCC examination. This is actually a positive development for consumer protection, assuming the examination process remains independent.

On CZ’s Pardon and Binance’s Role

The presidential pardon for CZ is legally settled – Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President nearly unlimited pardon power. But the subsequent business relationship between Binance and World Liberty Financial deserves scrutiny.

85% of USD1 circulation sitting on Binance creates a dependency that regulators should examine carefully. If Binance faces any enforcement action in other jurisdictions (and they still face open cases in several countries), that concentration could create systemic risk for USD1 holders.

For compliance professionals and builders in this community: regardless of how you feel about the politics, the practical takeaway is that stablecoin regulation is accelerating. If you’re building products that integrate stablecoins, now is the time to implement compliance-by-design rather than trying to retrofit it later.

Compliance enables innovation. That has never been truer than right now.

Disclaimer: This is commentary, not legal advice. My views do not represent any government agency.

startup_steve · February 23, 2026, 5:46pm

Great write-up Chris, and Rachel, that regulatory breakdown is the kind of clarity the rest of us desperately need. Let me bring the founder perspective here because honestly, this event left me with some complicated feelings.

The Good: Institutional Validation Is Real

Look, I’ve been pitching VCs and angels for my Web3 startup for months now. You know what the number one objection has been since 2023? “The regulatory environment is too uncertain.” When Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon stands up at a public event and says a rule-based system for crypto is “very, very important” – that is not nothing. That’s a signal that institutional money is looking for on-ramps, not exits.

Franklin Templeton’s Jenny Johnson being there is equally significant. Franklin Templeton was one of the first major asset managers to put a money market fund on-chain. These are not tourists. These are allocators managing trillions of dollars collectively, and they’re showing up at crypto events.

For founders like me trying to raise in this market, every one of these signals makes the next investor conversation slightly easier. “Goldman’s CEO says crypto regulation matters” is a data point that moves the needle with traditional LPs who have been sitting on the fence.

The Bad: We’re Building on Someone Else’s Playing Field

Here’s what bothers me as a builder though. The startup playbook says you win by building better products. The implicit message from Mar-a-Lago is that you win by having better political connections.

USD1 did not reach $5 billion because it has superior technology. It reached $5 billion because it has the President’s name attached and an 85% concentration on a single exchange whose founder just received a presidential pardon. That’s not product-market fit – that’s political-market fit.

As someone who’s been grinding on product, talking to users, iterating on feedback, and trying to build something sustainable from Austin, Texas, this creates a really weird competitive landscape. How do you compete with “the President’s stablecoin”? You don’t. You either integrate it or you route around it.

The Practical Founder Take

So here’s what I’m actually doing about it:

Treating USD1 as infrastructure, not competition. If $5B in stablecoin liquidity exists, my job as a founder is to figure out how my product can leverage that liquidity. Politics aside, money is money, and users holding USD1 need services just like users holding USDC.
Watching the national trust bank charter closely. Rachel’s point about WLTC grandfathering into future regulation is critical. If USD1 gets a banking charter and competitors don’t, that creates a regulatory moat that no amount of product excellence can overcome. This is the kind of structural risk that founders need to be planning for NOW.
Doubling down on multi-chain, multi-stablecoin architecture. If there’s one lesson from this whole saga, it’s that concentration risk is real. Building on a single stablecoin or single chain is a business risk, not just a technical one.
Focusing on what we can control. The Mar-a-Lago crowd can set the macro conditions, but they can’t build the actual products that users need. There’s a reason Goldman is attending crypto events instead of building crypto products – the innovation still comes from startups.

I was up at 5:30 this morning reading about this summit over my coffee and I kept thinking about something my dad told me when I was running my first lawn care business at 16: “You can’t control the weather, but you can sharpen your blades.” Same energy here.

The political circus is the weather. Our products are the blades. Sharpen up.

Anyone else building in this space feeling the same tension?

dao_david · February 23, 2026, 5:47pm

This thread is hitting on something that I think goes deeper than regulatory compliance or startup strategy. From a governance perspective, what happened at Mar-a-Lago represents a fundamental tension in what crypto was supposed to be.

The Governance Paradox

World Liberty Financial calls itself a “decentralised finance platform.” Let us sit with that for a moment.

A DeFi platform:

Founded by the family of a sitting US President
Whose inaugural forum required an invitation from that family
Where the guest list included the regulators who oversee the industry
Whose stablecoin is 85% concentrated on a single exchange
Whose growth is inseparable from presidential political capital

This is not decentralized finance. This is centralized finance with a DeFi label. And that distinction matters enormously for how we think about governance in this space.

I have been involved in DAO governance at MakerDAO, Compound, and several smaller experimental DAOs. The entire philosophical foundation of these systems is that no single actor – no matter how powerful – should have outsized control over the protocol. We design quadratic voting systems, implement time-locks, create multi-sig requirements, and build governance frameworks specifically to prevent the kind of concentration of power that Mar-a-Lago represents.

What CZ’s Presence Signals for Governance

CZ’s trajectory from prosecution to pardon to honored guest is not just a legal story. It is a governance story.

In the DAO world, when a major token holder or founder acts against community interests, the community has mechanisms to respond – governance proposals, delegation changes, even forking. In the political-crypto complex that is forming around World Liberty Financial, there are no such mechanisms. The governance is access to a resort in Palm Beach.

This should concern everyone who believes in the original vision of decentralized systems, regardless of political affiliation.

The Silver Lining: Institutional Interest Forces Better Governance

Steve’s point about institutional validation is well taken, and I want to build on it from the governance angle.

