Author

admin

Browsing

A total of 22 mRNA vaccine development contracts totaling roughly $500 million have been canceled, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced Tuesday.

The mRNA investments were part of the government’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a division of HHS that drives some of the country’s most advanced scientific research, such as the development of vaccines, drugs and other tools to fight national health threats. The termination of the 22 BARDA contracts follows a several-weeks-long internal review to determine a path forward when it comes to these investments.

‘We reviewed the science, listened to the experts, and acted,’ HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Tuesday. ‘BARDA is terminating 22 mRNA vaccine development investments because the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu. We’re shifting that funding toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate.’

In a short video explaining the move, Kennedy said the benefits simply do not outweigh the risks associated with mRNA vaccines. 

Kennedy went on to point out that not only do mRNA vaccines – as shown during the COVID-19 pandemic – not perform well against viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract, but they also do not defend against mutations of the viruses they are intended to go after.

‘This dynamic drives a phenomena called anogenic shift, meaning that the vaccine paradoxically encourages new mutations and can actually prolong pandemics as the virus constantly mutates to escape the protective effects of the vaccine,’ Kennedy said in the video.

For example, the HHS secretary pointed to the omicron variant of the COVID-19 virus, which infected many millions, including those who had been vaccinated against COVID. 

‘A single mutation can make mRNA vaccines ineffective,’ Kebbedy added, noting that the same risks also apply to the flu virus. 

The move to cancel the mRNA contracts under BARDA will not entirely cancel all mRNA vaccine research done by the government, a source familiar with the move indicated. In addition to allowing some final-stage contracts to run their course to completion in an effort to preserve prior taxpayer investments, ongoing mRNA research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will not be impacted by this latest move. 

Meanwhile, in lieu of the terminated mRNA research and investments at BARDA, HHS will focus on ‘safer, broader vaccine strategies,’ Kennedy indicated.

‘To replace the troubled mRNA programs, we’re prioritizing the development of safer, broader vaccine strategies like whole virus vaccines and novel platforms that don’t collapse when viruses mutate,’ Kennedy said in his video explanation about the terminated mRNA investments.

During the video, Kennedy reiterated his support for ‘safe, effective vaccines’ for any American who wants them.

‘That’s why we’re moving beyond the limitations of mRNA for respiratory viruses and investing in better solutions.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

On Monday, Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered former President Jair Bolsonaro to be placed under house arrest amid ongoing legal proceedings over his alleged attempt to overturn the 2022 presidential election results.

The case has gripped the nation since its inception in 2023 and has intensified international scrutiny, especially as it unfolds under the authority of a Supreme Court justice recently sanctioned by the Trump administration in the United States.

Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is overseeing the case, accused Bolsonaro, 70, of violating court-imposed restrictions.

According to the ruling, first reported by the Associated Press, Bolsonaro used a Sunday protest in Rio de Janeiro to publicly address supporters using a cellphone owned by one of his three sons, all of whom are lawmakers.

Bolsonaro’s brief message, ‘Good afternoon, Copacabana, good afternoon my Brazil, a hug to everyone, this is for our freedom,’ was deemed a violation of his release conditions.

Bolsonaro’s legal team announced plans to appeal, arguing that the statement was symbolic, not criminal, and did not justify additional restrictions.

Mounting International Fallout

The political stakes have now extended well beyond Brazil. The case triggered backlash from President Trump, a longtime Bolsonaro ally, who tied newly imposed U.S. tariffs on Brazilian imports to what he called an ongoing ‘witch hunt.’ His remarks have further strained the already delicate diplomatic relationship between the two nations.

In a pointed statement on X, the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs condemned the Brazilian court’s actions, writing: ‘Putting even more restrictions on Jair Bolsonaro’s ability to defend himself in public is not a public service. Let Bolsonaro speak!’

The bureau also warned that individuals involved in what it described as ‘sanctioned behavior’ would be held accountable.

The statement marked a sharp escalation, particularly as it followed closely on the heels of sanctions imposed by the U.S. Treasury Department, under Trump’s administration, against Justice de Moraes. He was designated a ‘U.S.-sanctioned human rights abuser’ and accused of weaponizing the judiciary to silence political opponents.

The Basis for Sanctions

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent accused de Moraes of leading an unlawful crackdown:

‘Alexandre de Moraes has taken it upon himself to be judge and jury in an unlawful witch hunt against U.S. and Brazilian citizens and companies. He is responsible for an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions, and politicized prosecutions—including those against former President Jair Bolsonaro,’ Bessent said.

These sanctions were imposed under Executive Order 13818, issued during Trump’s first term in 2017. The order declared a national emergency concerning global human rights abuses and corruption and expanded upon the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act passed in 2016. The law empowers the U.S. government to impose financial and travel sanctions on foreign officials accused of human rights violations.

Despite growing international pressure, the Brazilian government has yet to issue a formal response.

Details of the Case

Brazilian prosecutors allege that Bolsonaro led a coordinated effort to delegitimize, and ultimately overturn, the results of the 2022 election, including planning violent acts and even an alleged assassination plot targeting President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Justice de Moraes. Bolsonaro lost the election by a narrow margin.

A panel of Supreme Court justices accepted the charges in March, ultimately ordering Bolsonaro to stand trial. Monday’s house arrest ruling builds on earlier restrictions: an ankle monitor, a nighttime curfew, and a travel ban keeping the former president confined to Brasília despite his deep political roots in Rio de Janeiro.

A former army captain and deeply polarizing figure, Bolsonaro now joins a short but consequential list of former Brazilian presidents arrested since the country’s return to democracy in 1985, a system he has frequently criticized and linked to the military dictatorship he once praised.

Justice de Moraes, defending the court’s decision, wrote: ‘The judiciary will not allow itself to be mocked. Justice applies equally to everyone. A defendant who knowingly violates precautionary measures—especially for the second time—must face legal consequences.’

Fox News’ Alec Schemmel and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Stepheny Price is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business. She covers topics including missing persons, homicides, national crime cases, illegal immigration, and more. Story tips and ideas can be sent to stepheny.price@fox.com

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., is urging that President Donald Trump commute former Rep. George Santos’ seven-year sentence, calling the punishment ‘a grave injustice’ and an ‘abusive overreach by the judicial system.’

The former New York congressman was sentenced to 87 months, or just over seven years, after pleading guilty in 2024 to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Santos reported to prison on July 25 to begin serving his sentence.

Santos was assessed the maximum sentence in April by U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert. He was also ordered to pay nearly $374,000 in restitution and forfeit more than $205,000 in fraud proceeds.

Santos’ guilty plea followed an investigation into campaign finance fraud, donor identity theft and false COVID-era unemployment claims.

On Monday, Greene said in a post on X that she sent a letter to the Office of the Pardon Attorney urging Trump to commute Santos’ sentence.

‘A 7-year prison sentence for campaign-related charges is excessive, especially when Members of Congress who’ve done far worse still walk free,’ she wrote in the post. ‘George Santos has taken responsibility. He’s shown remorse. It’s time to correct this injustice. We must demand equal justice under the law!’

