New research from KPMG International is urging banks and retailers to form strategic partnerships—or risk falling behind—as businesses attempt to keep up with the rapid pace of change in the payments space.

The report, Partnering for payment modernization by KPMG International, includes responses from 500 banks and 500 retailers to assess their progress on payment modernization. It identifies that while costs are high and modern technology continues to disrupt; a better ecosystem of partnerships between banks, retailers, technology providers and regulators can help improve operations and enhance the payments experience for customers.

The survey reveals that 54 percent of retailers believe that payment modernization is crucial to the future of their business, including delivering major efficiency and operational gains. However, just over half (53 percent) of retailers believe that their banks understand their payment modernization goals, with 45 percent saying their banks are proactively delivering payment solutions tailored to their needs. With the average retailer planning to increase modernization budgets by 2.5 percent over the next year, there is scope for more cohesion and development in the area. Banks don’t disagree, with 51 percent believing that the future winners in payments will be those with the best ecosystems. 60 percent of banks also indicate an increase in spending this year, with 21 percent reporting expected increases of five to nine percent over their existing budgets.

Furthermore, it was found that common goals across both sectors include the replacement of legacy payment infrastructure, enhancing fraud prevention and meeting customer expectations. High implementation costs and budget constraints were noted as the top barrier for those starting out on their payment journey (66 percent in banking and 69 percent in retail), while 62 percent in the banking sector also noted outdated legacy infrastructure and technical debt as a major frustration. As they mature their payments modernization capabilities, each sector highlighted meeting customer demand as the main concern (41 percent of banking leaders and 35 percent of retail leaders).

Isabelle Allen, Global Head of Consumer, Retail and Leisure at KPMG International, said: “The quest by consumers for ever faster, lower friction and more secure payment options is relentless and fueling innovation and disruption. Banks and retailers cannot afford to work in isolation or indulge in traditional vendor-customer relationships. The future of payments will likely be defined by a broader ecosystem which extends beyond banks and retailers, to include technology providers, regulators, fintech startups and consumers themselves. Success should be measured by the way companies access new technologies, reduce costs, share expertise, fill skill gaps, accelerate time to market, and mitigate risks.”

Investing in the future of payments

The importance of modernizing payment systems is reflected in the level of capital now being channeled into these programs. The data indicates that banks spent an average of US$96.9 million on payment modernization over the past fiscal year, demonstrating the magnitude of the transformation underway across the industry. Full-service and corporate banks lead the investment charge, allocating US$151.1 million and US$146.7 million, respectively.

On the retail side, hypermarkets and warehouse clubs report the highest levels of investment due to their high-volume, low-margin models, which rely on fast, efficient checkout processes. Online retailers also invest heavily to support their digital business models. At the same time, more traditional segments (such as department and specialty stores) invest less, likely reflecting limited budgets and customer preferences. Some of the biggest increases over the next year will be invested by those seeking to catch up; department and discount stores will boost spending by over three percent, while supermarkets are targeting increases of nearly four percent.

Modern technology is a key disruptorThe report highlights the length to which modern technology, mainly AI and digital currencies, are disrupting payments systems and processes. It states that in three years, the lion’s share of banks will be using AI-enabled biometrics to secure payments and agentic AI to process transactions autonomously. AI is also expected to catapult fraud detection to new levels, with 85 percent of banks saying they will turn to AI for instant risk resolution. Seventy-eight percent of respondents also noted the use of behavioral and contextual data to create personalized services, and 71 percent noted that extracting insights from payment data for pricing and liquidity decisions will be the top AI uses that will grow the fastest over the next three years.

In addition, 60 percent of banks are currently upgrading core systems to support programmable money and digital ledgers, with 76 percent looking to do this over the next three years. The banking industry will also focus much of their attention on using Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) for atomic settlement for SMEs, alongside efforts to establish stablecoin and token fintech platforms.

Harnessing regulatory shifts

Rather than viewing compliance as a cost or constraint, the report finds that leading retailers are harnessing regulatory shifts to advance their growth strategies. Seventy-nine percent of the leaders (versus 37 percent of those just beginning their modernization journey) say they collaborate with regulatory bodies to help shape effective regulations that foster innovation. Leaders are also highly focused on implementing a range of payments regulations. They are particularly ahead of beginners in anti-fraud regulations and those for new payment types, such as digital wallets and BNPL (Buy Now, Pay Later). The data also suggests they are making more progress meeting international standards such as ISO 20022.