Goldman Sachs holding $2.36 billion in crypto ETFs, Franklin Templeton tokenizing funds, Nasdaq’s CEO showing up – these institutions bring something that crypto governance desperately needs: accountability expectations.

Institutional capital demands auditable reserves, transparent governance, clear risk frameworks, and fiduciary standards. If USD1 is going to court institutional adoption, it will eventually need to answer questions about:

Who controls the treasury?
What is the governance process for parameter changes?
How are reserves audited and by whom?
What recourse do holders have if the peg breaks?

The national trust bank charter application that Rachel mentioned would subject USD1 to OCC examination. That is a form of governance – external, regulatory governance rather than community governance, but governance nonetheless.

A Thought Experiment for This Community

Imagine if World Liberty Financial actually operated as a DAO. Imagine if the 300 attendees at Mar-a-Lago were not hand-picked guests, but token-weighted delegates. Imagine if the USD1 parameters were set by governance votes rather than executive decisions.

That world does not exist. But the gap between that world and what we saw on February 18 is precisely the gap that builders in this community should be working to close.

Decentralization is a spectrum, and right now the most visible DeFi project in the world is sitting firmly at the centralized end. The opportunity for genuine DeFi builders is to demonstrate that there is a better model – one that does not require a presidential resort and a hand-picked guest list.

Governance is a marathon, not a sprint. The Mar-a-Lago summit is one event. The systems we build will outlast any single administration.

What governance mechanisms would you want to see if USD1 were to become a genuinely community-governed stablecoin?

defi_diana · February 23, 2026, 5:47pm

Everyone has covered the politics and governance angles well, so let me bring this back to what I know best – the actual DeFi mechanics and what this means for yield strategies and protocol design.

USD1 On-Chain Reality Check

I have been tracking USD1 flows since it launched in March 2025, and the on-chain data tells a very different story than the headlines.

Chris mentioned the 85% Binance concentration, but let me add some numbers that matter for DeFi practitioners:

On-chain DEX liquidity for USD1 is thin. Despite $5B in total circulation, the actual on-chain liquidity across Uniswap, Curve, and PancakeSwap pools is a fraction of what USDC or USDT have. Most of the volume is centralized exchange activity.
The depeg to $0.994 this week was partly a liquidity issue. When on-chain redemption mechanisms are limited and 85% of supply sits on one CEX, even moderate selling pressure on DEXs can move the price. This is a structural vulnerability, not a “coordinated attack” as WLFI claimed.
The lending platform they launched in January 2026 is still early. I looked at the smart contracts – the TVL is growing but the utilization rates suggest the borrowing demand for USD1 specifically is still nascent compared to USDC lending markets.

What This Means for Yield Farmers and DeFi Builders

Here is my practical assessment for anyone running yield strategies:

Opportunities:

USD1/USDC and USD1/USDT pools on DEXs are offering elevated LP yields precisely because the liquidity is thin. If you understand the depeg risk and size your positions accordingly, there are real returns here. I have seen 8-15% APY on some Curve pools, which is significantly above USDC/USDT pair yields.
The WLFI lending platform is offering promotional rates to bootstrap liquidity. If you are comfortable with smart contract risk on a relatively new platform, the early depositor yields are attractive.
Arbitrage between USD1 on Binance vs on-chain DEX pricing has been consistently profitable during volatility events. The depeg this week created a classic arb opportunity.

Risks (and these are significant):

Smart contract risk. The WLFI lending contracts have not been through the same battle-testing that Aave or Compound have had over years. I reviewed the audit reports and they are adequate but not exceptional.
Regulatory risk as a DeFi primitive. If USD1 faces any regulatory challenge – and given the political controversy, this is not zero probability – protocols that deeply integrate USD1 could face collateral damage. MakerDAO learned this lesson with USDC during the banking crisis.
Oracle reliability. USD1 price feeds are less widely supported than USDC or USDT across major oracle networks. If you are building anything that depends on accurate USD1 pricing, verify your oracle sources carefully.
Counterparty concentration. David’s governance points apply directly here. The reserve management is opaque compared to Circle’s monthly attestations for USDC. The national trust bank charter application could improve transparency, but until that is approved, you are trusting the Trump family’s DeFi project to properly manage $5B in reserves.

My Actual Position

I will be transparent about what I am doing with my own capital: I am running a small USD1/USDC LP position on Curve to capture the elevated yields, but it is sized at less than 5% of my DeFi portfolio. I have take-profit and depeg-alert automations set up through BlockEden’s RPC endpoints monitoring the pool ratios. If the pool imbalance exceeds 5%, I auto-exit.

For my YieldMax Protocol users, I am not recommending USD1 integration yet. The risk-reward does not justify it for retail users who may not understand the political and concentration risks. We will revisit when the bank charter situation is resolved and on-chain liquidity deepens.

The Bigger DeFi Picture

Steve said something that resonated with me – that this is about political-market fit rather than product-market fit. From a protocol design perspective, that is actually fine as long as builders account for it.

Every stablecoin has a trust model:

USDT: trust Tether’s reserves and management
USDC: trust Circle’s compliance and attestations
DAI: trust MakerDAO’s governance and collateral model
USD1: trust the Trump family’s political capital and Binance’s distribution

None of these are fully trustless. The question for DeFi architects is: which trust assumptions are you comfortable embedding in your protocol?

For me, the answer right now is cautious exposure with tight risk management. The yields are real, but so are the tail risks. Build accordingly.