Greene addressed her letter to the Honorable Edward R. Martin Jr., pardon attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and she acknowledged the gravity of the actions by her former colleague.

‘As a Member of Congress, I worked with Mr. Santos on many issues and can attest to his willingness and dedication to serve the people of New York who elected him to office,’ she wrote. ‘He is sincerely remorseful and has accepted full responsibility for his actions. Furthermore, my office has spoken with a pastor of his who discussed the regret and remorse of Mr. Santos, agreeing that the sentence imposed is a grave injustice.

‘While his crimes warrant punishment, many of my colleagues who I serve with have committed far worse offenses than Mr. Santos yet have faced zero criminal charges,’ Greene continued. ‘I strongly believe in accountability for one’s actions, but I believe the sentencing of Mr. Santos is an abusive overreach by the judicial system.’

Prosecutors shared how Santos and his campaign treasurer, Nancy Marks, doctored donor reports to qualify for national Republican Party funding. They fabricated contributions from Santos’ family and falsely reported a $500,000 loan from Santos, though he had under $8,000 in his accounts.

He also stole credit card information from donors, including ‘victims he knew were elderly persons suffering from cognitive impairment or decline’ and made unauthorized charges to fund both campaign and personal expenses, according to the DOJ. Santos also used a fake political fundraising company to solicit tens of thousands of dollars, which he spent on ‘designer clothing.’

During the pandemic, Santos fraudulently claimed over $24,000 in unemployment benefits while employed at an investment firm. He also submitted false congressional financial disclosures to the House.

Santos was elected in 2022 after flipping New York’s 3rd District for the GOP. His resumé was easily debunked. He falsely claimed academic degrees, Wall Street jobs and family ties to the Holocaust and 9/11. 

He was expelled from Congress in December 2023 after a scathing ethics report, becoming just the sixth member ever removed from the People’s House.

Santos has remained publicly active after his sentencing, selling video messages on Cameo and making social media posts.

Unless pardoned, Santos is expected to remain incarcerated until at least early 2032. He has reportedly appealed to President Donald Trump for clemency. 

Greene and the White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Fox News Digital’s Jasmine Baehr contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Lockheed Martin is designing a space-based missile interceptor and aims to test the technology for potential integration into President Donald Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield within the next three years.

The defense contractor revealed this week that it hopes to test a satellite defensive weapon capable of destroying hypersonic missiles by 2028.

If successful, this would mark the first time in history the United States has deployed interceptors in space to destroy enemy missiles before they reach the homeland. Lockheed is still weighing different technologies, ranging from lasers to kinetic satellites that could maneuver and strike high-speed targets in flight.

‘We have missile warning and tracking satellites made by Lockheed Martin in orbit today that provide timely detection and warning of missile threats,’ said Amanda Pound, mission strategy and advanced capabilities director at Lockheed Martin Space, told Fox News Digital.

‘We are committed to making space-based interceptors for missile defense a reality, leveraging our decades of experience, investments, and industry partnerships, to be ready for on orbit testing in 2028.’

Lockheed’s space interceptor project directly supports Trump’s ‘Golden Dome for America’ initiative, first unveiled in May 2025. The ambitious missile defense concept calls for a global constellation of satellites armed with sensors and interceptors, designed to detect, track and eliminate advanced missile threats – including hypersonic and ballistic weapons – before they can strike U.S. soil.

The idea echoes President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative, often dubbed ‘Star Wars,’ which was dismissed at the time as science fiction. But today, the technologies once seen as far-fetched are rapidly advancing, according to defense leaders.

Gen. Michael Guetlein, appointed by the Trump administration to head Golden Dome, emphasized that key components of the system already exist, expressing confidence in achieving a test-ready platform by 2028. Still, it’s no easy feat.

‘Intercepting a missile in orbit is a pretty wicked hard problem physics‑wise,’ said Jeff Schrader, vice president of Lockheed’s space division. ‘But not impossible,’ he added, noting breakthroughs in maneuverability and guidance systems.

Analysts caution that to make the Golden Dome vision a reality, the U.S. may need to launch thousands of interceptors into orbit. Some have compared it to the Cold War–era ‘Brilliant Pebbles’ program, which proposed a similar space-based missile shield but was eventually shelved due to skyrocketing costs and technical hurdles.

Golden Dome is currently projected to cost $175 billion, with $25 billion already approved by Congress. But long-term estimates range anywhere from $161 billion to over $830 billion over two decades – raising questions about the program’s affordability and long-term sustainability.

Meanwhile, Lockheed is bolstering ground-based missile defense systems to complement the orbital layer. In March 2025, the company’s Aegis Combat System aboard the USS Pinckney successfully simulated the interception of hypersonic medium-range missiles during the FTX-40 exercise, codenamed Stellar Banshee.

The company is also advancing infrared seeker technology for interceptors, which would enhance the tracking and targeting of fast-moving missiles in their terminal phase.

Lockheed remains a central player in the Pentagon’s broader missile defense and hypersonic weapons development effort. It is the prime contractor for the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI), which is targeting an initial operating capability by the end of fiscal year 2028.

Simultaneously, the company is fulfilling Navy contracts for its Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic weapons system. Sea-based deployment of CPS is expected to begin between 2027 and 2028.

President Trump has publicly stated he wants Golden Dome operational by the end of his term. But industry officials warn that supply chain limitations and the Pentagon’s slow-moving procurement system make full deployment by 2029 unlikely.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia asserted that she is ‘radically AMERICA FIRST,’ shaming those who are not and labeling them as ‘the enemy.’

The congresswoman said that the nation is ‘falling apart.’ 

‘I’m America First. Maybe even America only. I don’t care if you call me an isolationist. America is our home. And it’s falling apart,’ she wrote on social media.

‘When my children’s generation are buried in credit card debt, student loan debt, can’t afford rent, can’t afford car insurance, health insurance, and feel like they will never be able to afford to buy a home, Yes. I’m unapologetically and radically AMERICA FIRST. AND SHAME ON EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS NOT. As a matter of fact YOU are the problem. YOU are the enemy. As a mother, I can’t see it any other way,’ she declared.

Greene has been expressing frustration with the GOP. 

‘I don’t know if the Republican Party is leaving me, or if I’m kind of not relating to Republican Party as much anymore,’ she told the Daily Mail. 

‘I think the Republican Party has turned its back on America First and the workers and just regular Americans,’ Greene said, according to the outlet.

She has served in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2021.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Wednesday marks the 80th anniversary of when the U.S. employed the first ever nuclear bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima, followed by the bombing of Nagasaki three days later on Aug. 9. But despite nearly a century of lessons learned, nuclear warfare still remains a significant threat.

‘This is the first time that the United States is facing down two nuclear peer adversaries – Russia and China,’ Rebeccah Heinrichs, nuclear expert and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, told Fox News Digital.

Heinrichs explained that not only are Moscow and Beijing continuing to develop new nuclear capabilities and delivery systems, but they are increasingly collaborating with one another in direct opposition to the West, and more pointedly, the U.S.

‘It’s a much more complex nuclear threat environment than what the United States even had to contend with during the Cold War, where we just had one nuclear peer adversary in the Soviet Union,’ she said. ‘In that regard, it’s a serious problem, especially when both China and Russia are investing in nuclear capabilities and at the same time have revanchist goals.’