Geoff Rush, Global Head of Banking and Capital Markets at KPMG International, said: “With the rise of digital currencies, it is increasingly clear that the future of payments lies in dynamic and value-driven ecosystems and partnerships — banks, fintechs, retailers and tech companies, for example — where banks play a key orchestration role in providing a variety of services on top of advanced technology and modern payment infrastructure. Such alliances amongst these sectors should be encouraged by shared goals around operational efficiency, fraud prevention and regulatory compliance. The big question is, who will be the first to tie up some of these strategic partnerships and really differentiate themselves?”

The post Why Strategic Partnerships Set to Reshape Payments Industry Says KPMG appeared first on European Business & Finance Magazine.

A light economic calendar means traders are likely to feed off the ongoing narratives around AI, Iran, tariffs, and earnings. From the earnings perspective, today brings data from Home Depot and Workday in particular. In a week that undoubtedly has the software and tech space in the limelight, it can be easy to miss out on the fact that we also see a handful of interesting high-street names such as Home Depot, TJX, and Lowe’s report between today and tomorrow.

This provides a key insight into the health of the consumer at a time of employment and AI uncertainty. Coming off the back of yet another shift in the tariff rates, we will be watching for any commentary over whether the new 15% blanket rate helps or hinders the margins at Home Depot. On the software-front, any hope that Workday will enjoy a sharp rebound off the back of strong earnings should perhaps be tempered. However, it does provide a timely opportunity for the CEO to lay out exactly why this current selloff is ill-founded. One thing is for sure, investors will be looking for signs that the business plans to leverage the new technology rather than wait for it to consume them.

Looking ahead, much of this week will be dominated by the question of whether we will see the US launch an attack on Iran, with their military in positioned to a great expense. The notion that this is simply a case of playing the strongest hand possible to force Iran into a highly one-sided deal could yet play out as the truth. After-all, we have seen Trump use that trick over and over when it comes to trade.

However, in an environment where Trump wants to control particular spheres of influence, the fact that Iran has had such a profound anti-American and volatile influence on much of the Middle East would undoubtedly provide an incentive to seek real change. Would the US move those military assets without speaking to Iran at the same time to avoid a pre-emptive attack? Are the negotiations simply a smokescreen aimed at affording them enough time to plan and position accordingly? One thing is for sure. The commodity space in particular is positioned around the likeliness of an attack, with the likes of gold and oil expected to see significant gains should Trump opt to launch military operations in the second-biggest country in the Middle East.

The post Gold and Oil Prices Swing On Escalating Iran Tensions appeared first on European Business & Finance Magazine.

The post Tariffs, Trade Wars and Market Volatility: What’s Driving the Global Economy This Week appeared first on European Business & Finance Magazine.

Quick Answer: President Trump on Saturday raised his newly imposed global tariff fr 10% to 15%, the maximum permitted under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The move came less than 24 hours after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that his sweeping IEEPA-based tariffs were illegal. The 15% rate takes effect immediately but expires after 150 days unless Congress acts, leaving trade deals with the EU, UK, and dozens of other nations in legal limbo.

It took less than 24 hours for President Trump to exhaust the legal ceiling of the only tariff authority he had left. On Friday, the Supreme Court struck down his signature trade policy in a 6-3 ruling that declared the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorise presidential tariffs. By Friday evening, Trump had signed an executive order imposing a replacement 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, effective 24 February. By Saturday afternoon, he had raised it to 15%.

The increase was announced via Truth Social, where Trump wrote that he would be raising the worldwide tariff to the “fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level.” He offered no new executive order or formal proclamation — simply a social media post declaring the change effective immediately.

Section 122 has never previously been used to impose tariffs. It allows duties of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits, with any extension requiring congressional approval. The administration cited America’s $901 billion trade deficit in 2025 as justification.

What Stays, What Changes

The new 15% rate does not apply across the board. The White House confirmed exemptions for critical minerals, metals used in currency and bullion, energy products, natural resources and fertilisers that cannot be domestically sourced, and certain agricultural products including beef, tomatoes, and oranges. Goods already covered by Section 232 national security tariffs — steel, aluminium, copper, lumber, automobiles, auto parts, and semiconductors — are also exempt, since those duties remain in full force following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

For many countries, the 15% flat rate is actually lower than what they faced under the old IEEPA regime. Brazil, previously hit with duties as high as 50%, now faces only 15% plus sector-specific tariffs. Canada, Mexico, India, and South Africa similarly see reduced rates. China is the exception: its IEEPA tariffs have been replaced by the 15% duty, but a 25% Section 301 tariff remains, bringing its effective rate to around 35%.

