In June 2025, the United States and China reached a preliminary trade deal framework following two days of intensive talks in London, building on a prior agreement from Geneva in May 2025. The framework aims to de-escalate trade tensions by addressing tariff reductions and export restrictions, pending approval from Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping.

The U.S. agreed to maintain 55% tariffs on Chinese goods (including existing tariffs from Trump’s first term), while China will keep 10% tariffs on U.S. imports, as per the Geneva consensus. This follows a temporary rollback in May from 145% U.S. tariffs and 125% Chinese tariffs to 30% and 10%, respectively, for a 90-day negotiation period.

Rare Earths and Magnets: China committed to resolving export restrictions on rare earth minerals and magnets, critical for U.S. industries like automotive, defense, and electronics. In return, the U.S. will ease certain countermeasures, though specifics remain unclear.

The framework includes provisions for the U.S. to allow Chinese students access to American universities, reversing prior restrictions. China seeks eased U.S. controls on semiconductor and AI-related technology, but the U.S. clarified there’s no direct exchange of high-end AI chip access for rare earths. The talks, led by U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, followed mutual accusations of violating the Geneva deal.

China’s exports to the U.S. dropped 34.5% in May, and rare earth restrictions threatened global supply chains, prompting urgency. Markets showed muted responses due to the deal’s preliminary nature and lack of detailed terms. Analysts, like Wendy Cutler of the Asia Society, expressed concern that the U.S. may have compromised by negotiating national security-related export controls, potentially weakening its stance. Others, like Deutsche Bank, noted historical patterns of progress stalling post-talks.

The preliminary U.S.-China trade deal framework announced in June 2025 carries significant implications across economic, geopolitical, and industrial domains. The framework aims to prevent a return to high tariffs (145% U.S., 125% China) post the July 9, 2025, deadline, potentially stabilizing bilateral trade flows. This could mitigate the 34.5% drop in Chinese exports to the U.S. seen in May 2025, supporting global supply chains.

Lower tariffs (55% U.S., 10% China) compared to earlier peaks could reduce costs for businesses and consumers, though still higher than pre-escalation levels, limiting full recovery. Muted market responses reflect skepticism about the deal’s durability, given the lack of detailed terms and historical failures to finalize agreements. Volatility in sectors like technology, automotive, and manufacturing may persist until a final deal is confirmed.

Businesses reliant on U.S.-China trade face continued uncertainty, as unresolved issues like China’s trade surplus and subsidies could derail progress. Easing China’s restrictions on rare earth minerals and magnets could stabilize supply chains for industries like electronics, electric vehicles, and defense, where China controls 70-90% of global supply. This reduces risks of shortages and price spikes.

However, incomplete resolution of technology export controls (e.g., semiconductors, AI chips) may limit benefits for U.S. tech firms seeking access to Chinese markets. The framework signals a mutual interest in avoiding a full-blown trade war, potentially cooling U.S.-China relations strained by prior tariff escalations and export bans. This aligns with Presidents Trump and Xi’s reported desire for a workable deal.

Cooperation on student visas suggests a softening of cultural and educational barriers, though this may face domestic pushback in the U.S. over security concerns. Critics, like Wendy Cutler, warn that U.S. concessions on export controls tied to national security (e.g., semiconductors, AI technology) could weaken its strategic position. China’s push for access to advanced tech remains a flashpoint, as the U.S. insists no direct trade-off with rare earths.

The deal’s focus on rare earths highlights China’s leverage over critical minerals, potentially pressuring the U.S. to diversify supply chains with allies like Australia or Canada. A stabilized U.S.-China trade relationship could reduce global economic fragmentation, benefiting allies reliant on both markets. However, failure to finalize the deal risks reinforcing perceptions of U.S.-China decoupling, encouraging other nations to align with one side.

U.S. tech firms may see limited relief if export controls on semiconductors and AI remain stringent. China’s push for access to these technologies suggests ongoing friction, as the U.S. prioritizes national security. Increased access for Chinese students to U.S. universities could boost talent pipelines for tech innovation but raises concerns about intellectual property risks.

Eased rare earth restrictions benefit U.S. manufacturers of electric vehicles, wind turbines, and defense equipment, reducing dependence on volatile Chinese supplies. However, long-term reliance on China persists without alternative sourcing. Lower tariffs could reduce prices for U.S. consumers on Chinese-made goods (e.g., electronics, clothing), though elevated tariffs (55%) still increase costs compared to pre-trade war levels. Chinese consumers may see marginal benefits from 10% U.S. tariffs.

The preliminary nature of the deal and historical breakdowns (e.g., post-Geneva) suggest a high risk of failure. Both sides face domestic pressures—Trump’s base demands tough China policies, while Xi navigates economic slowdown and export reliance. Unresolved issues like subsidies, intellectual property theft, and trade imbalances could stall final negotiations.

In the U.S., critics may argue the deal compromises national security or fails to address China’s market distortions. In China, nationalist sentiments could oppose concessions to the U.S., especially on technology access. A finalized deal could boost global growth by stabilizing trade, but failure risks renewed tariff hikes, disrupting markets and supply chains. Emerging economies reliant on U.S.-China trade (e.g., Southeast Asia) are particularly vulnerable.

