Coinbase employees caught taking bribes for user data — hackers demand $20 million ransom



Coinbase received an extortionary email asking for $20 million in ransom from hackers who said they had obtained private user data.

The cryptocurrency exchange platform said a May 11 message demanded the money in return for not publicly disclosing information that was obtained through Coinbase employees.

'No passwords, private keys, or funds were exposed, and Coinbase Prime accounts are untouched.'

In a press release, Coinbase said "cyber criminals bribed and recruited" "rogue overseas support agents" to steal customer data in order to facilitate social engineering attacks.

Coinbase described the intrusion as only affecting a small subset of customers (less than 1%). However, this could still account for more than 1 million app users, given 2024 estimates that the company had ballooned to 105 million users, according to Business of Apps.

"No passwords, private keys, or funds were exposed, and Coinbase Prime accounts are untouched," Coinbase noted. "We will reimburse customers who were tricked into sending funds to the attacker."

While the company did its best to reassure its customers, a plethora of private information was swept up that users will not be happy about.

RELATED: Senate rejects cryptocurrency bill pushed by Treasury Sec. Bessent

The Coinbase headquarters in San Francisco. Photo by Christie Hemm Klok for the Washington Post via Getty Images

According to Coinbase, hackers were provided with user names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails. The last four digits of Social Security numbers, masked bank account numbers, images of government ID, and more were allegedly stolen as well.

Dean Gefen, CEO of cybersecurity firm NukuDo, told Blaze News that this kind of data breach has long-term effects that most will come to realize.

'That kind of exposure isn't just a privacy issue; it opens the door to phishing, identity theft, and long-term financial vulnerability. Most users won't feel it today, but if that data gets sold or abused, the impact will remain for years."

Gefen explained that the reason crypto account holders are so at risk is because they sit at the intersection of finance and emerging tech. These two sectors often move ahead at light speed and end up leaving security in the rearview mirror, hoping to catch up.

"Any company storing sensitive financial data needs to take this as sign to be on notice. Without the right people, training, and systems in place, this kind of breach is inevitable," Gefen said.

RELATED: Florida teens allegedly kidnap Vegas man at gunpoint, ditch him in Arizona desert, steal $4 million in cryptocurrency heist

— (@)

When asked if this was just the cost of doing business at this scale, Gefen replied, "[Only] if we accept failure as normal."

"We wouldn’t tolerate this kind of breach in a nuclear facility or defense system, so why would we accept it in our financial infrastructure?"

The cybersecurity expert added that bad actors from China, North Korea, and Russia are among the biggest threats who look at crypto platforms as attractive, decentralized targets.

Coinbase said that is working with "industry partners" and law enforcement to connect the dots, but instead of paying the ransom, it planned to establish a $20 million reward fund for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the attackers.

The crooked insiders were allegedly "fired on the spot" and referred to "U.S. and international law enforcement."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How Republicans can shut down this overbearing agency once and for all



With accountability and spending restraint more urgent than ever, Congress should shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for good. Eliminating the CFPB would mark a decisive move to protect taxpayers from another bloated, unaccountable government agency. If Republicans, Congress, and President Donald Trump want to keep their promise to rein in Washington’s runaway bureaucracy, they must ensure this agency stays dead — and buried for good.

The CFPB’s unchecked growth and regulatory overreach have raised red flags for years. Born out of the 2008 financial crisis, the agency operates with minimal oversight and has long avoided serious scrutiny. Its expanding budget and vague authority continue to spark legitimate questions about fiscal responsibility and constitutional limits. Closing down the CFPB would end a failed bureaucratic experiment and send a clear message: Every federal agency answers to the taxpayers. No exceptions.

Consumers deserve clear, commonsense policies — especially after years of market confusion driven by the CFPB’s heavy hand.

The CFPB was built to operate independently, beyond the reach of Congress or the president. Lawmakers granted it broad, vague authority — allowing unelected bureaucrats to meddle freely in the U.S. economy. Beyond its track record of economic failure, the CFPB’s structure flatly contradicts the American model of representative government.

President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, acted quickly. They made high-impact decisions to show Americans they were serious about cutting waste, reducing overreach, and eliminating redundancy across the federal bureaucracy. When the CFPB came up for its DOGE review, the administration halted its operations and dismissed hundreds of staff.

That move triggered criticism from the usual quarters, but consumers and lawmakers should look deeper. Ending the CFPB isn’t just about cost-cutting. It signaled a broader plan to streamline the federal government and promote efficiency across every agency.