Trade Deals in Limbo

The escalation to 15% has thrown existing trade agreements into confusion. The EU had negotiated a deal last summer accepting a 15% tariff on most goods in exchange for eliminating duties on US industrial goods entering Europe. That agreement was built on IEEPA authority now ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. While the new Section 122 rate happens to match the negotiated figure, the legal basis is entirely different — and temporary.

The European Parliament’s trade committee convenes Monday to reassess ratification. France’s trade minister Nicolas Forissier called for a “united approach” from EU members. The deal had already been frozen once after Trump’s threats regarding Greenland, and some lawmakers may now see no reason to ratify an agreement whose legal framework has been invalidated.

The UK faces a different problem. London had negotiated a 10% rate — described as a diplomatic win for Keir Starmer. Trump’s decision to raise the baseline to 15% erased that advantage overnight. As one analyst put it, the increase amounts to a rebuke to nations that had accepted deals at lower rates.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer insisted that countries with negotiated rates above 15% must still honour their agreements. Indonesia’s chief negotiator confirmed its deal remains in force. The result is an asymmetric system where some nations pay more than the baseline under deals they signed voluntarily, while others benefit from rates well below what they previously faced.

The 150-Day Clock

The most consequential number in this story is not 15% — it is 150. That is how many days Section 122 tariffs can remain in force without congressional approval. The clock started when the executive order took effect, meaning these duties expire in late July 2026.

The administration has signalled it does not intend to rely on Section 122 alone. Greer announced that the USTR will open Section 301 investigations into “most major trading partners” on an accelerated timeframe, targeting discriminatory practices against US technology companies and pharmaceutical pricing policies. Existing Section 232 investigations could be expanded to cover additional sectors and product categories.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told the Economic Club of Dallas that the combination of alternative authorities would deliver “virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.” Whether that projection survives contact with legal challenges, procedural requirements, and a Congress that has shown little appetite for codifying Trump’s tariff agenda remains very much an open question.

Meanwhile, the refund issue looms. The Supreme Court ruled IEEPA tariffs were collected without legal authority, potentially entitling importers to between $100 billion and $175 billion in refunds. Trump suggested the administration does not plan to issue them voluntarily, setting the stage for protracted litigation that will further complicate an already fractured trade landscape.

The trade war has not ended. It has simply been forced onto narrower, more contested legal ground — with a hard deadline that grows closer by the day.

The post Trump Raises Global Tariffs to 15% in Wake of Supreme Court Loss — Here’s What It Means appeared first on European Business & Finance Magazine.

• Start by voice — simply say “Build me a mobile app that…” and Emergent builds it
• Continue seamlessly between mobile and desktop with unified editing
• Create websites, mobile tools, and SaaS platforms that are production‑ready from day one

The post Emergent Hits $100M ARR in Just 8 Months as AI Coding Platform Surges appeared first on European Business & Finance Magazine.

Quick Answer: David Silver, the British AI researcher who led the creation of AlphaGo at Google DeepMind, is raising $1 billion for his London-based startup Ineffable Intelligence in what would be Europe’s largest seed round ever. Led by Sequoia Capital at a $4 billion pre-money valuation, the round has also attracted interest from Nvidia, Google and Microsoft. Silver believes large language models cannot achieve superintelligence and is betting on reinforcement learning — AI that teaches itself from scratch rather than learning from human data.

David Silver built the system that beat the best Go player on Earth. Now he wants to build the system that outthinks every human on every task. And he has persuaded some of the world’s most influential investors to fund the attempt.

Silver, one of Britain’s most celebrated AI researchers, is raising $1 billion for Ineffable Intelligence, a London-based startup he founded after leaving Google DeepMind late last year. The seed round, led by Sequoia Capital, would value the company at approximately $4 billion before the new investment — making it the largest first-round fundraise by a European startup in history, according to PitchBook.

Sequoia partners Alfred Lin and Sonya Huang flew to London to meet Silver personally. Nvidia, Google and Microsoft are also in talks to invest, though negotiations remain live and final terms could change.

The company has no product, no revenue and no public roadmap. What it has is a thesis — and a founder with a track record that makes investors willing to write billion-dollar cheques on conviction alone.

The Thesis: LLMs Are a Dead End

Silver’s core argument is that large language models — the architecture behind ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and every major AI system in commercial use today — are fundamentally limited. They learn from human-generated data. They can synthesise, summarise and extend what humans have already written or thought. But they cannot, in Silver’s view, discover genuinely new knowledge.

