Invest ideasNews
20 Feb 2026, 14:30
Mapping Out XRP’s Path To $1,200: Analyst Shares Insights
Recent market dynamics have given different reasons as to why the XRP price is programmed to shoot to double and triple digits. However, a supporter known as Remi Relief recently outlined a case for a four-figure XRP valuation, with the reason being that several unfolding events could lay the groundwork for a move toward $1,200 and even beyond. Remi Relief’s XRP price outlook is based on a combination of incoming regulations, geopolitical developments, and long-term pattern comparisons to XRP’s historic rally in 2017/2018. The Clarity Act And Regulatory Momentum According to XRP supporter Remi Relief, XRP’s price will break above $1,000 by the end of the cycle. This bullish outlook is based on how XRP reacts after the proposed Clarity Act is finally passed. The Clarity Act is an anticipated market structure bill that supporters believe could define clearer rules for digital assets in the United States and remove uncertainty around crypto regulation, including XRP. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse is betting on the Clarity Act to be signed into law by April. Related Reading: What Happens If XRP Is Building Its Final Base At These Levels? However, Remi Relief noted that US President Donald Trump wants progress on the legislation’s passing as early as March 1. According to this view, regulatory clarity would significantly benefit Ripple Labs and, by extension, XRP. Advocates like Remi Relief are of the notion that once legal frameworks are solidified, institutional players that have will now be incentivized to begin allocating more capital into the crypto industry. As an institutional finance-centric crypto, XRP is well-positioned to attract a meaningful share of any large-scale inflows from financial institutions entering the crypto market. Another major point is with Ripple Treasury, which was recently introduced by GTreasury. Remi Relief noted that the platform handled $13 trillion in payments last year, none of which were processed through crypto rails. Imagine how much this would matter for XRP demand if even a fraction of that transactional volume were to migrate onto the XRP Ledger. The 2017/2018 Fractal And The $1,697 Projection XRP’s price action might currently be stuck under $1.50, but various technical analyses show it is still following price playbacks before bullish rallies in previous years. Remi Relief believes this is certainly the case, and a parabolic move is incoming, with a $1,697.27 XRP if the cryptocurrency follows the same pattern as the 2017/2018 cycle. Related Reading: XRP Emerges As Rotation Target As Investors Exit Bitcoin And Ethereum According to the analyst, not only is a $1200-$1700 target possible for XRP, but it’s also a conservative opinion. This plays into a prevailing sentiment where the $1,200 pathway is a high-conviction thesis among a segment of the XRP community. Some XRP proponents are even of the notion that market cap arguments of XRP reaching extravagant price targets like $1,000 and even five digits at $10,000 are misguided. Featured Image from Freepik, chart from Tradingview.com
20 Feb 2026, 14:00
Ripple CEO Predicts Big Wins For Clarity Act And XRP
Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse used a Feb. 18 appearance on Fox to argue that US crypto policy is nearing a turning point, predicting the long-stalled CLARITY Act will pass by the end of April and framing regulatory certainty as a direct catalyst for broader industry growth, including for XRP, which he emphasized has already cleared a key legal hurdle. Why Ripple CEO Garlinghouse Is Bullish Garlinghouse pointed to shifting Washington momentum and said prediction markets have moved in favor of passage. “The CLARITY Act spiked because of comments yesterday, from [a] senator I think now 90% will pass by the end of April,” he said. “I said a couple weeks ago I thought at the end of April […] people talked about [being] optimistic.” He added that the White House is now actively pressing stakeholders, describing a meeting “today with a lot of leaders on both sides (crypto and banking) in the White House, […] [with] the White House pushing hard.” Pressed on Ripple’s position, Garlinghouse argued the bill’s flaws are less important than ending what he cast as a policy vacuum that has pushed the sector into enforcement battles. “Our position [is] very much, don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress,” he said. “No bill is perfect […] we need clarity.” He contrasted Ripple’s posture with the broader industry’s situation by referencing the company’s long-running US legal fight . “Ripple has been fortunate — sued by [the] government — a judge […] say[ing] XRP is not a security. We have clarity,” Garlinghouse said, before reiterating the point in starker terms when asked directly: “Not a security. Courts ruled clearly.” In his telling, the CLARITY Act is meant to keep crypto from being forced into a securities regime that doesn’t map cleanly onto how many networks and tokens function. “If something is a security, all kinds of obligations because […] you own part of the company,” he said, contrasting that with crypto tokens where holders typically don’t receive dividends or