Despite the known immense devastation that would accompany an atomic war between two nuclear nations, concern has been growing that the threat of nuclear war is on the rise. 

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – which collectively killed some 200,000 people, not including the dozens of thousands who later died from radiation poisoning and cancer – have been attributed with bringing an end to World War II.

But the bombs did more than end the deadliest war in human history – they forever changed military doctrine, sparked a nuclear arms race and cemented the concept of deterrence through the theory of mutually assured destruction.

Earlier this year the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved forward the ‘Doomsday Clock’ by one second – pushing it closer to ‘midnight,’ or atomic meltdown, than ever before.

In January, the board of scientists and security officials in charge of the 78-year-old clock, which is used to measure the threat level of nuclear warfare, said that moving the clock to 89 seconds to midnight ‘signals that the world is on a course of unprecedented risk, and that continuing on the current path is a form of madness.’

Despite the escalated nuclear threats coming out of North Korea, and international concern over the Iranian nuclear program, the threat level largely came down to the three biggest players in the nuclear arena: Russia, the U.S. and China.

The increased threat level was attributed to Russia’s refusal to comply with international nuclear treaties amid its continuously escalating war in Ukraine and its hostile opposition to NATO nations, as well as China’s insistence on expanding its nuclear arsenal.

But the Bulletin, which was founded by scientists on the Manhattan Project in 1945 to inform the public of the dangers of atomic warfare, also said the U.S. has a role in the increased nuclear threat level.

‘The U.S. has abdicated its role as a voice of caution. It seems inclined to expand its nuclear arsenal and adopt a posture that reinforces the belief that ‘limited’ use of nuclear weapons can be managed,’ the Bulletin said. ‘Such misplaced confidence could have us stumble into a nuclear war.’

But Heinrichs countered the ‘alarmist’ message and argued that deterrence remains a very real protectant against nuclear warfare, even as Russia increasingly threatens Western nations with atomic use.

‘I do think that it’s a serious threat. I don’t think it’s inevitable that we’re sort of staring down nuclear Armageddon,’ she said. 

Heinrichs argued the chief threat is not the number of nuclear warheads a nation possesses, but in how they threaten to employ their capabilities.

‘I think that whenever there is a threat of nuclear use, it’s because adversaries, authoritarian countries, in particular Russia, is threatening to use nuclear weapons to invade another country. And that’s where the greatest risk of deterrence failure is,’ she said. ‘It’s not because of the sheer number of nuclear weapons.’

Heinrichs said Russia is lowering the nuclear threshold by routinely threatening to employ nuclear weapons in a move to coerce Western nations to capitulate to their demands, as in the case of capturing territory in Ukraine and attempting to deny it NATO access.

Instead, she argued that the U.S. and its allies need to improve their deterrence by not only staying on top of their capabilities but expanding their nuclear reach in regions like the Indo-Pacific.

‘The answer is not to be so afraid of it or alarmed that you capitulate, because you’re only going to beget more nuclear coercion if you do that,’ she said. ‘The answer is to prudently, carefully communicate to the Russians they are not going to succeed through nuclear coercion, that the United States also has credible response options.

‘We also have nuclear weapons, and we have credible and proportional responses, and so they shouldn’t go down that path,’ Heinrichs said. ‘That’s how we maintain the nuclear peace. That’s how we deter conflict. And that’s how we ensure that a nuclear weapon is not used.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The federal government is stepping into the future and embracing artificial intelligence, specifically ChatGPT, across its agencies, which proponents say will streamline productivity while solidifying President Donald Trump’s pledge to keep the U.S. in the driver’s seat of the cutting-edge technology, Fox News Digital exclusively learned.

The U.S. General Services Administration announced Wednesday that OpenAI’s ChatGPT Enterprise is now available to all federal agencies to incorporate into their workflow at a $1 per agency cost, the GSA told Fox Digital. The deal with OpenAI, the tech company behind ChatGPT, is part of GSA’s OneGov Strategy that aims to modernize ‘how the federal government purchases goods and services’ under the Trump administration. 

‘The use of this tool has been deployed and tested with responsible policy makers, with responsible legal folks,’ GSA Federal Acquisition Service Commissioner Josh Gruenbaum told Fox News Digital of integrating AI into the federal government. ‘It’s not just auto-piloting and saying, ‘go machine’ and we just respond. … It’s automation, it’s ease of processes, but it’s also thinking about … the typical waste, fraud and abuse that we’re also focused on with this administration.’

ChatGPT is a wildly popular AI chatbot that can hold conversational discussions, provide research accompanied by citations, automate routine tasks such as data entry or file processing, summarize books or lengthy files, and even assist with brainstorming project ideas or problem-solving tasks. 

‘Open AI just announced the ChatGPT has over 700 million weekly users, so the amount of commercial adoption is quite astounding,’ OpenAI’s Joseph Larson told Fox Digital Tuesday of the partnership. ‘What we didn’t want to see was a gap between the tools available for artificial intelligence to the federal workforce, a gap between what is available in … the private sector or available to the public. So with this GSA partnership, what the administration is doing, which we believe to be in line with the AI action plan, is to make ChatGPT Enterprise, which is … the most advanced AI tools available to the entire federal government will now be available to all agencies of the federal government at the nominal cost of $1 per agency.’ 

How federal agencies employ the technology will likely range from department to department, with employees offered access ‘to a new government user community and tailored introductory training resources’ as well as ‘custom training platforms and guided learning, either directly or through partner-led sessions’ to best fit their needs. 

‘One of the best ways to make sure AI works for everyone is to put it in the hands of the people serving our country,’ OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said of the partnership in a Wednesday press release. ‘We’re proud to partner with the General Services Administration, delivering on President Trump’s AI Action Plan, to make ChatGPT available across the federal government, helping public servants deliver for the American people.’

The Trump administration rolled ut its AI Action Plan in July after Trump ordered the federal government in January to develop a plan of action for artificial intelligence in order to ‘solidify our position as the global leader in AI and secure a brighter future for all Americans.’ 

The AI Action Plan includes a three-pillar approach focused on American workers, free speech and protecting U.S.-built technologies. 

‘We want to center America’s workers, and make sure they benefit from AI,’ AI and crypto czar David Sacks told the media in July of the AI plan. 

‘The second is that we believe that AI systems should be free of ideological bias and not be designed to pursue socially engineered agendas,’ Sacks said. ‘And so we have a number of proposals there on how to make sure that AI remains truth-seeking and trustworthy. And then the third principle that cuts across the pillars is that we believe we have to prevent our advanced technologies from being misused or stolen by malicious actors. And we also have to monitor for emerging and unforeseen risks from AI.’

Gruenbaum told Fox Digital that when the GSA reviewed the administration’s AI action plan, it jumped at rolling out ‘widespread adoption’ for the government to help answer Trump’s call for the U.S. to stay on top of the artificial intelligence race on the global stage. 