This is not a marginal critique. It strikes at the foundation of the current AI industry, which has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in scaling transformer-based language models on the assumption that more data and more compute will eventually produce artificial general intelligence.

Silver disagrees. He believes that to reach superintelligence, AI systems will need to discard human knowledge entirely and learn from first principles — through trial, error and self-play, the way AlphaGo learned to play Go by competing against itself millions of times. The result was a system that made moves no human had ever conceived, some of which initially looked like mistakes but turned out to be brilliant.

Ineffable Intelligence aims to build what Silver has described as “an endlessly learning superintelligence that self-discovers the foundations of all knowledge.” The approach is rooted in reinforcement learning — the branch of AI Silver has spent his entire career advancing.

The Researcher

Silver was one of DeepMind’s first employees when the company was founded in 2010. He led the reinforcement learning group that produced AlphaGo, which defeated world champion Lee Sedol in 2016 in one of the defining moments in AI history. He subsequently led AlphaZero, which mastered chess, Go and shogi from scratch without any human training data, and MuZero, which learned to play Atari games without even being told the rules.

He holds a doctorate from the University of Alberta, where he studied under Richard Sutton, widely regarded as the father of reinforcement learning. He remains a professor at University College London.

Silver had been on sabbatical from DeepMind in the months before his departure and never formally returned. Ineffable Intelligence was incorporated in November 2025, and Silver was appointed director in January 2026. The company is actively recruiting AI researchers.

The Pattern

Silver is not alone in leaving Big Tech to pursue superintelligence independently. Ilya Sutskever, former chief scientist at OpenAI, founded Safe Superintelligence in 2024 and has raised $3 billion to date at a valuation that reached $32 billion by April 2025 — despite having no product. Jerry Tworek, who helped develop OpenAI’s reasoning models, recently left to found Core Automation.

The pattern is consistent: elite researchers who believe the current paradigm has limits are leaving to explore alternatives, and capital is following them at extraordinary speed and scale. Investors are effectively pricing in the possibility that the next breakthrough in AI will not come from making GPT-5 bigger, but from rethinking the approach entirely.

What It Means for Europe

If the round closes at $1 billion, Ineffable Intelligence would instantly become one of the most valuable AI startups in Europe — and a powerful signal that London remains capable of producing world-class AI companies, not just world-class AI researchers who leave for San Francisco.

The deal also underscores a broader shift in how deep-tech companies are funded. A decade ago, a $1 billion seed round would have been inconceivable. Today, in the race to superintelligence, it reflects the market’s belief that the right founder with the right thesis is worth more than a finished product.

Silver built the machine that changed how the world thought about AI. Now he is betting his career — and $1 billion of other people’s money — on the idea that the industry’s dominant approach will not be enough. If he is right, the implications extend far beyond London.

The post Meet the British Scientist Behind Europe’s Record $1B AI Seed Round appeared first on European Business & Finance Magazine.

Four consecutive weeks of spot ETF outflows, collapsing futures open interest and a Wall Street flight from risk assets have left Bitcoin pinned near its lowest levels of 2024 — and the path back looks increasingly difficult

Bitcoin has failed to break out above the $70,000 threshold despite multiple attempts since last week, remaining pinned near its lowest levels of 2024. What looked like a consolidation phase is beginning to resemble something more ominous: a market running out of buyers.

A convergence of risk factors — ranging from AI-related anxieties to a persistent higher-for-longer interest rate environment and the spectre of escalating conflict in the Middle East — is preventing liquidity from returning to the crypto market through its usual channels. And the data increasingly suggests that the institutional bid which fuelled Bitcoin’s rally from the low $40,000s has quietly reversed.

The ETF Exodus

According to SoSo Value data, Bitcoin spot ETFs recorded outflows for the fourth consecutive week, highlighting the unsustainable and largely speculative nature of recent inflows. The products that were supposed to represent crypto’s permanent bridge to mainstream finance are behaving exactly like the tactical trading vehicles that sceptics always said they were. When risk appetite contracts, ETF holders sell — and they have been selling steadily.

This lack of conviction is further reflected in the derivatives space. CoinGlass reports that total crypto futures open interest remains approximately 60 per cent below its all-time high, with Bitcoin-specific futures down 54 per cent. These are not the conditions that precede breakouts. They are the conditions that precede extended range-bound trading or further downside.

