Trump Crypto and SPAC SCAM Revealed

Trump is set to make billions through a backdoor Crypto scheme involving Truth Social.

MEIDASTOUCH NETWORK JUL 13

READ IN APP

By Max from UNFTR

I have a story for you. It’s a grift inside a con inside of a shell game. Our protagonist is none other than Donald John Trump, though nothing I’m about to tell you about his con of a lifetime is illegal. And that’s the point. Oligarchy is real, and this story illustrates just how rigged the game is against the American people.

Meidas+ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

Our story begins with how Trump’s media company, Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., was able to purchase $400 million of its own shares. We’ll talk about the why and how of it all, what the company does, and how it feeds into the Wall Street shell game of stock buybacks that are propping up the equity markets right now.

---

The Truth is Out There

There’s a very good chance you’re not on Truth Social, the centerpiece asset of the Trump Media Group. X has 300 times the number of daily users. Even BlueSky has ten times the number of daily users. And yet, the company that owns it is so well capitalized that it was able to buy back $400 million of its own shares, and it raised more than $3 billion when it went public. All despite the fact that Truth Social isn’t really a business.

When Trump Media went public with only Truth Social to hang its hat on, there was an initial frenzy in the market because there was speculation at the time that Trump might be elected to a second term. It was a longshot gamble that hasn’t paid off for anyone, really—except for the cast of charlatans behind the issuance and, of course, Trump himself.

Despite the chest-thumping about great technology and Truth Social taking over the social media world, the reality was the complete opposite. Gamblers and Trump sycophants poured money into the stock anyway, but savvy investors knew from Jump Street that there was no “there” there.

A year later and the numbers don’t lie.

This is ripped directly from the company’s most recent quarterly filing with the SEC. Net sales for the quarter ending March 31 of this year show that Trump Media brought in a paltry $821 thousand in revenue. (For comparison’s sake, Meta’s Q1 revenue was $42 billion.) This puts Trump Media on pace to hit $3.2 million for the year. Even more ridiculous is that to pull in that $821K in revenue, it cost the company $40 million.

So it lost $39 million for the quarter.

Trump’s Truth Social has been a disaster from the beginning. First off, it’s lousy tech. Second, it’s bleeding cash, and there’s no appreciable revenue model in sight. So it begs the question: how on earth was this company even able to go public in the first place? Here’s where our story really begins and the first scam is revealed.

Truth Social’s holding company, Trump Media, was a failure in search of a sugar daddy. And boy, did it find one. Trump Media merged with a company called Digital World, a startup investment vehicle referred to as a SPAC, which stands for Special Purpose Acquisition Company. These are publicly traded investment vehicles created for the sole purpose of acquiring or merging with an existing private company, effectively taking it public without going through the traditional IPO process.

SPACs have been around for several decades but gained popularity in the early 2000s. They’re referred to on Wall Street as “blank check” companies because that’s essentially what they are—money in search of an idea. Even though the first one was launched in 1997, it wasn’t a popular vehicle because of the risks associated with it. It wasn’t until a tech bro named Chamath Palihapitiya got involved that the SPAC world was set ablaze.

What Chamath and others figured out was that high-profile people—from celebrities to Wall Street titans—could skip the hard part of going public and get listed with just a filing and a promise. If they could get Brad Pitt to fart in a paper bag, they could get people to invest in it.

The initial investors come in at very favorable terms, typically with something called warrants, which allow them to purchase severely discounted shares of the SPAC once it’s listed on an exchange. The trick here, however, is all about timing.

The SPAC usually has a limited amount of time—between 12 and 18 months—to identify an acquisition. The funds are held in a trust account until the SPAC identifies a target company to acquire. Once a target is identified, the SPAC undergoes a merger or acquisition, effectively taking the target public. If the SPAC fails to complete an acquisition within a specified timeframe, it must return the funds to its investors.

It should be noted that regulators hate these vehicles. Like every other public company, SPACs are subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other regulatory bodies. And with each passing year, the SEC is making it more and more difficult for SPACs to maneuver because, well, for the most part, they suck.

For example, literally none of Chamath’s SPACs ever worked out. In fact, they’ve been a disaster. The ones that survived the holding period are down significantly. Others either closed or never even got off the ground, which has made Chamath somewhat of a pariah in investment circles.

Digital World was able to meet the first threshold by merging with Trump Media, and that’s how it was able to hit the ground running on the exchange. But at some point, the company also has to perform. Otherwise, it’s just a regular old pump-and-dump scheme.