‘Where we see ourselves playing, obviously, is through a lot of the Federal Acquisition Service, which is the largest procurement arm in the federal government,’ he said. ‘And as we kind of examined the President’s AI action plan, heard the call to action of, ‘Hey, this is a race, and we are going to win this race.’ From our perspective, all that meant, synonymously, was widespread adoption. Those were the words, quite frankly, that the OpenAI team used to us in our very first call. And their call to action was, ‘we need to get this into the hands of as many federal workers as possible.’ We at the GSA took that extremely seriously.’ 

‘Everything’s kind of leading to the place of having us poised for this AI revolution,’ he added. 

The Trump administration has notched massive wins in the artificial intelligence race, which has pitted the U.S. against China to develop the most high-tech artificial intelligence systems, including Oracle and OpenAI announcing in July that the companies will further develop the Stargate project, which is an effort to launch large data centers in the U.S. The two companies’ most recent announcement promises an additional 4.5 gigawatts of Stargate data center capacity, a move expected to create more than 100,000 jobs across operations, construction, and indirect roles such as manufacturing and local services.

The Stargate project includes a commitment from OpenAI, Oracle, SoftBank and MGX to invest $500 billion in U.S.-based artificial intelligence infrastructure throughout the next four years.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The gold standard. Today, the term denotes something that is the highest level of quality in its category.

Gold, with all its luster, has been sought after, fought over and prized for thousands of years. It’s been used as a sacred adornment and has projected the wealth and status of monarchs and nobility. And ever since the ancient Lydians minted the first gold coins around 550 BCE, the yellow metal has played an important role in the monetary system.

Over the millennia, gold has never lost its appeal, and by the end of the 19th century it had become a crucial component of how nations interacted with each other economically.

While it fell out of favor for fiat currencies in the middle of the 20th century, the idea that gold could once again underpin the global economy has never disappeared. So what exactly is the gold standard? What is the history the gold standard, and could it be revived again today? We explore this all below.

In this article

    What is the gold standard?

    The gold standard is a monetary system where a currency’s value is pegged directly to gold and the currency can be exchanged for gold at that ratio, giving the currency intrinsic value. For example, a country could set a standard in which $1,000 is equal to 1 ounce of gold, and citizens could then exchange their currency for physical gold.

    Some countries have also employed silver standards or double standards, which see a currency backed by either silver or by both gold and silver.

    Why did the world establish a gold standard?

    Copper, silver, gold and alloys like electrum have been the foundation of trade and currency for thousands of years, and while they each command value among investors and collectors today, their weight is a major problem.

    To deal with this, paper money in the form of promissory notes was created, with the earliest uses being little more than IOUs. It wasn’t until seventh century China that trade guilds began to issue receipts-of-deposit that eliminated the need for merchants to carry large quantities of coins for wholesale transactions.

    These notes weren’t meant for widespread use, but their development eventually led a group of merchants to create a more formal system in Szechuan in the 10th century. Each was printed using anti-counterfeiting techniques and affixed with a seal from the issuing bank. Whoever held the banknote could have it converted back into metal at any time.

    Because these notes were lighter than their metallic counterparts, they became popular among traders along the Silk Road between China and the Middle East. Eventually, the notion of printed money found its way back to Europe via travelers like Marco Polo and William of Rubruck who moved along the route in the 13th century.

    However, the concept of paper money didn’t catch on in Europe for another 400 years, when Sweden issued the first banknotes in 1661. These notes were redeemable for quantities of coins from banks, meaning that merchants no longer had to carry large amounts of copper and silver, which were heavy and easy to steal.

    Despite initial skepticism, the notes proved to be popular, and the idea spread across the continent. That said, it wasn’t entirely smooth sailing. Over time, issuers realized that not all bank notes would be redeemed, and began to print notes beyond the value of the metal they held in reserve. Sweden’s paper money quickly lost its value, and the country’s government ultimately decided to pay back and withdraw the notes in 1664.

    Outside of Sweden, a lack of regulation around who could issue notes meant that states, cities, trade organizations and anyone with a press was able to print money. As a result, counterfeits were made by unscrupulous people. This undermined confidence in paper money and contributed to high inflation rates.

    It wasn’t until England passed the Bank Charter Act of 1844 that a modern-style central bank began to appear, with strict regulations around which entities could print paper money. The act restricted commercial banks’ ability to issue notes, giving that power to the Bank of England, and required new notes issued by the Bank of England to be backed at a rate of “three pounds seventeen shillings and ninepence per ounce of standard gold.”

    Even as this world power moved toward a gold-backed system, other nations remained on bimetallic systems, setting a ratio between gold and silver to allow for interoperability that was stabilized by France. In the US, this ratio was set at 15:1 silver to gold by the Coinage Act of 1792, and was later updated to 16:1 when the act was amended in 1834.

    Interestingly, gold rushes in California in 1849 and Australia in 1851 flooded the markets with gold, causing a 30 percent increase in wholesale prices and altering the ratio between the metals in France.

    The tipping point came in 1871, when Germany, following its victory over France in the Franco-Prussian war, made the switch from a silver currency system to a currency backed solely by gold. This was considered a preemptive move to avoid being excluded from fixed-rate systems that had formed between industrialized nations.

    By 1900, gold-backed currencies had become the standard for most of the world apart from a handful of exclusions, including China and some nations in Central America.

    What are the advantages and disadvantages of the gold standard?

    In theory, the international gold standard provided an inherent mechanism for stability in the financial system, as trade imbalances would be self-correcting. This was called the price-specie flow mechanism by economist David Hume.

    To illustrate, when a country had a surplus trade balance, the gold value of trade flowing out of the country would exceed the trade value of imports. Conversely, a deficit trade balance would have the opposite effect. This would cause inflation in countries with rising money supply and deflation in countries with decreasing money supply.

    This rising and falling would subsequently cause trade with countries with high inflation to decrease due to high prices and trade with countries experiencing deflation to rise to take advantage of lower prices, bringing them back into balance.

    While the gold standard provided relative stability to the global financial market in the long term it was far from perfect, as individual economies had reduced control over their own economic struggles. This was evidenced by the Panic of 1907 in the US, which began when two bankers tried and failed to corner the stock of United Copper. Their failure resulted in distrust of their banks and associates, ultimately sending panic through the markets and causing runs on banks and trusts.

    This took place at a time when the effects of rising interest rates in Europe led to gold ceasing to move into the United States. This was compounded by the lack of an American central bank or lender of last resort, and with inflexibility under the gold standard, the US was left without a way to expand its monetary supply. This near collapse of the US financial system led to the eventual creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, establishing an authority over US monetary policy.

    The gold standard was further challenged in 1914 with the start of the First World War when major nations suspended the convertibility of domestic bank notes into gold and suspended the movement of gold over borders.

    Born of necessity, this move provided greater flexibility for central banks to increase monetary supply without the limitation of physical holdings, ensuring war efforts could continue to be funded.

    Even though these measures were meant to be temporary, they led to considerable chaos through the post-war period as nations worked to decrease high inflation caused by excess money supply while trying to return to the gold standard. Countries were left with limited choices: deflation or devaluation.

    Britain chose deflation and returned to pre-war parity defining one pound sterling equal to 123.274 grains of gold. This had the effect of overvaluing the pound, which caused outflows in the gold supply. France, on the other hand, chose to devalue the Franc, which ultimately caused inflows of gold into its reserves.