governance rights analogous to electing a board. He also claimed the prior administration’s approach “failed in courts,” arguing that a modern framework is required for the US to compete. Ripple’ Strategy And XRP The interview also touched on the sector’s pullback from highs. Garlinghouse tied some of that weakness to policy delays. He said the CLARITY Act getting “pushed [and] stalled, late January […] did not help,” while arguing Ripple entered 2026 with strong momentum after what he called “a tremendous year in 2025.” On relative performance, he claimed XRP has held up better than other majors. “To your point, crypto markets, XRP best performing major crypto, down 20%,” he said, while noting other assets were down materially more from peaks. He framed Ripple’s strategy as proving demand through enterprise use cases rather than retail narratives: “The more we demonstrate real practical utility using technologies to solve real problems, [the] more you see that play out in a positive way.” Garlinghouse cited Ripple’s M&A push as part of a broader effort to build infrastructure that appeals to corporate finance teams. He said Ripple has spent “three billion dollars [on] acquisitions since 2023,” including expanding into “custody, prime [brokerage], treasury management, stablecoin [and] payment” capabilities. He highlighted the treasury-management firm it acquired, saying it “processed 13 trillion dollars payments last year,” and emphasizing how early institutional stablecoin adoption still is: “Crypto-enabled, zero of those were stablecoin enabled.” For now, he suggested dealmaking is taking a back seat to integration. “We bought two big companies last year […] the first half of this year [is] very much on let’s pause […] integrate,” he said, adding: “For time being, we’re going to slow down, before we speed up.” Garlinghouse also argued the CLARITY fight is no longer “crypto versus banks,” pointing to big incumbents wanting a rulebook. He said the “vast majority of the crypto industry” is prepared to accept imperfect language, including around customer rewards, because it would be “a major step forward.” He added that banks are now leaning in as well, citing Goldman Sachs leadership as wanting “the same level playing field” to compete as traditional finance moves deeper into crypto. At press time, XRP traded at $1.4196.
20 Feb 2026, 12:54
Ripple Isn’t Fighting Banks — It’s Connecting Them to Crypto, Says CEO Brad Garlinghouse
Ripple Seeks to Connect Traditional Finance and Crypto Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse told Fox Business that Ripple isn’t competing with banks, it’s partnering with them with the primary focus hinging on building bridges between traditional finance and crypto, underscoring the company’s mission to unify legacy banking with blockchain innovation. Since 2023, Ripple has invested over $3 billion in strategic acquisitions spanning custody, prime brokerage, stablecoin payments, and treasury infrastructure, building a blockchain-powered financial ecosystem that enhances, rather than disrupts, traditional finance. Brad Garlinghouse envisions Ripple reaching a trillion-dollar valuation by 2030, with XRP at the core of its growth strategy. Ripple’s landmark acquisition of G Treasury, now Ripple Treasury, highlights the untapped potential of blockchain in corporate finance. Last year, the platform managed an astonishing $13 trillion in payments, yet, as Garlinghouse emphasized, not a single transaction used crypto or stablecoins, underscoring a massive opportunity for digital assets to transform traditional payment flows. Ripple’s Strategy: Bridging Blockchain and Traditional Finance for Mainstream Adoption Ripple Treasury serves over 1,000 corporate clients, actively leveraging blockchain to boost efficiency, reduce friction, and unlock trapped capital. By embedding crypto solutions into an established payment network, Ripple positions itself as a bridge, modernizing traditional finance without upending familiar systems. What’s the key takeaway? Well, Ripple isn’t fighting banks, it’s working with them. By leveraging existing infrastructure while delivering blockchain’s transparency, speed, and cost efficiency, Ripple Treasury now handles trillions in payments and attracts an expanding roster of corporate adopters. Its latest collaboration with Aviva Investors to launch traditional fund structures on the XRP Ledger exemplifies how institutional finance can merge seamlessly with blockchain. Brad Garlinghouse’s vision positions Ripple not as a parallel financial universe but as an integrated layer boosting global liquidity. With a $3 billion acquisition strategy fueling adoption, Ripple may be defining the blueprint for how crypto and traditional finance can coexist and thrive together. Conclusion By integrating $13 trillion in treasury operations, Ripple signals that crypto isn’t replacing traditional finance, it’s upgrading it. Bridging legacy systems with blockchain, Ripple drives efficiency, transparency, and opportunity for corporate treasuries. With more than 1,000 clients exploring blockchain adoption, the company leads a financial evolution where digital assets and conventional finance converge, powering a faster, smarter, and more connected global payment ecosystem.