A finalized deal by July 2025 could lay the groundwork for sustained trade cooperation, boosting global economic confidence and securing critical supply chains. It may also encourage broader U.S.-China dialogue on climate, technology, or security. If talks collapse, escalating tariffs and restrictions could deepen economic decoupling, increase costs, and accelerate U.S. efforts to “reshore” or diversify supply chains, potentially at higher costs.

The deal underscores the need for the U.S. to invest in domestic rare earth production and tech innovation to reduce reliance on China, while China may accelerate efforts to develop its own advanced technologies. The framework offers a chance to stabilize U.S.-China trade but hinges on resolving complex issues under tight deadlines. Its success or failure will shape global economic and geopolitical dynamics, with significant stakes for industries, consumers, and strategic interests.

Tekedia Capital congratulates Nitrode for its $1.8 million raise, from some of the leading funds in the world, including Rebel Fund, Rebel Maiora Ventures, Y Combinator, Clay VC, Cosmic Venture Partners, Goodwater Capital, Eight Capital, and Tekedia Capital.

The business model of Nitrode is very refreshing – making gamers to also become creators: “With Nitrode, playing and creating games go hand in hand. Our platform offers a seamless and intuitive space for gamers to discover and play, while our dedicated creation engine (built off of Godot) provides powerful tools to simplify game development and launch. With features such as world generation, code-assist, and a new interface, every developer is now a game developer.” QED.

Visit nitrode.com and experience the “ultimate AI Game Engine: design, script, and deploy—all in one AI-native engine”, and capital.tekedia.com to learn about Tekedia Capital.

The U.S. Senate voted to advance the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, a bill aimed at creating a regulatory framework for stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies pegged to assets like the U.S. dollar. On June 11, 2025, the Senate voted 68-30 to invoke cloture, allowing the bill to proceed to debate and a potential final vote.

This followed an earlier vote on May 19, 2025, where it passed 66-32, overcoming initial resistance from Democrats concerned about consumer protections, national security, and conflicts of interest, particularly tied to President Donald Trump’s crypto ventures, including his family’s World Liberty Financial and its USD1 stablecoin. The GENIUS Act requires stablecoin issuers to maintain 1:1 liquid reserves, adhere to anti-money laundering rules, and obtain federal or state approval.

It also bans yield-bearing stablecoins and restricts non-financial tech companies from issuing stablecoins unless they meet strict criteria. Supporters, including Senators Bill Hagerty and Kirsten Gillibrand, argue it promotes innovation, consumer protection, and U.S. dollar dominance. Critics, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren, claim it fails to address conflicts of interest and risks financial instability, citing Trump’s crypto dealings and weak safeguards.

If passed, the bill could significantly grow the $250 billion stablecoin market, but its fate in the House remains uncertain, as the House is considering a separate bill, the STABLE Act, with differing regulatory approaches. The GENIUS Act could legitimize and expand the $250 billion stablecoin market by providing a clear regulatory framework, attracting institutional investors and fostering innovation in blockchain-based financial services.

The bill mandates 1:1 liquid reserves and anti-money laundering compliance, aiming to enhance consumer safety and reduce risks of fraud or insolvency seen in past crypto failures like TerraUSD. By regulating stablecoins, the U.S. could maintain the dollar’s global financial dominance, countering threats from unregulated or foreign-backed digital currencies.

The act supports crypto innovation but bans yield-bearing stablecoins and restricts non-financial tech firms, potentially stifling certain business models while mitigating speculative risks. Critics highlight potential conflicts of interest, particularly with President Trump’s crypto ventures like World Liberty Financial’s USD1 stablecoin, which could benefit from lax oversight, raising concerns about political influence in financial regulation.

A regulated stablecoin framework could position the U.S. as a leader in digital finance, but overly restrictive rules might push innovation to jurisdictions like the EU or Singapore with clearer crypto laws. The bill balances innovation and regulation, ensuring consumer protection while fostering a competitive U.S. crypto industry. Clear rules will attract investment, prevent illicit activity, and maintain U.S. financial leadership. They emphasize job creation and technological advancement.

Bipartisan senators, crypto firms, and investors who see stablecoins as a transformative financial tool. The bill is too weak, risking financial instability and enabling conflicts of interest, especially with Trump’s crypto ties. Insufficient consumer protections, inadequate safeguards against money laundering, and potential favoritism toward politically connected crypto ventures undermine the bill’s integrity.

Progressive Democrats, consumer advocacy groups, and skeptics of crypto’s systemic risks. Republicans largely favor the bill for its pro-market stance, aligning with Trump’s crypto-friendly policies. moderates support it for economic competitiveness, while progressives oppose it over regulatory gaps and ethical concerns.