    For its response, the US chose to sterilize inflows of gold. The US paid a higher price than other countries, but instead of expanding monetary supply to match the influx, it maintained inventories and stabilized domestic pricing.

    Despite US efforts to maintain its economy in the interwar period, global mass deflation provided a catalyst for the end of the gold standard as unemployment began to rise, ultimately triggering the Great Depression. This period marked the beginning of the end of the classical gold standard, and in 1931 Japan and the United Kingdom dropped the connection to gold, followed by the United States in 1933.

    When did the gold standard end?

    Against the backdrop of the Second World War, representatives from 44 nations met in the US in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in July of 1944. Discussions centered around the creation of a system that would provide efficient foreign exchange to create a more stable global economic system than what had arisen between the World Wars and ultimately caused the implosion of the global economy.

    Plans for a new global economic system took years to develop, with competing ideas from famed economist James Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White, chief international economist for the US Treasury Department. Keynes proposed a grand vision to build an international central bank with its own reserve currency, while White suggested the establishment of a lending fund with the US Dollar as the reserve currency.

    The agreement chose elements from both proposals but leaned in favor of White’s suggestion. It declared the US dollar would be pegged to the value of gold at US$35 per ounce. Additionally, the other 44 states who signed on to the accord would have their currencies pegged to the value of the US dollar with diversions of only 1 percent being permitted.

    This system helped to minimize volatility of exchange rates and facilitated international trade.

    To aid the functioning of the agreement, it also established two critical institutions: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which would monitor exchange rates and provide support when needed, and the World Bank, which was originally established to manage funds and provide loans and assistance to nations to rebuild after WW2.

    However, when the nations met in December 1945, only 29 had come to sign the agreement; the Soviet Union was notably absent. The USSR’s rejection of Bretton Woods marked a milestone in a developing rift that led to the Cold War.

    In his election speech in February 1946, less than two months after the signing of Bretton Woods, Joseph Stalin blamed World War 2 on capitalism. “Marxists have more than once stated that the capitalist system of world economy … does not proceed smoothly and evenly, but through crises and catastrophic wars,” he said.

    Less than a month later Winston Churchill gave his famed Sinews of Peace speech in Fulton, Missouri, in which he stated, “From Stettin in the Baltic, to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent.”

    Bretton Woods policies came into full effect in 1958 with mixed results, and the US dollar struggled to maintain parity with gold throughout much of the 1960s in part due to increased domestic and military spending.

    In 1971, under orders of US President Richard Nixon, the convertibility of the dollar into gold was suspended as the dollar became overvalued and the amount of gold in reserves was no longer sufficient to cover the monetary supply. There were attempts to revive the system, but by 1973 Bretton Woods collapsed and national currencies once again floated against each other.

    Following the end of the agreement, the IMF allowed members to choose whichever exchange arrangement, allowing them to float against each other or a basket of currencies. However, members were prohibited from pegging their currencies to gold.

    The gold standard today

    The subsequent years following the collapse of Bretton Woods have seen the dominance of the United States in the global financial system. Though no longer tied to gold, it remains the world’s reserve currency.

    Being tied to gold provided the economy with relative stability from inflationary pressures, but it also restricted the overall monetary supply and made it more difficult for borrowers to pay back loans.

    Under the current system, central banks work to ensure that inflation remains in a range that can stimulate growth in the economy but not let it get to the point where it’s out of control and the cost of goods rises more quickly than wages.

    Proponents of a gold standard today will point at the runaway inflation of the early 1980s and following the COVID-19 pandemic reasons why a gold standard is better for the overall economy and reduced volatility.

    However, the lack of inflation under the gold standard was a criticism levelled by opponents. This was a particular issue in the late 1800s, when deflation was happening at a rate of 1 to 2 percent per year in the US. This resulted in loans becoming more costly, a problem in particular for the country’s farmers who relied on them to buy land and equipment.

    Will we return to the gold standard?

    Some analysts such as Jim Rickards believe in the return of the gold standard and have suggested that the BRICS nations are in the process of creating a new gold-backed currency, as evidenced by bulk purchases of gold by the Chinese central bank.

    With regards to a return to a global or US gold standard, this also seems incredibly unlikely and ill-advised.

    The total value of monetary supply of the world’s four largest central banks — the United States, European Union, Japan and China — sat at approximately US$95 trillion as of June 2025. The World Gold Council estimated that above-ground gold stocks stand at 216,265 metric tons as of the end of 2024.

    At a gold spot price of US$3,000, which gold has held above for much of 2025, that gold would be worth just under US$23 trillion, far less than those central banks hold. Additionally, 45 percent of the world’s gold is in the form of gold jewelry and just 14 percent, or about US$4 trillion, is in central bank holdings.

    The US encountered problems with an insufficient supply of gold before the collapse of Bretton Woods. Going further back, reducing through devaluation or deflation wreaked havoc in the global post-war economy of the 1920s.

    With greater wealth and far more money supply today, the economy would face far more headwinds and more disastrous potential should there be a shift back towards a gold standard.

    To move to a gold-backed currency, a country would have to have enough physical gold in reserve to support its monetary supply. There isn’t enough gold in the world.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Bitcoin, the most well-known cryptocurrency, paved the way for the cryptocurrency asset class.

    Now the cryptocurrency of choice, its meteoric rise has been unlike any other commodity, resource or asset. Bitcoin’s price rose more than 1,200 percent from March 2020 to reach US$69,044 on November 10, 2021.

    The coin showcased its famous volatility in the following year, falling as low as US$15,787 by November 2022 amid economic uncertainty and a wave of negative media coverage.

    Bitcoin started 2024 just below US$45,000 and made substantial gains in remainder of the year. Following Donald Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the US presidential election, Bitcoin soared to US$103,697 on December 4, 2024.

    The first quarter of 2025 saw the price of Bitcoin decline by more than 25 percent to a low for the year of US$75,004 in early April. Since then, rising institutional demand and an emerging industry-friendly US regulatory environment have poured rocket fuel into the digital assets value.

    Bitcoin reached its new all-time high price of US$123,153.22 before pulling back to close at US$119,839.70 on July 14, 2025.

    For frequent updates on the biggest news of the crypto sector, check out our Crypto Market Recap, with updates multiple times per week.

    Where did Bitcoin start, and what has spurred its price movements since its launch? Read on to find out.

    In this article

      What is Bitcoin and who invented it?

      Created as a response to the 2008 financial crisis, the concept of Bitcoin was first introduced in a nine-page white paper titled “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” on October 31, 2008, on a platform called Metzdowd.

      The manifesto was penned by a notoriously elusive person (or persons) who used the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. The author(s) laid out a compelling argument and groundwork for a new type of cyber-currency that would revolutionize the monetary system.

      Cryptographically secured, Bitcoin was designed to be transparent and resistant to censorship, using the power of blockchain technology to create an immutable ledger preventing double-spending. The true allure for Bitcoin’s early adopters was in its potential to wrestle power away from banks and financial institutes and give it to the masses.