Once again, the chief grifter in charge had to pony up little, if anything, other than his name. In return, he receives extremely favorable terms on this investment of nothing. According to some analysts, just the cash portion of what he received once it went public was in the hundreds of millions. And because he’s such a stable genius who surrounds himself with only the best people, you can imagine the clown car of shysters who got this thing off the ground.

The original CEO was a guy named Patrick Orlando, whose impressive resume included a defunct biofuel company in Peru, a deal with Venezuela to finance tugboats, and another venture in China. The only real record of his accomplishments lay in the trove of lawsuits he typically left in his wake, but he had enough to muster up a $25,000 investment into Digital World, and he knew how to organize a SPAC. His stake was purportedly worth around $600 million when he was ousted from the company.

Then there’s Luis Orleans-Braganza, the founding CFO of the company. He was a vocal supporter of Donald Trump and maintained close ties with Jair Bolsonaro. Oh, he’s also no longer with the company.

We’ve got Bruce J. Garelick, who was on the founding board. The SEC filed charges against him for trading in advance of the SPAC announcement. Another fancy term for that would be “insider trading.”

Rounding it out: founding board members Justin Shaner and Brian Shevland. Shaner was subpoenaed by the SEC last year, and Shevland was suspended by the SEC from acting as a broker.

Only the best people.

---

Attack of the Buyback

Now that you know how they pulled off taking Truth Social public—despite the fact that it has almost no revenue, loses hundreds of millions of dollars, is built on horrible technology, and has no plans to actually become a real business—let’s talk about that $400 million stock buyback, because this is part of a trend that has wider implications for the economy.

Buybacks are very much in the news today because in April, U.S. corporations announced a staggering $233.8 billion in stock buybacks—the second-highest monthly total ever recorded.

But unlike previous buyback bonanzas, this isn't a sign of economic strength or corporate confidence. Quite the opposite. This time, it's a bit of a red flag.

Companies aren't plowing this cash into their businesses because they see amazing growth opportunities. They're not investing in innovation, workers, or expansion. Instead, some argue they’re spending billions to prop up their own share prices in a cynical bid to boost executive bonuses tied to stock performance.

Take a look at this chart from the Fed.

What you’re looking at is the mountain of cash that Corporate America is sitting on right now. You can see post-pandemic that the figures have gone into the stratosphere. The trend was already on the rise since the Global Financial Crisis, when the U.S. government poured trillions of dollars into the system.

Trump’s tax cuts and a low-interest-rate environment allowed companies to score record profits and hold onto most of them. Then you can see during the pandemic they scored again and pocketed a historic amount of cash—all while increasing prices on the consumer to make sure they took what was in your pocket as well. Things cooled off a bit during that inflation spike when the consumer finally hit a wall, but as you can see, they’ve come back with a vengeance.

You might think that corporations are absolutely killing it by looking at this. But there’s more than meets the eye here. And it explains the relentless pace of stock buybacks.

According to the St. Louis Fed, corporate America came into the year with $209 billion in cash reserves. This kind of dough can be used to issue dividends to shareholders, invest in projects, pay down debt, bonus employees, invest in the market, chill for a rainy day—or to purchase back shares of its own company. That’s what we’re seeing thus far in 2025 in a rather significant way.

Corporate America has been so drunk on free Fed money for so long while getting used to fleecing the American consumer that it’s hiding the fact that they’re not as profitable as the cash-on-hand picture would indicate.

The Shiller PE ratio chart tracks earnings per share of public corporations on the S&P 500. Easiest way to understand this is: the higher the line on the chart, the less profitable a company is relative to its share price. You can see the first spike in 2000 is the dotcom bubble. (If you’re hesitant about the rush of capital into AI stocks, then you probably lived through this period.) This is when any company with .com at the end was flooded with investment money, even if it was a turd like Truth Social.

After that crash, PE ratios came back down to earth, and you can see the valley during the Global Financial Crisis. But as you know, the stock market has been on a never-ending climb since that time. You can see the two highlighted areas are the inflation crisis and right now—during what we need to start calling the Great Trump Recession because we’re already in it.

The stock markets are hitting record highs because investors have nowhere else to put money. So even when inflation was through the roof under the Biden administration, the market cranked. And it’s hitting all-time highs these days as well. But the Shiller chart shows in black and white that the Emperor is butt-naked right now, with PE ratios almost at pre-dotcom bubble peaks.

One of the ways companies are able to influence share price to make it look better than it is through stock buybacks—because it reduces the number of shares outstanding. It’s rampant these days, which is why the chart looks like that, and it’s really underhanded as well. So much so that it used to be illegal. Hold onto your hat when I tell you who made it legal.