20 Feb 2026, 12:46
House Democrats press Treasury on World Liberty bank charter and UAE stake
House Democrats are pressing Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent over World Liberty Financial’s push for a national trust bank charter, citing systemic risk.
20 Feb 2026, 12:45
Stunning $175 Billion Tariff Refund Looms as Supreme Court Weighs Trump-Era Trade Policy Legality
BitcoinWorld Stunning $175 Billion Tariff Refund Looms as Supreme Court Weighs Trump-Era Trade Policy Legality WASHINGTON, D.C. – April 2025 – A stunning financial reckoning, potentially exceeding $175 billion, now hinges on a pivotal legal battle before the nation’s highest court. The U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on the legality of Trump-era reciprocal tariffs could compel the federal government to issue unprecedented refunds to thousands of American importers. This monumental case, rooted in a constitutional challenge to presidential trade authority, carries direct implications for federal revenue, international trade relations, and the balance of power between Congress and the Executive Branch. Consequently, businesses and policymakers are closely monitoring the proceedings, which will establish a critical precedent for future trade actions. The Core Legal Challenge and $175 Billion Tariff Refund Estimate A detailed study by the nonpartisan Penn-Wharton Budget Model provides the eye-popping financial scope of this case. Researchers constructed a model analyzing tariffs by specific item and country of origin. Their conclusion is stark: if the Supreme Court invalidates the tariffs imposed during the previous administration, importers would gain the right to request refunds from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for duties paid since early 2025. The total potential liability surpasses $175 billion. To grasp the scale, this sum exceeds the combined annual budgets of the entire U.S. Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice. The estimate relies on verifiable customs data and projected duty collections, offering a data-driven foundation for the potential fiscal shockwave. Furthermore, the legal argument centers on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Plaintiffs contend the previous administration overstepped the authority granted by these statutes, applying tariffs for purposes of economic reciprocity rather than national security or addressing unfair trade practices as defined by law. The Court must now interpret the statutory limits of presidential trade power. This interpretation will either validate the tariff strategy or deem it an unlawful overreach, thereby triggering the refund mechanism. Legal scholars note the case’s significance extends beyond dollars, potentially reshaping the procedural framework for implementing future trade remedies. Historical Context and the Path to the Supreme Court The tariffs in question originated from 2018, following a series of investigations into trade practices. The administration at the time levied duties on billions of dollars worth of imports from multiple trading partners, citing national security concerns and intellectual property theft. However, lower courts have delivered conflicting rulings on the programs’ legality. Some district courts dismissed challenges, deferring to executive authority on international trade. Conversely, other courts, including the Court of International Trade, found aspects of the tariff actions procedurally flawed or beyond statutory scope. This circuit split created the necessary conditions for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, consolidating several appeals into one landmark case. Importantly, the Biden administration, while criticizing the tariff policy, has defended the office’s constitutional authority in court. This position underscores the executive branch’s institutional interest in preserving flexible trade tools, regardless of the sitting president’s party. The Solicitor General’s briefs argue that overturning the tariffs would undermine presidential credibility in international negotiations and destabilize long-standing trade enforcement mechanisms. Meanwhile, a coalition of affected businesses, industry associations, and constitutional law firms represents the importers. They argue that Congress never intended to grant the president a blank check for imposing broad, economy-wide tariffs without clear legislative guidelines. Economic and Operational Impacts on U.S. Customs and Importers A ruling against the government would unleash an administrative and financial tsunami. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency responsible for collecting duties, would face the herculean task of processing refund claims potentially spanning hundreds of thousands of individual import entries. The agency’s legacy IT systems, already strained, are not designed for mass retroactive refund processing. Experts warn that without significant congressional appropriations for additional staffing and technology upgrades, CBP could be overwhelmed, causing delays in legitimate refunds and disrupting normal trade facilitation operations. Consequently, the logistical challenge is nearly as daunting as the fiscal one. For importers, the stakes are equally high. Many companies absorbed the tariff costs, reducing profit margins. Others passed the costs to consumers, potentially contributing to inflationary pressures. A refund would provide a substantial cash infusion, impacting corporate balance sheets and