Whales Are Accumulating — But Not Fast Enough

On-chain metrics from BGeometrics suggest that while whales have avoided massive distribution and have even begun to accumulate modestly in recent days, the trend remains fragile. This activity likely helped Bitcoin stage a minor turnaround and avoid a breakdown below $60,000, but the slow and tentative pace of whale accumulation may be insufficient to support prices against the massive selling pressures and liquidation waves that often characterise this market.

The pattern is familiar to anyone who has watched previous Bitcoin corrections. Large holders begin quietly buying at what they consider discounted levels, but their accumulation cannot absorb the volume of retail and institutional selling triggered by macro fear. The whales provide a floor, but they do not provide a catalyst.

Wall Street’s AI Panic Is Starving Crypto of Capital

This crypto stagnation does not exist in isolation. It comes as US equities navigate a treacherous wall of worry, with the relief from cooling inflation being eclipsed by an aggressive and often volatile repricing of the artificial intelligence narrative. Investors have adopted a shoot-first mentality, dumping shares across the software and logistics sectors on fears that autonomous AI will render traditional business models obsolete before they can adapt.

This structural anxiety is compounded by a higher-for-longer interest rate outlook, bolstered by a resilient labour market and growing geopolitical uncertainty over potential new trade tariffs. The Federal Reserve has made clear it is in no hurry to cut, and the bond market has taken notice. When the risk-free rate stays elevated, the opportunity cost of holding zero-yield speculative assets like Bitcoin becomes harder to justify — particularly for the institutional allocators who drove the ETF-fuelled rally.

The Liquidity Problem

These collective pressures have triggered a massive rotation of liquidity away from high-valuation tech giants and into defensive havens such as utilities and government bonds, as the market seeks protection from a tech-led growth scare. Capital is not just leaving crypto — it is leaving the entire speculative end of the risk spectrum.

When risk-taking liquidity is actively fleeing the stock market, it is not surprising that it avoids the even more speculative crypto market. Bitcoin has always been a leveraged bet on global risk appetite, and right now that appetite is contracting.

Until the broader equity market finds a stable floor and the AI disruption narrative transitions from panic to clarity, Bitcoin is likely to remain starved of the capital necessary to reclaim its previous highs. The bulls need either a Fed pivot, a resolution to geopolitical tensions, or a fundamental shift in the AI narrative. They currently have none of the three.

For now, Bitcoin waits — trapped between whale support below and institutional selling above, with no obvious catalyst to break the deadlock.

The post Bitcoin Trapped Below $70,000 as ETF Outflows, AI Panic and Rate Fear Choke Off Crypto Liquidity appeared first on European Business & Finance Magazine.

QUICK ANSWER What’s happening? Kathy Ruemmler, Goldman Sachs’ general counsel and former White House counsel to Barack Obama, is resigning effective 30 June 2026 after DOJ documents revealed extensive communications with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein between 2014 and 2019. Emails show she called Epstein “Uncle Jeffrey,” received luxury gifts from him, and was one of three people he called after his 2019 arrest. She is the second major corporate departure in a week, after Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp stepped down over similar revelations. Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon stood by Ruemmler for two years. The Epstein files made that position untenable — and the fallout from Wall Street to Westminster is far from over.

Kathy Ruemmler, the chief legal officer and general counsel of Goldman Sachs, announced her resignation on Thursday night after a cascade of Department of Justice document releases exposed the depth of her personal relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. She will leave the bank on 30 June 2026, ending a tenure that began in 2020 and that Goldman’s leadership had repeatedly defended even as the evidence against her mounted.

“I made the determination that the media attention on me, relating to my prior work as a defence attorney, was becoming a distraction,” Ruemmler said in a statement. CEO David Solomon said she “will be missed,” calling her “an extraordinary general counsel.”

The language of regret and professional courtesy cannot disguise what the documents show.

From White House Counsel to ‘Uncle Jeffrey’

Ruemmler served as White House counsel to President Barack Obama before moving into private practice in 2014. It was during this period — after Epstein had already pleaded guilty in 2008 to state charges of soliciting prostitution from a minor and was a registered sex offender — that the relationship intensified.

Emails released by the DOJ reveal that Ruemmler held extensive discussions with Epstein between 2014 and 2019. She described him as an “older brother” in correspondence. In one 2018 email, after receiving luxury gifts including designer handbags and a fur coat, she wrote: “So lovely and thoughtful! Thank you to Uncle Jeffrey!!!”

The gifts alone raise questions under Goldman Sachs’ own code of conduct, which requires employees to seek preapproval before accepting gifts from clients or business contacts, in part to avoid conflicts of interest and anti-bribery concerns. Ruemmler joined Goldman in 2020 — after her correspondence with Epstein — but the nature of the relationship was well within the period that corporate due diligence would typically cover.