Still, even the DOGE can’t finish the job without Congress. Only Congress can repeal the statute that established the CFPB — and only Congress can shut the agency down for good. Lawmakers must do so.

The CFPB currently controls its own funding, bypassing the regular appropriations process and evading critical checks and balances. Reclaiming those dollars would help reduce the deficit, and redistributing the CFPB’s limited useful functions to other agencies would ensure continued consumer protections under proper oversight.

The Federal Reserve and other agencies already handle key aspects of financial regulation and could easily absorb the CFPB’s remaining duties. Congress must finally draw the line: no more duplicative mandates, no more unchecked authority, and no more mission creep. If consumer protections matter — and they do — then Congress must deliver them through a structure that answers to the people.

RELATED: Congress claps back at Biden’s 'junk fee' crusade

Ployker via iStock/Getty Images

Fortunately, the CFPB has begun scaling back some of its overreach. Earlier this month, the agency dropped its lawsuit against Credit Acceptance Corporation, an auto lender. That move signals a step in the right direction — away from regulatory overreach and toward a more balanced role in the economy.

Every unnecessary enforcement action piles compliance costs on businesses, stifles innovation, and hampers economic growth. Reassessing these missteps marks progress toward a regulatory approach that defends consumers without punishing industry.

Consumers deserve clear, commonsense policies — especially after years of market confusion driven by the CFPB’s heavy hand. They also deserve policies shaped by accountable officials, not by bureaucrats operating in defiance of congressional oversight. Credit access remains essential for Americans seeking financial stability in times of need. Crafting sound regulations — and eliminating those that never made sense — protects both their financial futures and the broader economy.

Consumers also deserve protection they can trust. Creditors need clear, consistent rules to serve their customers without facing unpredictable regulatory entanglements. Any reform bill must address these concerns directly and distribute the CFPB’s remaining legitimate duties across existing, accountable agencies.

As these changes take shape, stakeholders must stay engaged. Reforms should be implemented deliberately and effectively — promoting economic growth while preserving oversight where it’s needed. If President Trump wants to cement his legacy as the president who dismantled the administrative state, he must make sure the CFPB doesn’t just get paused. It must stay gone for good.

New Laws Restrict Indiana Treasurer Who Protects Americans From Debanking

The banking industry is attempting to take programs from Indiana's state treasurer because he works to protect Christians and conservatives.

Federal Reserve revokes guidance requiring banks to gain preapproval on cryptocurrency activity



The Federal Reserve has rescinded its guidance for banks related to handling cryptocurrencies and digital assets.

In a recent press release, the Federal Reserve Board said it was removing guidance that forced banks to seek special permission before dealing with digital assets.

According to the release, a 2022 supervisory letter established an expectation that banks would provide advance notification of planned cryptocurrency activities, while updating the Reserve of ongoing ventures.

The justification for the requirements included market instability, money-laundering concerns, and consumer protection.

"Certain types of crypto-assets, such as stablecoins, if adopted at large scale, could also pose risks to financial stability," the expunged letter read.

However, the board now says it will no longer expect banks to provide notification and will instead "monitor banks' crypto-asset activities through the normal supervisory process," the press release explained.

The 2023 letter, since withdrawn, required banks to demonstrate, "to the satisfaction of Federal Reserve supervisors," that the bank had controls in place in order to conduct safe transactions surrounding cryptocurrencies. This was called a "supervisory nonobjection" where banks did not get to engage in an activity and then have it scrutinized, but rather they needed to submit their "proposed activities" to the Federal Reserve in order to move forward.

This was not a form of an approval process either, though, but rather a "nonobjection."

Taking off more reins

The Federal Reserve board also said it would be working with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to determine if additional guidance to support innovation with crypto-asset activities is needed.

According to Crowdfund Insider, the OCC announced in March that it would be making its own changes to its Comptroller's Handbook booklets and guidance. On change from the federal agency, which works within the Treasury Department, was that it would no longer examine institutions for "reputation risk."

"The OCC’s examination process has always been rooted in ensuring appropriate risk management processes for bank activities, not casting judgment on how a particular activity may fare with public opinion," said Acting Comptroller of the Currency Rodney E. Hood.

"The OCC has never used reputation risk as a catch-all justification for supervisory action. Focusing future examination activities on more transparent risk areas improves public confidence in the OCC's supervisory process and makes clear that the OCC has not and does not make business decisions for banks."