      This was especially enticing as the fallout from the 2008 financial collapse ricocheted internationally. Described as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, US$7.4 billion in value was erased from the US stock market in 11 months, while the global economy shrank by an estimated US$2 trillion.

      On January 3, 2009, the Genesis Block was established, marking the beginning of Bitcoin’s blockchain, onto which all additional blocks have been added. The Genesis Block contained the first 50 Bitcoins ever created and a simple message: “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on the brink of second bailout for banks.”

      Many believe the message hints at Bitcoin’s mission, as it references an article in The London Times that criticized the British government’s inadequate response to the financial crisis of 2007 to 2008, particularly the government’s inability to provide effective relief and support to the struggling economy.

      What was Bitcoin’s starting price?

      When Bitcoin started trading in 2009, its starting price was a minuscule US$0.0009.

      On January 12, 2009, Nakamoto made the first Bitcoin transaction when they sent 10 Bitcoins to Hal Finney, a computer scientist and early Bitcoin enthusiast, marking a crucial milestone in the cryptocurrency’s development and adoption.

      News of the cryptocurrency continued to spread around the Internet, but its value did not rise above US$0 until October 12, 2009, when a Finnish software developer sent 5,050 Bitcoins to New Liberty Standard for US$5.02 via PayPal Holdings (NASDAQ:PYPL), thereby establishing both the value of Bitcoin and New Liberty Standard as a Bitcoin exchange.

      The first time Bitcoin was used to make a purchase was on May 22, 2010, when a programmer in Florida named Laszlo Hanyecz offered anyone who would bring him a pizza 10,000 Bitcoin in exchange. Someone accepted the offer and ordered Hanyecz two Papa John’s pizzas for US$25. The 10,000 Bitcoin pizza order essentially set Bitcoin’s price in 2010 at around US$0.0025.

      Bitcoin’s price finally broke through the US$1 mark in 2011, and moved as high as US$29.60 that year. However, in 2012 Bitcoin pulled back and remained relatively muted.

      Bitcoin’s price saw its first significant growth in earnest in 2013, the year it broke through both US$100 and US$1,000. It climbed all the way to US$1,242 in December 2013.

      From that peak, Bitcoin’s price began to fall, and it spent most of 2015 in the US$200 range, but it turned around in December 2015 and began to climb again, ending the year at around US$430.

      Bitcoin price chart from August 2011 to December 31, 2015.

      Chart via TradingEconomics.com.

      When did the Bitcoin price start to grow?

      January 1, 2016, marked the beginning of Bitcoin’s sustained price rise. It started the year at US$433 and ended it at US$989 — a 128 percent value increase in 12 months.

      That year, several contributing factors led to Bitcoin’s rise in mainstream popularity. The stock market experienced one of its worst first weeks ever in 2016, and investors began turning to Bitcoin as a “safe-haven” stock amidst economic and geopolitical uncertainty.

      2016 also saw the Brexit referendum in the UK in June and the election of Donald Trump to the White House in November, both events that coincided with a bump in Bitcoin’s price.

      Bitcoin continued its ascent, while various industries continued to take an interest in blockchain technology, particularly technology and finance. In February, a group of investors that included IBM (NYSE:IBM) and Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) invested US$60 million in a New York firm developing blockchain technology for financial services, Dig Asset Holdings. Bitcoin was trading at US$368.12 on February 2, down a bit from January, but two months later it was US$418.

      In May the price of Bitcoin experienced a significant price increase, rising by 21 percent to US$539 at the end of the month. Its price went higher into June, peaking at US$764 on June 18. After that, it fell sharply and spent the summer in the high US$600 range. It dropped to US$517 on August 1 and started its climb all over again.

      Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) and Bank of America Merrill Lynch partnered for a finance transacting endeavor in September. Not much price movement was observed, but Bitcoin remained on a steady upward trajectory after that. In October, Ripple partnered with 12 banks in a trial that used its native digital currency token XRP to facilitate cross-border payments. Institutional investment bolstered investor confidence, and Bitcoin went from US$629 to US$736 between October 20 and November 20.

      Bitcoin’s popularity continued into 2017, and it rose from US$1,035.24 in January to US$18,940.57 in December. Futures contracts began trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in December 2017, and Bitcoin began to be more widely perceived as a legitimate investment rather than a passing fad. FOMO flooded the market. What ensued was a frenzy of media coverage featuring celebrity endorsements and initial coin offerings (ICOs) that spilled into 2018.

      Regulators began to take notice and issued warnings and guidelines meant to protect investors and mitigate risks associated with digital assets, which only seemed to make people want them more.

      Through it all, Bitcoin remained the “gold standard” of cryptocurrencies, yet its price was subject to extreme volatility. At the beginning of 2019, it was around US$3,800, it reached nearly US$13,000 in June, but by December 2019 Bitcoin was trading at around US$7,2000.

      Bitcoin price chart from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019.

      Chart via TradingEconomics.com.

      What factors led to Bitcoin’s rise in the early 2020s?

      2020 proved a testing ground for the digital coin’s ability to weather financial upheaval. Starting the year at US$6,950.56, a widespread selloff in March triggered by the pandemic brought its value to US$4,841.67 — a 30 percent decline.

      The low created a buying opportunity that helped Bitcoin regain its losses by May. The rally continued throughout 2020, and the digital asset ended the year at US$29,402.64, a 323 percent year-over-year increase and a 507 percent rise from its March drop.

      By comparison, gold, one of the best-performing commodities of 2020, added 38 percent to its value from the low in March through December, setting what was then an all-time high of US$2,060 per ounce in August.

      Bitcoin’s ascent continued in 2021, rallying to an all-time high of US$68,649.05 in November, a 98.82 percent increase from January. Much of the growth in 2021 was attributed to risk-on investor appetite.

      Increased money printing in response to the pandemic also benefited Bitcoin, as investors with more capital looked to diversify their portfolios. The success of the world’s first cryptocurrency amid the market ups and downs of 2020 and 2021 led to more interest and investment in other coins and digital assets as well. For example, 2021 saw the rise of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), unique crypto assets that are stored, sold and traded digitally using blockchain technology.

      Almost immediately following its record close above US$69,000 in November 2021, Bitcoin’s value began to fall once again. Market uncertainty weighed especially heavily on Bitcoin in 2022. During the second quarter of that year, values dived below US$20,000 for the first time since December 2020.

      On May 7, 2022, Curve Whale Watching posted the first sign that confidence in Terra Luna, a cryptocurrency pegged to the US dollar, was waning after 85 million of its stablecoin UST exchanged for less than the 1:1 ratio it was supposed to maintain. This triggered a massive sell-off that brought Luna’s value down 99.7 percent and eventually resulted in the Terra tokens ceasing to be traded on major crypto exchanges.

      Terra’s collapse had a domino effect on the industry as investors’ faith in crypto crumbled. In July, the Celsius network, a platform where users could deposit crypto into digital wallets to accrue interest, halted all transfers due to “extreme market conditions”, driving down the price of Bitcoin even further to US$19,047, a 60 percent decline from January 2022. In July, Celsius filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

      However, the biggest shake-up to the industry came in November when CoinDesk published findings that cryptocurrency trading firm Alameda Research led by Sam Bankman-Fried had borrowed billions of dollars of customer funds from crypto exchange and sister company FTX. Over a third of Alameda’s assets were tied up in FTT, the native cryptocurrency of FTX.