Perhaps most damaging was the revelation that Ruemmler was one of three people Epstein called on 6 July 2019, immediately after his arrest by federal authorities on child sex trafficking charges at a New Jersey airport. That detail, reported by The Wall Street Journal this week, appears to have been the final trigger for her departure.

Solomon’s Long Defence

Goldman Sachs’ handling of the Ruemmler situation has been a case study in corporate crisis management — and its limits. CEO David Solomon stood by his general counsel when her association with Epstein first emerged in 2023. At the time, a Goldman spokesperson said the emails were “private correspondence well before Kathy Ruemmler joined Goldman Sachs” and called her “an exceptional general counsel.”

That position held through the initial wave of disclosures. It held through congressional committee releases in November 2025. It held through escalating media scrutiny and calls for her departure. What it could not survive was the sheer volume and specificity of the DOJ document releases in late January and early February 2026, which painted a picture not of casual acquaintance but of genuine intimacy with a convicted sex offender.

For Goldman — a bank that has spent years rebuilding its reputation and repositioning its investment strategy — the reputational cost of continuing to defend Ruemmler had become unsustainable. The same institution that recently disclosed a $1.1 billion Bitcoin ETF position as part of a forward-looking strategy could not afford to have its top lawyer dominating headlines for the wrong reasons.

A Pattern of Downfalls

Ruemmler’s resignation is not an isolated event. It is the latest and most prominent in a series of high-profile corporate departures triggered by the sweeping Epstein file disclosures.

Last week, Brad Karp stepped down as chairman of Paul Weiss, one of the most powerful corporate law firms in the United States, after emails showed he maintained communications with Epstein until early 2019. In one exchange, Karp reviewed a draft court filing on Epstein’s behalf and commented approvingly on an argument that Epstein’s victims had “lied in wait and sat on their rights for their strategic advantage.” In another, he asked Epstein to help his son get a job on a Woody Allen film. Karp remains at the firm as a partner.

David Ross, the former director of the Whitney Museum of American Art, also resigned from his position at the School of Visual Arts after emails revealed years of correspondence with Epstein. In one email sent while Epstein was serving a 13-month jail sentence, Ross asked: “Are you finished with the special sleep-away camp yet?”

The pattern across all three cases is consistent: years of documented contact with a convicted sex offender, maintained or deepened after his 2008 conviction, characterised as casual or professional when first exposed, then rendered untenable by the accumulation of documentary evidence.

What This Means for Corporate Governance

The Epstein files are testing a question that boardrooms across Europe and the United States are increasingly having to confront: how far does due diligence extend into the personal histories and associations of senior executives?

Goldman Sachs hired Ruemmler in 2020, two years after Epstein’s arrest on federal charges and a year after his death. The bank would have conducted background checks. Yet the depth of the relationship — the gifts, the affectionate language, the phone call after arrest — either was not flagged or was deemed acceptable. Neither outcome reflects well on the process.

For companies navigating an environment where reputational risk can materialise overnight, the Ruemmler case is a warning. The DOJ has released millions of pages of Epstein-related documents, and more names are expected to emerge. The disclosures have already reverberated from Wall Street to Westminster, with political figures, business leaders, and cultural institutions all facing scrutiny.

Ruemmler’s departure will not end Goldman’s exposure to the Epstein fallout. But it removes the most visible liability from the firm’s leadership team — and sends a clear signal that even the most powerful institutions on Wall Street cannot outrun the documentary record when it finally arrives.

The post Goldman’s Most Senior Lawyer Resigns as Epstein Fallout Claims Another Career appeared first on European Business & Finance Magazine.

QUICK ANSWER What’s happening? The White House brokered a second negotiation session between banks and crypto firms on the CLARITY Act. Ripple’s CLO Stuart Alderoty called the talks “productive” and said compromise is building. Banks made their first written concessions on stablecoin yield, though no deal has been reached. A 1 March deadline has been set.

The United States may be closer than at any point in its history to passing comprehensive crypto market structure legislation, after a White House-brokered negotiation session on 10 February produced the first tangible signs of compromise between the banking industry and digital asset companies. Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty described the meeting as “productive,” adding that bipartisan momentum behind the legislation remained strong and urging all parties to act while the political window remains open.

The meeting — the second convened by the White House in under a fortnight — brought together executives from Ripple, Coinbase, Circle, a16z, and Crypto.com on one side of the table, facing representatives from America’s largest banking lobbying groups on the other. At its centre sits a single, fiercely contested question: should stablecoins be allowed to pay yield to holders?