President Trump recently signed an executive order aimed at establishing a strategic Bitcoin reserve, which at the same time forbids the acquisition of other digital assets except through forfeiture proceedings.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Bill Targets Indiana Treasurer Who Stops Banks From Canceling Christians, Gun Owners

Indiana's treasurer helped push banks to back down on canceling conservatives, and now a banker-backed bill would strip his office's powers.

Congress claps back at Biden’s 'junk fee' crusade



Good news rarely comes out of Capitol Hill, but last week’s Senate vote to reject a Biden-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau proposal marked a welcome exception. Lawmakers blocked a plan to impose price controls, taking an important step toward reviving the Trump administration’s efforts to rein in the agency. Those efforts included directing CFPB employees to stop developing new regulations.

The House is scheduled to vote on its version of the resolution on Wednesday.

The overdraft cap may be the latest counterproductive mandate from the CFPB, but it’s far from the first. Given its track record, the next step shouldn’t be reform but repeal.

Despite centuries of evidence that price controls often backfire, the Biden administration made them a central part of its economic agenda. From rent regulations to the so-called “war on junk fees,” the White House consistently pushed for caps and mandates.

The CFPB’s rule to limit overdraft fees — finalized just as the Bidens prepared to leave for Delaware — followed that same pattern.

The rule would impose a $5 fee limit on banks’ and credit unions’ overdraft charges. Yet as with most price control schemes, it is the very people it claims to help — lower-income Americans — who stand to lose the most.

The Senate, led by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who introduced the resolution, voted to repeal the cap, recognizing it for what it is: a performative policy that distracts from the inflation that has devastated family budgets. Scott noted that the rule changes the conversation, not consumers’ realities.

Whether covering a car repair, rent, or a medical bill, overdraft protection enables people to bridge temporary shortfalls without bouncing checks, defaulting on bills, or incurring additional late fees. It’s used most frequently, not by the reckless, but by responsible people in tight spots.

A flat government-imposed $5 cap on overdraft charges is both economically unworkable and fundamentally unfair. Banks incur actual costs when they provide this service. They must process the transaction, front the money, and take on the risk that the overdraft won’t be repaid.

When those costs can’t be recovered, businesses eliminate the service altogether or pass the costs on to other customers in other ways. In this case, that would mean millions of consumers losing access to a widely used and valued program. And that’s not just theory — previous attempts to regulate overdraft fees have led to similar consequences, including fewer banks offering overdraft coverage or more restrictive account terms.

Lower-income families aren't the only ones who will suffer. Midsized and regional banks, many of which serve rural and working-class populations, would be forced to reassess whether they can afford to offer overdraft protection at all. That’s a problem because many rural communities are lucky to have even one bank.

Add it all up, and it’s clear this rule doesn’t punish Wall Street. It squeezes the very Americans the Biden administration claimed to champion — the forgotten men and women.

The CFPB’s proposed rule would set a troubling precedent. Once price controls take hold in one area of consumer finance, they become easier to expand into others.

History shows what happens when the government imposes arbitrary price limits: supply drops, access declines, and the people most in need — especially those on the margins — suffer the most.

As Milton Friedman put it, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” A $5 cap on overdraft fees may sound appealing, but it carries real costs.

The House must now follow the Senate’s lead and repeal this flawed regulation. And Congress shouldn’t stop there.

The overdraft cap may be the latest counterproductive mandate from the CFPB, but it’s far from the first. Free-market advocates can’t point to a single action by the agency they support.

Given its track record, the next step shouldn’t be reform but repeal.

Since the Trump administration began reining in the CFPB, several Republican lawmakers have introduced bills to dismantle it entirely. Congress should bring those proposals to a vote and keep the political will to finish the job. This debate is long overdue.

Congress can’t legislate away unintended consequences



Sometimes, bipartisanship is a great meeting of the minds. Other times, it’s a meeting of minds that don’t understand economics. The latter is the case with recently proposed legislation to cap credit card interest rates, introduced by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and her reliably misguided counterpart, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Let’s start with common ground. Most people agree that credit card interest rates, which now average well above 20%, are excessive. No one should pay 20% or 30% interest annually unless facing a true emergency, and even then, that debt should be paid off as quickly as possible.

Policies that sound good in theory often fail in practice, and capping credit card interest rates is one of them.

Pricing serves as a signal, providing consumers with critical information. A high interest rate should send a clear message: Avoid carrying a credit card balance. Paying off the full amount each month prevents the burden of excessive interest charges.

However, in typical fashion, lawmakers who put political appeal over economic literacy ignore the unintended consequences of their policies. Proposing a cap on interest rates disrupts this pricing signal and creates a cascade of negative effects.