      Once this news broke, investors withdrew their funds en masse, causing a liquidity crunch that collapsed FTX. Bankman-Fried was later arrested and sentenced to 25 years in federal prison on counts of money laundering, wire fraud and securities fraud.

      Although Bitcoin was never implicated, the fallout of the FTX scandal led to a crisis of confidence across the sector and increased scrutiny from regulators and law enforcement. By the end of 2022, prices for Bitcoin had moved even lower to settle below US$17,000.

      Bitcoin price chart from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022.

      Chart via TradingEconomics.com.

      Bitcoin’s powerful performance cannot be understated as evidenced by its price performance in the later half of 2023 and so far in 2024.

      Concerns with the banking system led the price of Bitcoin to rally in March 2023 to US$28,211 by March 21 after the failure of multiple US banks alarmed investors.

      In Q2 2023, Bitcoin continued its ascent, stabilizing above US$25,000 even as the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) filed lawsuits against Coinbase Global (NASDAQ:COIN), along with Binance and its founder Changpeng Zhao.

      Although it looked like bad news for the sector, Bitcoin stayed steady, holding above US$25,000. This was supported by BlackRock (NYSE:BLK), the world’s largest asset manager, filing for a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund with the SEC on June 15.

      Bitcoin’s price jumped above US$30,000 on June 21, 2023, and on July 3, 2023, the crypto hit its highest price since May 2022 at US$31,500. It held above US$30,000 for nearly a month before dropping just below on July 16, 2023. By September 11, 2023, prices had slid further to US$25,150.

      Heading into the final months of the year, the Bitcoin price benefited from increased institutional investment on the prospect of the SEC approving a bevy of spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds by early 2024. In mid-November the price for the popular cryptocurrency was trading up at US$37,885, and by the end of the year that figure had risen further to US$42,228 per BTC.

      2024 Bitcoin price performance

      Bitcoin price chart from January 1, 2024, to November 6, 2024.

      Chart via TradingEconomics.com.

      Once the SEC’s approval of 11 spot Bitcoin ETFs hit the wires, the price per coin jumped again to US$46,620 on January 10, 2024. These investment vehicles were a major driving force behind the more than 42 percent rise in value for Bitcoin in February; it reached US$61,113 on the last day of the month.

      On March 4, Bitcoin surged almost 8 percent in 24 hours to trade at US$67,758, less than 2 percent away from its previous record, and on March 11 it hit a new milestone, surpassing the US$72,000 mark. Three days later, on March 14, Bitcoin reached its highest-ever recorded price of US$73,737.94, surpassing the market cap of silver.

      Bitcoin often surges leading up to the halving events, which is when Bitcoin rewards are halved for miners. The most recent came in April when the reward for completing a block was cut from 6.25 to 3.125 Bitcoin.

      Several sources cited the 2024 halving as one of the forces that drove the price of Bitcoin to its newest high.

      The halving occurred at around 8:10 p.m. EDT on a Friday, and Bitcoin’s price remained stable within the US$63,000 to US$65,000 range over the ensuing weekend. On April 22, the Monday following the halving, it was slightly above US$66,000.

      While Bitcoin’s price stayed relatively stable, the cryptocurrency’s trading volume experienced significant fluctuations through that weekend, with a 45 percent increase from April 19 to April 20 followed by a 68 percent decline on April 21. Between April 30 and May 3, it fell as low as US$56,903 following the Federal Reserve’s April policy meeting, which did not produce a rate cut.

      Reports that the SEC was moving to approve spot Ether ETFs in May sent the price of Bitcoin climbing again alongside that of Ether, the native token of the Ethereum blockchain, which serves as the foundation for these ETFs. Bitcoin passed US$71,000 for the second time ever at 8:00 p.m. EDT on May 20, days before the SEC approved spot Ether ETFs on May 23.

      Bitcoin hovered between US$67,000 and US$69,000 for the remainder of the month and into the middle of June. It fell back below US$67,000 on June 13 and moved lower the next day when the Federal Reserve opted to delay lowering interest rates once again.

      Losses picked up speed through late June and continued in July, with analysts pointing to uncertainty over post-election regulations, Germany’s sell-off of seized Bitcoin assets and concerns about the impact of the defunct trading platform Mt. Gox on the token market. Bitcoin dropped to a two-month low of US$55,880 on July 8, but quickly recovered most of its losses after Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s congressional testimony on July 9 that signaled rate cuts may not be far off.

      As crypto gains wider acceptance and accessibility, with more traditional financial institutions and products incorporating digital assets, the type of risk that Bitcoin represents has evolved. Bitcoin was primarily seen as a highly speculative alternative investment. Now, with expanding institutional interest, it is increasingly seen as a ”risk-on” asset – meaning its price movements are influenced by market sentiment, investor confidence and broader economic conditions.

      A rise in Bitcoin’s price ensued after the July 13 assassination attempt of US presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has been actively endorsing the crypto industry for support. Bitcoin rose from US$57,899 to US$66,690 in the week following the incident as the odds of a Trump victory were seen to improve, highlighting the impact of regulatory uncertainty on the market. However, Bitcoin’s price didn’t experience any significant pullbacks in the week after current US President Joe Biden dropped out of the race on July 21 and current Vice President Kamala Harris took over as the new nominee.

      Other significant developments affecting Bitcoin during the summer included the underwhelming performance of spot Ether ETFs, fears of a US government Bitcoin sell-off, Trump’s proposed national Bitcoin stockpile and Trump’s declining chances of winning the election as support for Harris snowballs.

      Bitcoin experienced a tumultuous August, with its price plummeting alongside other digital assets and the stock market on August 5th. Several factors triggered this sell-off, including weaker-than-expected economic data on August 2 and an unexpected interest rate hike in Japan. These events sparked panic in Asian markets, leading investors to liquidate high-risk assets like Bitcoin.

      Despite a brief recovery, Bitcoin continued to fluctuate throughout August, dropping to US$58,430 on the weekend of August 10 and 11, and experiencing further price swings between US$60,700 and US$56,700. While positive inflation data boosted the stock market, Bitcoin struggled to break past a US$60,000 ceiling.

      A brief rally on August 23rd, prompted by the Federal Reserve’s signal to begin lowering interest rates, was quickly followed by another price drop. This pattern of rallies and subsequent declines persisted for the remainder of August and most of September. Bitcoin ended the month at just above US$64,540.

      During the lead up to the 2024 US presidential election had a notable affect on Bitcoin’s price movements, with the Republican party generally seen as more ‘crypto-friendly’ than the Democrats. On October 28, PolyMarket, bettors favored Trump with a 66.1 percent probability of winning compared to Harris’ 33.8 percent. This translated into a 7 percent gain in a little over 24 hours on October 29 to flirt with the previous all-time high, coming in at US$73,295.

      A few days later on November 3, Trump’s lead would seemingly narrow with the gap closing to 55 percent for Trump and 44.3 percent for Harris. The Bitcoin price responded by dropping to US$67,874 on November 4.