The Stablecoin Yield Standoff

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, commonly known as the CLARITY Act, aims to establish for the first time a clear regulatory framework for how digital assets are classified and regulated in the US. The legislation has already cleared the House of Representatives and passed through the Senate Agriculture Committee. What remains is passage through the Senate Banking Committee — and that is where the stablecoin yield debate has become a roadblock.

Banks argue that permitting stablecoin issuers to offer yield on holdings would effectively allow crypto companies to compete with bank deposits without being subject to the same regulatory requirements. Their concern is straightforward: if consumers can earn interest on stablecoins held outside the traditional banking system, deposits could migrate at scale, undermining the funding base that supports local lending.

The crypto industry sees it differently. Stablecoin yield, they argue, is a natural function of blockchain-based financial infrastructure and restricting it would hobble innovation at precisely the moment when European payments systems are already evolving to incorporate tokenised and digital-first rails. Prohibiting yield would also put US-regulated stablecoins at a competitive disadvantage against offshore alternatives that face no such restriction.

What Changed at the February Meeting

The first White House meeting on 2 February produced goodwill but no movement on specifics. Banks arrived without any written concessions. The second meeting was different. Banking representatives came with a formal principles document that, while still calling for a general prohibition on stablecoin yield, acknowledged for the first time that certain exemptions could be discussed. They also engaged on the question of which account activities might be permissible — a significant shift from their prior refusal to discuss the topic at all.

For the crypto side, this represented progress. The Blockchain Association’s CEO Summer Mersinger described the talks as “constructive,” and Alderoty’s public statement was notably more optimistic than anything that had emerged from previous sessions. BitGo CEO Mike Belshe, however, struck a more impatient tone, arguing that stablecoin yield should not be allowed to delay the broader market structure bill any further.

The White House has reportedly set a 1 March deadline for both sides to reach agreement. Whether that deadline holds is another matter.

Why This Matters Beyond the US

The outcome of the CLARITY Act will have ramifications well beyond American borders. Europe’s MiCA regulation already provides a framework for stablecoin issuance and crypto asset classification, but it was designed with the expectation that the US would eventually produce something comparable. If the CLARITY Act passes with a workable stablecoin yield provision, it could set the global benchmark — much as Europe’s carbon border tax is reshaping global trade standards.

For European financial institutions already navigating an increasingly complex regulatory environment, US legislative clarity on crypto would remove a major source of cross-border uncertainty. It would also accelerate the institutional capital flows that are already underway — Goldman Sachs’ recent disclosure of a $1.1 billion Bitcoin ETF position being the most prominent example.

Prediction markets currently give the CLARITY Act roughly a 56–59 percent chance of passing in 2026, down from 72 percent following an earlier Senate Democrats meeting. The odds reflect genuine uncertainty: the Senate’s legislative calendar is crowded, midterm elections are approaching, and the stablecoin yield issue remains unresolved. But the direction of travel is clear.

The Clock Is Ticking

The political window for crypto legislation is narrower than it appears. As the US moves deeper into the midterm election cycle, floor time in the Senate becomes increasingly scarce and politically charged. Legislative priorities compete fiercely for attention, and any bill that hasn’t cleared committee by summer faces an uphill battle to reach a vote.

That urgency is not lost on the crypto industry. Companies that have watched startup valuations evaporate in the absence of clear regulatory frameworks understand that uncertainty is itself a cost — one measured in lost capital, delayed launches, and talent migration to friendlier jurisdictions.

For business leaders tracking where institutional capital and regulatory momentum are converging, the CLARITY Act negotiations represent the most consequential policy development in digital assets this year. Alderoty’s assessment that “compromise is in the air” may prove optimistic. But for the first time, both sides are at least negotiating over the same document — and that, in Washington, counts as progress.

The post US Crypto Bill Edges Closer After White House Breakthrough appeared first on European Business & Finance Magazine.

The bank that once dismissed crypto as worthless now holds more Bitcoin than most hedge funds. Its latest SEC filing reveals a $2.36 billion digital asset portfolio — and a strategy shift that should worry the sceptics.

Goldman Sachs has disclosed approximately $1.1 billion in Bitcoin ETF holdings as part of a broader $2.36 billion digital asset portfolio, according to its latest Form 13F filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The position, concentrated primarily in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), makes Goldman one of the largest institutional holders of Bitcoin ETFs and marks a decisive pivot from the bank’s long-standing scepticism toward cryptocurrency.

