Democratic Senator Adam Schiff introduced the Curbing Officials’ Income and Nondisclosure (COIN) Act, aimed at prohibiting the U.S. President, Vice President, their immediate families, and other high-ranking officials from engaging in cryptocurrency-related activities, including issuing, sponsoring, or endorsing digital assets like cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, NFTs, or memecoins.
The bill also mandates disclosure of digital asset sales exceeding $1,000 and imposes penalties, including fines and up to five years in prison for violations. It includes a 180-day buffer period before taking office and extends two years after leaving office. The legislation, co-sponsored by nine Senate Democrats, is seen as a response to concerns over President Donald Trump’s crypto ventures, notably his involvement with World Liberty Financial, which launched the USD1 stablecoin and reportedly earned him $57.35 million in 2024.
Critics, including Schiff, argue it addresses ethical and legal concerns over potential conflicts of interest, though the bill’s passage is unlikely in a Republican-controlled Congress. The COIN Act aims to prevent the President, Vice President, and their immediate families from leveraging their positions for personal gain through cryptocurrency ventures. By banning involvement in issuing, sponsoring, or endorsing digital assets, it seeks to address potential conflicts of interest, particularly in light of high-profile cases like President Trump’s involvement with World Liberty Financial.
Mandating disclosure of digital asset sales over $1,000 and imposing penalties (fines or up to five years in prison) reinforces transparency and accountability for high-ranking officials. The act could deter political figures from engaging with the crypto sector, potentially stifling innovation or mainstream adoption driven by influential endorsements. Critics might argue it unfairly targets a specific industry, as similar restrictions don’t explicitly apply to other financial sectors like stocks or real estate.
However, proponents see it as a safeguard against unregulated or speculative crypto ventures exploiting political power, which could stabilize public trust in both governance and digital assets. With a Republican-controlled Congress, the bill’s passage is unlikely, as it may be perceived as targeting Trump and his allies, who have embraced crypto-friendly policies. The act’s fate hinges on bipartisan support, which seems improbable given the polarized political climate.
If passed, enforcement would face challenges, such as defining “endorsement” or tracking crypto transactions, especially with decentralized platforms. The 180-day pre-office and two-year post-office restrictions aim to prevent officials from setting up or benefiting from crypto ventures tied to their tenure. This could set a precedent for broader financial conflict-of-interest laws but may also discourage politically connected individuals from entering the crypto space.
Democrats led by Senator Schiff, supporters frame the COIN Act as a necessary check on ethical breaches, citing Trump’s crypto earnings ($57.35 million in 2024) as evidence of potential abuse. They argue it protects democratic integrity by ensuring officials prioritize public interest over personal profit. Republicans many view the act as a politically motivated attack on Trump, who has positioned himself as a crypto advocate. They argue it unfairly singles out digital assets while ignoring other financial conflicts and could hinder economic innovation.
Some may see it as government overreach into private financial activities. The crypto community, particularly Trump-aligned groups, may oppose the bill, viewing it as anti-innovation or an attempt to suppress a sector gaining traction. They argue political involvement in crypto can legitimize and drive adoption, as seen with Trump’s World Liberty Financial. Those wary of crypto’s volatility and lack of regulation support the act, believing it prevents officials from exploiting an opaque market. They point to past crypto scandals as justification for stricter oversight of political involvement.
Supporters prioritize governance and transparency, arguing that unchecked crypto ventures by officials could erode trust in institutions or lead to market manipulation. Opponents, including libertarian-leaning groups, see the act as infringing on personal financial freedom and unfairly targeting a decentralized industry that challenges traditional financial systems.
The COIN Act highlights a broader tension between regulating emerging technologies and preserving political accountability. Its implications could reshape how public officials engage with crypto, but its divisive nature — politically, ideologically, and within the crypto community — makes consensus difficult. The debate underscores competing visions of governance, innovation, and ethical standards in a rapidly evolving financial landscape.