The 68-30 Senate cloture vote (June 11, 2025) shows bipartisan support but also significant Democratic resistance (30 against, mostly progressives). The House’s competing STABLE Act, with stricter rules, highlights a divide between Senate and House approaches. Reconciling these could delay or derail stablecoin legislation, reflecting broader ideological tensions over crypto’s role in finance.

Connecticut has passed House Bill 7082, signed into law as Public Act No. 25-66, which prohibits state and local governments from accepting, holding, or investing in virtual currencies, including Bitcoin. Effective October 1, 2025, the law also bans the establishment of a state cryptocurrency reserve and imposes stricter regulations on crypto businesses, such as licensing requirements, 1:1 reserve backing for customer funds, and fraud protection measures.

The bill passed unanimously in both the Connecticut House and Senate, reflecting bipartisan support, though some critics argue it may stifle innovation. This move contrasts with other states like New Hampshire and Texas, which are exploring or have adopted crypto-friendly policies. Connecticut’s House Bill 7082 (Public Act No. 25-66), effective October 1, 2025, has significant implications for the state’s economy, innovation landscape, and its position in the broader U.S. cryptocurrency policy debate.

By prohibiting state and local governments from accepting, holding, or investing in digital currencies, Connecticut may deter blockchain and crypto startups from establishing operations in the state. This could limit job creation and economic growth in a sector projected to grow globally. The law’s stringent requirements for crypto businesses (e.g., 1:1 reserve backing, licensing, and fraud protections) may increase operational costs, potentially driving firms to states with more permissive regulations like Texas or Wyoming. Smaller crypto businesses may struggle to comply, reducing market competition.

On the positive side, the regulations aim to safeguard consumers by ensuring crypto businesses maintain sufficient reserves and implement fraud prevention, potentially increasing trust in digital asset platforms operating within Connecticut. Critics argue the ban could stifle innovation by signaling a hostile stance toward cryptocurrencies. Connecticut risks losing tech talent and investment to crypto-friendly states like New Hampshire, which is exploring blockchain integration, or Florida, which has embraced crypto payments for certain state services.

The prohibition on a state cryptocurrency reserve eliminates the possibility of diversifying state investments into digital assets, potentially missing out on returns seen by early adopters in other regions. The ban ensures state and municipal funds remain in traditional financial systems, potentially reducing exposure to the volatility of cryptocurrencies. However, it also limits experimentation with blockchain-based efficiencies, such as streamlined payments or smart contracts, which other states are piloting.

The unanimous bipartisan support suggests a cautious approach to financial risk but may reflect a lack of understanding or willingness to engage with emerging technologies among policymakers. The passage of HB 7082 highlights a growing divide in the U.S. regarding cryptocurrency policy, with states adopting divergent approaches.

Texas has positioned itself as a crypto hub, allowing state-chartered banks to custody digital assets and passing laws to recognize cryptocurrencies as legal tender for certain transactions. Texas also supports Bitcoin mining through favorable energy policies. Wyoming a pioneer in blockchain legislation, Wyoming has passed laws allowing “Special Purpose Depository Institutions” to handle crypto assets and offers tax exemptions for certain digital currency transactions.

New Hampshire actively exploring blockchain for state services and considering a cryptocurrency reserve, signaling openness to integrating digital currencies into public finance. Florida permits businesses to pay state fees in cryptocurrencies and has a pro-crypto governor advocating for blockchain adoption.

Connecticut joins states like New York, which has imposed strict regulations (e.g., the BitLicense), in taking a cautious or restrictive stance. Connecticut’s outright ban on government use of crypto contrasts with states experimenting with digital currencies. New York while not banning crypto outright, its regulatory burden has pushed some crypto businesses to relocate to less restrictive jurisdictions.

Others states like California have mixed policies, with strong consumer protections but no outright bans, creating a patchwork of regulations nationwide. Emphasize innovation, economic growth, and attracting tech talent. They argue cryptocurrencies and blockchain can enhance financial inclusion, reduce transaction costs, and position states as forward-thinking.

Anti-Crypto States prioritize financial stability, consumer protection, and regulatory oversight, citing risks like volatility, fraud, and money laundering. Connecticut’s law reflects concerns about speculative bubbles and the 2022 crypto market crashes (e.g., FTX, Terra-Luna). The lack of cohesive federal crypto regulation exacerbates the state-level divide. While some states experiment, others like Connecticut adopt restrictive measures to mitigate perceived risks, creating a fragmented regulatory landscape.

Connecticut’s Position may face challenges attracting blockchain innovators, potentially falling behind in the digital economy. However, its focus on consumer protection could build trust in regulated crypto businesses that choose to stay. The divide underscores a broader debate about balancing innovation with risk. States like Connecticut may push for stricter federal regulations, while crypto-friendly states advocate for lighter oversight to foster growth.

If cryptocurrencies gain mainstream acceptance or federal guidelines emerge, Connecticut may revisit its stance to remain competitive, especially if neighboring states like New Hampshire see economic gains from pro-crypto policies. This divide reflects competing visions for the future of finance, with Connecticut prioritizing caution while others bet on innovation, shaping a complex and evolving U.S. crypto landscape.