Ronald Reagan.

I know, I know. Shocking, right?

In 1982, John Shad, the SEC chair under Reagan, implemented Rule 10b-18. This rule gave corporations a green light to repurchase their own shares without fear of being accused of market manipulation, as long as they followed some laughably permissive guidelines. It was deregulation at its finest—another win for the "free market" fundamentalists who dominated economic policy in the '80s. (And the ’90s. And the aughts. And today. Jesus, this is exhausting.)

Through the ’90s and into the 2000s, buybacks exploded. By the early 2000s, S&P 500 companies were spending more on buybacks than on dividends. By 2007, S&P 500 companies were spending nearly 90% of their earnings on share repurchases and dividends, leaving precious little for investment, research, or workers.

If Reagan-era deregulation opened the door to buybacks, it was a Clinton-era tax policy that turned them into an executive compensation bonanza.

In 1993, the Clinton administration pushed through Section 162(m) of the IRS tax code. Like so many “New Democrat” initiatives, on the surface it sounded like a progressive policy aimed at reining in excessive executive pay. The law capped the corporate tax deductibility of executive compensation at $1 million per executive for publicly traded companies.

Problem solved, right? Wrong. The law included a massive loophole: "performance-based" pay—such as stock options and certain bonuses—was exempted from the cap.

The results were exactly the opposite of what was ostensibly intended. Rather than limiting executive compensation, Section 162(m) caused it to explode. Companies simply capped base salaries at $1 million and shifted compensation to stock options and performance bonuses tied to—you guessed it—stock price.

An SEC study found that executives' sale of personally owned stocks increased from an average of $100,000 per day to $500,000 per day immediately following their companies' buyback announcements. In other words, corporate executives are using company money to pump up stock prices, then personally cashing out at those inflated prices.

Of course, Trump is the president and not the CEO, so executive compensation doesn’t matter to him. Nor does he actually control the shares.

Some other idiot does at the moment. (See above.) But the president is the sole beneficiary, so when the stock goes up, so does the value of the holding that will eventually come back to daddy.

So we’ve got the grift, which is the SPAC, inside the con, which is pumping value through buybacks, which leaves the shell game. It was only a matter of time, and now we know what it is.

The Scam Revealed

Should have seen it all along.

Whether the GOP gets anything done on crypto-specific regulations is a footnote. As you can see here…

The crypto market responded pretty enthusiastically to the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill for two very cynical reasons. The first is that very wealthy people are going to have more disposable income, which means they’ll be more inclined to invest in riskier assets. And because economic data is degrading rapidly and the Big Ugly Bill is going to obliterate consumer spending and drive us into a recession, speculative assets like gold and Bitcoin stand a good chance to see a flood of hedge investments.

So what does this have to do with Trump, the SPAC, and Truth Social?

Because Trump Media just filed paperwork seeking approval to launch an ETF to invest in Bitcoin and Ethereum. A little boost to the share price with the buyback to pad the pockets of the initial investors—and a plan to roll the remaining $2.5 billion into crypto investments. And with that, the shell game is revealed.

Meidas+ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

Max is a contributor to the MeidasTouch Network and Publisher of UNFTR Media. Watch Max’s video report on this topic by clicking here or watch at the top of this article.

For deeper dives into economic and socioeconomic stories, visit UNFTR.com or @UNFTR on YouTube. Make sure to sign up for the FREE weekly UNFTR newsletter here.

Resources

Yahoo Finance: Chamath Palihapitiya’s Crumbling SPAC Empire

Morningstar: How to Lose Money: Buy Digital World Acquisition Corp.

NYTimes: Trump Media Trust

SEC: Brian Shevland SEC

AFR: Luiz Philippe de Orléans e Braganza Profile

SPAC Insider: Digital World Drama

SPAC Insider: Benessere Capital

Inside Edition: Trump Media Stock (VIDEO)

Bloomberg: Stock Buyback Record Month

CNN: Betting on bitcoin as Trump boosts crypto

Trump Media 10K

Truth Social - Trump Media Corporation

Shiller PE RATIO

Pajamas, bare feet at breakfast: How hotels are handling bad etiquette

Pajamas, bare feet at breakfast: How hotels are handling bad etiquette

Bella Stoddart@/in/bella-stoddart

Hotels want guests to feel at home — but some take it too far, according to a Hotels.com survey.

The survey results, published by Expedia in March, showed that the most frowned upon behavior was walking around barefoot, with 94% of respondents deeming it inappropriate.

A close second is wearing hotel robes in the lobby (92%), followed by public displays of affection in the pool (86%), according to the survey.