The most immediate consequence is reduced access to credit. High credit card interest rates exist largely because lenders assume the risk of defaults, including the possibility that borrowers may discharge their debt through bankruptcy. To compensate for this risk, lenders adjust costs accordingly.

Capping credit card interest rates while maintaining the bankruptcy “out” forces lenders to adjust their underwriting process. As a result, many borrowers — including those with poor credit and even some with decent credit — will lose or be denied access to credit from traditional sources. To compensate for lost revenue, lenders will likely introduce additional fees, making borrowing more expensive in other ways.

Predictably, lawmakers like Luna and Ocasio-Cortez will then complain about financial discrimination against low-income borrowers who suddenly find themselves locked out of the credit system.

Without access to traditional credit, many of these individuals will turn to riskier, more expensive alternatives, such as payday lenders or even black-market sources, further exacerbating the problem policymakers claim to be solving.

Ultimately, Congress cannot legislate away unintended consequences. In fact, Congress is typically a source of unintended consequences.

Some may argue that restricting credit access is beneficial for certain individuals, but denying access doesn’t mean people won’t seek credit elsewhere — often from riskier, more expensive sources.

More importantly, what gives the government the authority to regulate financial responsibility? Should Congress also prevent people from buying cars they can’t afford, placing sports bets, purchasing designer clothes, or enjoying steak dinners?

Financial responsibility cannot be legislated, especially in a country with minimal financial literacy education.

And let’s not forget that Congress itself has accumulated $36.5 trillion in national debt. Hardly a role model for fiscal responsibility.

Policies that sound good in theory often fail in practice, and capping credit card interest rates is one of them. Instead of creating more financial hurdles, Congress should focus on fixing its own fiscal mismanagement and addressing affordability issues. People shouldn’t feel forced to borrow at insane rates just to make ends meet.

‘Fair Access’ Bill Would Finally Stop Activist Banks From Discriminating Against Conservatives

Financial institutions don't have authority to silence political or religious individuals or groups with whom they don’t agree.

Report: Your Bank Might Be Spying On You For The Feds

Americans should be deeply concerned that our government and financial institutions are not only spying on us but also potentially abusing their power to target Americans for their political views.

Obama DOJ initiative became political de-banking scheme, Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen tells Joe Rogan



Brexiteer Nigel Farage was de-banked last year for political reasons. While acknowledging he was a commercially viable customer, Coutts bank, part of the NatWest Group, dropped the British politician because of his comparison of Black Lives Matter rioters to the Taliban; his criticism of climate alarmism and his suggestion that "net zero is net stupid"; his "endorsements of Donald Trump"; and other expressions thought unpalatable by the powers that be.

Although Britain has done its best in recent months to clamp down on perceived wrong think, including silent prayer, it is hardly exceptional when it comes to the practice of de-banking.

Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Netscape and general partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, recently told Joe Rogan that scores of tech founders have been de-banked under the Biden administration through a coordinated and politically motivated effort he referred to as "Operation Choke Point 2.0," an apparent update on a scandalous Obama Department of Justice initiative. In the days since the interview, numerous crypto entrepreneurs have gone online with their own de-banking tales.

The 'wrong politics'

After explaining that "de-banking is when you, as either a person or your company, are literally kicked out of the banking system," Andreessen told Rogan that it has hit close to home — his business partner's father was de-banked.

When asked why David Horowitz, a critic of Islamic and leftist extremism, would have been de-banked, Andreessen said, "For having the wrong politics. For saying unacceptable things."

"I mean, David Horowitz is, you know — he's pro-Trump," said Andreessen. "I mean, he's said all kinds of things. You know, he's been very anti-Islamic terrorism. He's been very worried about immigration, all these things."

Other individuals and groups who have been de-banked in recent years were similarly on the right, which may explain why the Southern Poverty Law Center has defended the practice.

'There's no constitutional amendment that says the government can't de-bank you.'

In September 2023, Bank of America de-banked John Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and one of the attorneys also targeted by the 65 Project for his work with President-elect Donald Trump. Two months later, USAAA Federal Saving Bank similarly de-banked him.

Former Nebraska state Treasurer John Murante (R) noted in an op-ed last year that Chase had de-banked multiple individuals and organizations — including the Arkansas Family Council, Defense of Liberty, and retired general Michael Flynn Jr. — over "mainstream American views."

Months after JPMorgan Chase canceled the checking account for former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback's faith-based nonprofit National Committee for Religious Freedom, Brownback reportedly received an email from Chase indicating that he was a "politically exposed person."