      Bitcoin set a then high price on November 6, 2024, when it reached US$76,243 per BTC at 4:00 p.m. EST. This price came after the 45th US President Donald Trump made a stunning political comeback to become the 47th US President. His retaking of the presidency was heralded as hugely positive for the cryptocurrency market.

      “We have a #Bitcoin President,” Michael Saylor, founder of Bitcoin development company Strategy (NASDAQ:MSTR), posted on X.

      Bitcoin crossed the US$100,000 threshold for the first time on December 4, rising as high as US$103,697.

      What was the highest price for Bitcoin?

      Bitcoin set a new all-time high price on July 14, 2025, when it reached US$123,153.22 per BTC at 07:38 a.m. GMT. Reuters reported that the Bitcoin price has rallied more than 60 percent since the US election in early November.

      This latest record high price came as US lawmakers announced key ‘Crypto Week’ bills, and President Trump signaled support for the GENIUS Act, which is expected to create a clear framework for banks and enterprises to issue digital currencies.

      The crypto market has found a friend in the Trump administration thus far. Since it began, US regulators have been more inclined to make policy changes that loosen regulations for crypto investing.

      What is Bitcoin at today?

      As of August 4, 2025, Bitcoin is trading around the US$115,000 level after spending the prior few weeks holding above US$110,000.

      Earlier in 2025, Bitcoin demonstrated its volatile nature when the price of the cryptocurrency fell to as low as US$75,000 per coin by April 9. This represented a key buying opportunity as crypto buffs were anticipating further strength in the market under Trump.

      Soon after, the price of Bitcoin was once again on a steady upward path and breached the US$100,000 level on May 8.

      FAQs for investing in Bitcoin

      What is a blockchain?

      A blockchain is a digitized and decentralized public ledger of all cryptocurrency transactions.

      Blockchains are constantly growing as completed blocks are recorded and added in chronological order. The mechanism by which digital currencies are mined, blockchain has become a popular investment space as the technology is increasingly being implemented in business processes across a variety of industries. These include banking, cybersecurity, networking, supply chain management, the Internet of Things, online music, healthcare and insurance.

      Is Peter Todd Satoshi Nakamoto?

      Canadian software developer Peter Todd has denied he is Satoshi Nakamoto, a claim made by the documentary ‘Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery,’ which aired on October 8, based on circumstantial evidence such as posts on an early Bitcoin forum and correspondence between Todd and Hal Finney, who received the first Bitcoin from Satoshi.

      Aired on HBO, the film by Cullen Hoback features interviews with people involved in Bitcoin’s creation and suggests that Todd could be the elusive Satoshi Nakamoto who wrote the 2008 white paper that led to Bitcoin’s launch. Reddit posts dating back to 2015 have also suggested that Todd could be Satoshi.

      Todd has continuously denied the claim, most recently to multiple media outlets, including CoinDesk and Bloomberg.

      How to buy Bitcoin?

      Bitcoin can be purchased through a variety of crypto exchange platforms and peer-to-peer crypto trading apps, and then held in a digital wallet. These include Coinbase Global, CoinSmart Financial Inc (OTC Pink:CONMF, NEO:SMRT), BlockFi, Binance and Gemini.

      What is the Bitcoin halving?

      Unlike traditional currencies that can increase circulation through printing, the number of Bitcoins is finite. This limit is a core function of Bitcoin’s algorithm and was designed to offset inflation by maintaining scarcity. There are 21 million in existence, of which 19,787,175 are in circulation as of August 8. This means there are 1,212,825 still unmined.

      A new Bitcoin is created when a Bitcoin miner uses highly specialized software to complete a block of transaction verifications on the Bitcoin blockchain. Roughly 900 Bitcoins are currently mined per day; however, after 210,000 blocks are completed, a Bitcoin protocol called a halving automatically reduces the number of new coins issued by half. Halving not only counteracts inflation but also supports the cryptocurrency’s value by ensuring that its price will increase if demand remains the same.

      Halvings have occurred every four years since 2012, with the most recent happening on April 19, 2024. The next halving is expected to occur in 2028.

      Bitcoin’s halving has significant implications for the cryptocurrency’s mining activity and supply because of how Bitcoin mining works. Currently, miners are paid 3.125 Bitcoin for every block they complete. After the next halving, the pay rate will lower to 1.5625 Bitcoin for every completed block for the next four years.

      What is Coinbase?

      Coinbase Global is a secure online cryptocurrency exchange that makes it easy for investors to buy, sell, transfer and store cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.

      How does crypto affect the banking industry?

      Cryptocurrencies are an alternative to traditional banking, and tend to attract people interested in assets that are outside mainstream systems. According to data from Statista, 53 percent of crypto owners are between the ages of 18 and 34, showing that the industry is drawing younger generations who may be interested in decentralized digital options.

      Privacy is a key draw for cryptocurrency owners, as is the fact that they are separated from third parties such as central banks. Additionally, crypto transactions, including purchases, sales and transfers, are often quick and have fewer associated fees than transactions going through the banking system in the typical manner.

      That said, banks are starting to notice how popular cryptocurrencies are. As Bitcoin and its compatriots become increasingly mainstream, many banks have begun to invest in cryptocurrencies and blockchain companies themselves.

      Is Bitcoin a good investment anymore?

      While Bitcoin has reached new heights in 2025, one of its well-known features is its volatility. Investors who are more accepting of risk could look to the cryptocurrency space as there historically has been money to be made, and Bitcoin is regaining value after plummeting in 2022. However, there is also historically money to be lost, and investors who prefer to take smaller risks should look towards other avenues.

      For more information on investing in Bitcoin right now, check out our article Is Now a Good Time to Buy Bitcoin?

      Who has the most invested in Bitcoin?

      Satoshi Nakomoto, the mysterious founder of Bitcoin, is believed to also be the biggest holder of the coin. Analysis into early Bitcoin wallets has revealed that Nakamoto likely owns over 1 million of the nearly 19.5 million Bitcoins in existence.

      Does Elon Musk own Bitcoin?

      Tesla and Twitter CEO Elon Musk’s association with both Bitcoin and the meme coin Dogecoin is well known, and both his tweets and Tesla’s actions have influenced the cryptocurrencies’ trajectories over the years.

      While it is unknown just how much he owns, Musk has disclosed that he personally has holdings of Bitcoin and Dogecoin, as well as Ether. It was revealed in September 2023 that Musk may be funding Dogecoin on the quiet, according to Forbes.

      As for Tesla, the company purchased US$1.5 billion of Bitcoin in 2021, but sold 75 percent of that the next year. As of July 2025, the EV maker’s Bitcoin holdings were estimated at 11,509 Bitcoin, the eigth-largest bitcoin holdings for a publicly traded company. In a January 2024 post on his social media platform X, Musk said “I still own a bunch of Dogecoin, and SpaceX owns a bunch of Bitcoin.’

      Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

      2024 Tech Outlook Report

      What red hot sector is expected to grow 85.7% annually until 2032?

      Download your investor report today.

      Learn About Exciting Opportunities in the Tech Sector

      Your Newsletter Preferences

      This post appeared first on investingnews.com