Some hotels deal with these behaviors by providing subtle cues instead of a heavy-handed approach.

“I believe customers will follow the lead if you and your staff are being respectful [and] discreet,” said Reem Arbid, co-founder of The Blue Door Kitchen & Inn.

Guests who speak loudly on their phones is another common issue, she said. Staff can politely ask guests to take the call elsewhere, she said, but “the reaction is not always positive.”

Gently signaling hotel protocols can encourage guests to be more mindful, she said, citing the example of staff speaking in quieter voices.

A subtle approach can also work with other forms of inappropriate behavior, such as wearing unsuitable attire, which can turn off other guests.

“At a high-end retreat, showing up in pajamas or barefoot around shared spaces can come across as disrespectful,” said Ariel Barrionuevo, managing director of La Coralina Island House in Panama.

To address those issues, some hotels provide etiquette guidelines in pre-arrival emails or during the check-in process.

However to some, going barefoot is more about safety than decorum, said Aidan O’Sullivan, general manager of Kilkea Castle, a resort and golf club in Ireland.

Shirts and shoes are required in all on-property restaurants, and the hotel encourages guests to be clothed while in public parts of the castle. Though some may not be dressed accordingly after a swim or spa visit, “it is not the norm,” he said.

Nevertheless, the hotel’s 18-hole golf course still enforces stricter dress codes on the greens, and prohibits non-collared shirts and tracksuits, O’Sullivan said.

More pressing issues

Others in the industry, however, say they are taking a more modern approach to luxury standards.

“Whether it’s PJs at breakfast, pups in beds, or kids enjoying the pool — we welcome it all,” said Sam Jagger, managing director of The Maybourne Beverly Hills.

The hotel instead prioritizes “respect for the safety and privacy of fellow guests and our team,” he said.

Mary D’Argenis-Fernandez, founder of hospitality training company MDA Hospitality Solutions, said strict dress codes are not as common as they used to be. To her, poor behavior — such as public outbursts aimed at staff members or other guests — is a bigger problem, she said.

“It’s these situations, that are sometimes uncalled for, that are more concerning to those who work in the industry,” she said, noting that team members are trained to de-escalate such situations by moving the commotion to a private area.

Read more

No, you can’t ride a lion on safari — why more companies are telling travelers ‘no’ these days

When disruptive behavior occurs in luxury properties, staff could be labeled the “fun police” simply for doing their job, said Cassandra Wheeler, who was a guest service supervisor at a Hilton hotel.

“We would just laugh, smile, and tell them to have a great day,” she said. “Stressed conference attendees and local weekenders sometimes treated us like personal servants.”

Another problem highlighted in the survey are guests who hog pool chairs. Some 60% of respondents say they disapprove of travelers who do this, causing some hotels to nip this behavior in the bud.

Marriott’s Maui Ocean Club - Lahaina & Napili Towers only allows guests to reserve one additional chair, according to Expedia’s press release on the survey. And St. George Beach Hotel & Spa Resort in Cyprus simply allocates sunbeds to guests upon arrival, it added.

Meta’s news block is a blow to community organizations in Canada

Sherbrooke Record

Meta’s news block is a blow to community organizations in Canada

Sherbrooke Record · 19 hours ago

by Matthew Mccully · Civic Literacy

By Greg Duncan

 A recent experience while trying to read a story that had been published in a local newspaper and then shared on Facebook about an important upcoming musical festival in Stanstead resulted in frustration and inability to read the article. Why? Because Meta (Facebook’s parent company) had blocked it because it was “news” and had been published by a legitimate Canadian news outlet. What you say, news is forbidden in Canada? Perhaps you too have experienced this while clicking on a news story on Facebook over the past two years ever since a confusing and frustrating state of restricted news access on the platform began in response to Canada’s Online News Act. Let’s explore the issue.

The background

Canada’s Online News Act, (formerly Bill C-18), was designed to help sustain journalism by requiring tech giants like Meta and Google to compensate news outlets when their content is shared on digital platforms. On paper, it’s a lifeline for an industry struggling to stay afloat. In practice, however, the implementation has sparked a standoff—particularly with Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, which has taken the drastic step of blocking Canadian news content entirely.

Meta’s move: A hard line

In response to the Online News Act, Meta began restricting access to news for Canadian users in 2023. That means Canadian news outlets can’t post links to articles on Facebook or Instagram, and users in Canada can’t view or share news content from those sources on Meta platforms. The stated reason: Meta argues it shouldn’t be forced to pay for links, claiming that news outlets voluntarily post to gain traffic. Their solution is to remove the content altogether.