From Dismissal to Billion-Dollar Conviction

The scale of the reversal is worth emphasising. Before 2020, Goldman’s research teams routinely characterised Bitcoin as a speculative asset with no fundamental value. The bank advised clients to steer clear. As recently as 2022, its investment committee publicly questioned whether crypto belonged in any serious portfolio.

That position has been quietly and systematically abandoned. Goldman reopened its crypto trading desk, began offering Bitcoin derivatives to institutional clients, and has now built a position that would have been unthinkable to the bank’s own analysts five years ago. The $1.1 billion Bitcoin allocation sits alongside $1 billion in Ethereum, $153 million in XRP, and $108 million in Solana — a diversified portfolio that suggests this is strategic conviction, not a speculative punt.

In context, while $2.36 billion represents less than one percent of Goldman’s total assets under management, it is the composition and trajectory that matter. The bank tripled its Bitcoin ETF stake in the months prior to the latest filing, and its overall crypto allocation grew 15 percent quarter-over-quarter even as it trimmed individual ETF positions during a period of market weakness. Goldman was buying the dip while others were heading for the exits.

Why Bitcoin, Why Now

The timing aligns with several structural shifts that are reshaping how institutional capital views digital assets. The approval and rapid growth of spot Bitcoin ETFs in the US has given banks like Goldman a regulated, liquid entry point into crypto markets without the operational and reputational risk of direct token custody. Assets under management across US spot Bitcoin ETFs have now surpassed $97 billion, with over $55 billion in net inflows since launch.

This infrastructure maturity is what separates the current wave of institutional adoption from earlier cycles. Goldman is not buying Bitcoin on an exchange and holding private keys. It is purchasing regulated ETF shares through BlackRock and Fidelity — the same counterparties it deals with across every other asset class. That distinction matters enormously for risk committees and compliance departments.

At the same time, Wall Street is rapidly rotating away from AI-exposed stocks as valuations in the technology sector come under pressure. Bitcoin’s low correlation with equities during periods of macro stress is part of its institutional appeal, and Goldman’s own trading desk has flagged the potential for systematic funds to sell up to $80 billion in equities in the coming weeks. A partial rotation into uncorrelated assets like Bitcoin is a logical hedge.

The Ethereum Surprise

Perhaps more revealing than the Bitcoin position is what Goldman has done with Ethereum. The near-equal allocation — $1.1 billion in Bitcoin versus $1 billion in Ethereum — defied most predictions. Bitcoin has historically dominated institutional portfolios by a wide margin, yet Goldman appears to be signalling confidence in Ethereum’s utility as the backbone of decentralised finance and tokenisation infrastructure.

This has implications for how Europe’s payments landscape is evolving. Tokenised assets, stablecoin settlement, and blockchain-based financial rails are moving from concept to deployment, and Ethereum remains the primary platform on which those systems are being built. Goldman’s allocation suggests the bank sees Ethereum not just as a trading asset, but as infrastructure.

What This Means for European Markets

European institutions have been slower than their US counterparts to embrace crypto ETF products, partly due to regulatory fragmentation and partly due to a more cautious institutional culture. But Goldman’s filing will not go unnoticed in London, Frankfurt, or Zurich. When the most influential investment bank on Wall Street allocates $2.36 billion to digital assets, it resets the benchmark for what is considered acceptable institutional behaviour.

The EU’s evolving regulatory frameworks — including MiCA, the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation — provide a structure for European banks to follow Goldman’s lead, but uptake has been cautious. That caution may now look less like prudence and more like competitive disadvantage. European asset managers watching startup valuations collapse and traditional trade structures shift under new border regimes are being forced to ask whether digital assets deserve a larger allocation than the near-zero weighting most currently maintain.

The Signal in the Noise

Goldman’s CEO David Solomon is scheduled to speak at the World Liberty Financial Forum, and the bank attended a White House meeting on stablecoin policy this week. The message is clear: Goldman is not merely investing in crypto. It is positioning itself at the intersection of digital asset markets and the regulatory architecture being built around them.

For investors and business leaders tracking where institutional capital is moving, the Goldman filing is the loudest signal yet that crypto has crossed the line from alternative curiosity to core portfolio allocation. The bank that once told clients Bitcoin was worthless now holds more of it than most dedicated crypto funds. That is not a trade. That is a thesis.

The post Goldman Sachs Just Disclosed $1.1B Bitcoin ETF Position — Why Now? appeared first on European Business & Finance Magazine.