"Under current banking regulations, after all the reforms of the last 20 years, there's now a category called a 'politically exposed person,' PEP," Andreessen told Rogan. "You are required by financial regulators to kick them off, to kick them out of your bank. You're not allowed to have them."

According to a 2021 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council document, the "term PEP is commonly used in the financial industry to refer to foreign individuals who are or have been entrusted with a prominent public function, as well as to their immediate family members and close associates." The term has also been applied to domestic individuals similarly entrusted with prominent public functions.

The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, an international outfit hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, noted in its own definition that due to their position and influence, many PEPs "are in positions that potentially can be abused for the purpose of committing money laundering offences and related predicate offenses, including corruption and bribery, as well as conducting activity related to terrorist financing."

Andreessen suggested that the de-banking of domestic PEPs tends to go only one way, noting, "I have not heard of a single instance of anyone on the left getting de-banked."

A private-public scheme

The tech entrepreneur explained that this politically unidirectional mechanism is wielded by a combination of governmental and private forces.

"There's a constitutional amendment that says the government can't restrict your speech, but there's no constitutional amendment that says the government can't de-bank you," said Andreessen.

The government leans on private banking institutions to do its dirty work, which gives it the benefit of distance, such that "the government gets to say, 'We didn't do it. It was the private company that did it, and of course, JPMorgan can decide who they want to have as customers.'"

Andreessen characterized the political persecution scheme as a "privatized sanctions regime that lets bureaucrats do to American citizens the same thing that we do to Iran: Just kick you out of the financial system."

According to Andreessen, this "regime" has been targeting numerous crypto entrepreneurs since President Joe Biden took office.

'It's just raw administrative power.'

"This has been happening to a lot of the fin-tech entrepreneurs, anybody trying to start any kind of new banking service, because they're trying to protect the big banks," said Andreessen. "This has been happening, by the way, also in legal fields of economic activity that they don't like."

Thanks, Obama

Andreessen suggested that this coordinated effort to crush perceived political adversaries through monetary pressures kicked off in earnest "about 15 years ago with this thing called Operation Choke Point."

Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel and senior vice president of corporate engagement at the Alliance Defending Freedom, told members of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government in March:

In the now infamous Operation Choke Point, President Obama's DOJ and FDIC spearheaded a multi-agency initiative to target legal industries like firearms dealers, tobacco sellers, dating services, coin dealers, and payday lenders. After a group of payday lenders sued the FDIC, litigation filings and subsequent federal oversight offered a rare look into the world of financial regulation. The FDIC expanded "reputational risk" to include "any negative publicity involving the third party." It then worked in conjunction with the DOJ and other agencies to pressure financial institutions to deny service to disfavored industries. The DOJ issued over 60 subpoenas; the FDIC and OCC issued related guidance on the reputation risk presented by payment processing for these entities; and the FDIC listed the above businesses as "high-risk businesses," all with the intent to cut off banking access to these industries.

Andreessen suggested that the Biden administration extended the concept to apply to political opponents as well as to crypto and tech entrepreneurs.

"Choke Point 2.0 is primarily against their political enemies and then to their disfavored tech startups," said Andreessen. "And it's hit the tech world hard. We've had like 30 founders de-banked in the last four years."

According to the tech entrepreneur, those he knows who have been de-banked effectively had to reinvent themselves or get creative with where they put their money to "try to get away from the eye of Sauron."

Tyler Winklevoss, co-founder of Gemini, noted after Elon Musk highlighted Andreessen's comments that he was de-banked and suggested that there have likely been far more than 30 individuals de-banked in the burgeoning industry.

"Totally unlawful, evil behavior," said Winklevoss.

Brian Armstrong, co-founder and CEO of Coinbase, responded to Andreessen's claims, noting, "Can confirm this is true. It was one one of the most unethical and un-American things that happened in the Biden administration, and my guess is we'll find Elizabeth Warren's fingerprints all over it (Biden himself was probably unaware). We're still collecting documents via FOIA requests, so hopefully the full story emerges of who was involved and whether they broke any laws."

Konstantin Richter, CEO of Blockdaemon, claimed that Bank of America similarly cut his organization loose.

The nature of de-banking leaves victims with few or no means to seek remedy.

"You can't go sue a regulator to fix this. It's not through any kind of court judgment. It's just raw power. It's just raw administrative power," said Andreessen. "It's the government or politicians just deciding that things are going to be a certain way, and then they just apply pressure until they get it."

To make matters worse, "There are no fingerprints," said Andreessen. Those behind the de-banking are virtually untouchable.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!