Collateral damage: Community organizations

What’s been overlooked in this impasse is the ripple effect on community organizations, nonprofits, and advocacy groups that rely on news content—not just to inform but to connect. These aren’t media conglomerates; they’re local food banks, shelters, arts collectives, and grassroots movements whose voices depend on community storytelling.

Here’s how Meta’s blackout harms them:

• Loss of visibility
  • Community organizations often rely on local media coverage to validate their work and amplify events. With news links banned, those stories can’t be shared, drastically limiting reach—especially to older demographics who depend on Facebook for local updates.
• Crippling outreach campaigns
  • Many nonprofits collaborate with journalists to publicize fundraisers, events, food drives, or crisis response efforts. These stories generate trust and inspire donations and attendance. But now, there’s no streamlined way to spread the word on Meta’s massive platforms.
• Silencing marginalized voices
  • Groups advocating for Indigenous rights, newcomers, or low-income families often get coverage in alternative or community-driven news outlets. With those links banned, their stories disappear from public view, further marginalizing already underrepresented communities.

The algorithm gap

• • Facebook’s algorithm favors content with engagement. Credible news articles—especially locally relevant ones—once served as catalysts. Without those stories, community pages are buried beneath viral entertainment, making it harder for organizations to stay relevant online. Worse yet, an increase in AI generated posts makes it more difficult to separate what is real or credible, and what is not. Regardless of credibility of a post now, the engagement algorithm principles apply and continue to increase profits for Meta. Some users claim that each time a questionable post is reported that they see more of the same.

Not just a news problem—It’s a community problem

Meta’s news ban doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s now woven into the fabric of Canadian civic life. Local journalism doesn’t just inform; it connects residents, exposes injustice, celebrates culture, and builds empathy. When platforms block that flow of information, they isolate users from their communities.

Real voices, real impact

Community leaders have been vocal. The Canadian Association of Community Newspapers reported declines in traffic and engagement, noting that hundreds of small publications—many rural or culturally specific—are now struggling even more to survive. Charities have echoed the frustration, pointing out that media partnerships used to be one of the most effective tools for public awareness.

And the irony? Many of these organizations don’t seek payment. They’re not trying to monetize the news—they just want to share it to serve their missions.

Alternatives aren’t enough

Sure, organizations can possibly pivot to email newsletters, websites, or alternate platforms like X or TikTok. But those come with limitations as they’re fragmented audiences are scattered across platforms. They also require levels of digital literacy that many “communities” don’t have and perhaps lack an arguably broad and local reach that Facebook’s uniqueness provides.

The path forward

There’s no easy solution. But a few ideas could help:

• Platform collaboration: Meta could create exemptions for nonprofit and community-based organizations sharing local news.
• Legislative refinement: The Online News Act might need clearer guidelines that prevent unintended consequences for small players.
• Public investment: Canada should maintain and build on existing public support funds for community media and digital outreach efforts while establishing new and innovative media programs.

What we risk losing

If this policy clash continues, it’s not just journalism that suffers—it’s the fabric of local Canadian life. From small-town fundraisers to cultural events, these stories bring people together. And when Meta shuts them out, community organizations lose a vital thread in the social web.

This isn’t a fight over media profits. It’s a reckoning with how we value connection, storytelling, and service. And until tech giants and governments find common ground, Canada’s communities—especially its most vulnerable—are left in digital silence.

Resources and references

Meta’s statement and policy: https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/policies/other-policies/news-regulations/

Canada’s Online News Act (Formerly Bill C-18): https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-assent

The American Police State Is Here

Home | Substack The American Police State Is Here

ICE is about to eclipse the FBI as America's most important law enforcement agency. That's bad. Super-duper bad.

Jonathan V. Last

Jul 08, 2025

∙ Paid

---

Federal agents threaten protesters during a protest over federal immigration enforcement raids at Delaney Hall Detention Facility on June 13, 2025 in Newark, New Jersey. (Photo by Andres Kudacki/Getty Images)

1. ICE > Medicaid

While most people spent the budget fight fixated on health care policy, I suspect that in a year we will consider this legislation to be the moment that Trump created his own internal security apparatus: His goal is to have ICE supplant the FBI in national law enforcement.

This is a big deal. Because the FBI is a professionalized organization with strict standards and a well-defined mission while ICE is more or less a national brute squad.

The Trump administration realized that corrupting the FBI would be a tall order. So while they’re certainly trying to do that, they put most of their chips on a different number: Reinventing ICE as the primary instrument of internal state power.