investment decisions. The table below illustrates the potential scale for key affected sectors based on Penn-Wharton modeling: Industry Sector Estimated Potential Refund Exposure Consumer Electronics & Appliances $42 Billion Industrial Machinery & Components $38 Billion Steel and Aluminum Products $30 Billion Automotive Parts & Vehicles $28 Billion Consumer Goods & Retail Imports $37 Billion Moreover, the global trade landscape would feel immediate effects. Trading partners have long argued the tariffs violated World Trade Organization rules and bilateral agreements. A Supreme Court rejection of their legal foundation would bolster those claims, potentially influencing ongoing and future trade negotiations. It could also encourage other nations to reassess their own retaliatory tariffs, possibly leading to a de-escalation of certain trade tensions. However, it might also create uncertainty about the stability and predictability of U.S. trade policy, a key concern for long-term supply chain planning. Broader Implications for U.S. Fiscal Policy and Sovereignty The potential $175 billion refund represents a significant hole in federal revenue. While tariff income flows into the general treasury, it is not earmarked for specific programs. Therefore, a massive outflow would not automatically trigger cuts to any single department. Nonetheless, it would exacerbate budget deficit projections, forcing difficult choices about spending, borrowing, or revenue replacement. Lawmakers on relevant House and Senate committees have already begun preliminary discussions about contingency plans, though no formal legislation has been drafted. The situation highlights the complex interplay between trade policy, which is often conducted independently, and the broader federal budget process. Constitutionally, the case revisits the enduring debate over the separation of powers in foreign commerce. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” Historically, Congress has delegated significant authority to the president through statutes like Section 232 and 301. The Supreme Court’s ruling will clarify the boundaries of that delegation. A narrow decision could invalidate these specific tariffs while leaving the underlying statutes intact. Conversely, a broad ruling could strike down or severely curtail the statutory provisions themselves, compelling Congress to re-enter the detailed arena of trade lawmaking—a scenario many analysts consider unlikely given current political divisions. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s deliberation on the tariff refund case represents a confluence of law, economics, and governance with few modern parallels. The staggering $175 billion liability estimate from the Penn-Wharton Budget Model quantifies the profound economic stakes. Beyond the dollars, the verdict will define the limits of presidential trade authority for a generation, influence global economic diplomacy, and test the operational capacity of key federal agencies. As the justices prepare their opinions, the outcome remains uncertain. Regardless, their decision will send a powerful signal about the rule of law in U.S. trade policy and trigger immediate, tangible consequences for the national budget and the businesses that drive international commerce. FAQs Q1: What is the Supreme Court case about? The case challenges the legal authority of the previous presidential administration to impose widespread reciprocal tariffs on imports. Plaintiffs argue the actions exceeded statutory powers granted by Congress. Q2: Where does the $175 billion refund estimate come from? The $175 billion estimate comes from a detailed economic model by the Penn-Wharton Budget Model. It analyzes historical tariff collections by product and country, projecting the total duties paid since early 2025 that could be subject to refund. Q3: Who would receive the tariff refunds? U.S. importers of record—the companies that officially declared the imported goods and paid the duties to Customs and Border Protection—would be eligible to file for refunds, provided they meet all procedural requirements. Q4: How would a refund affect the federal budget? A $175 billion outflow would represent a significant, unplanned reduction in federal revenue, worsening the budget deficit. It could force debates over spending cuts, increased borrowing, or new taxes to offset the loss, though the funds are not tied to specific programs. Q5: When is a Supreme Court decision expected? The Court heard oral arguments in the current term. A final decision is typically issued by the end of June or early July 2025. The ruling will be effective immediately, starting the clock for any potential refund claims. This post Stunning $175 Billion Tariff Refund Looms as Supreme Court Weighs Trump-Era Trade Policy Legality first appeared on BitcoinWorld .
20 Feb 2026, 11:54
Russia's tax agency files bankruptcy process for BitRiver subsidiary
Russia’s tax authority is now applying for the bankruptcy of a BitRiver subsidiary responsible for a massive and unsuccessful project believed to have led to the downfall of the troubled mining giant. The bankruptcy proceedings have been initiated in the Republic of Buryatia, which is hosting a 100 MW data center built by the company, but it has never been powered on amid restrictions on mining and growing debt. BitRiver company faces bankruptcy procedures in Buryatia The Federal Tax Service of Russia, FNS, has filed a bankruptcy petition against the BitRiver-B entity, part of the crypto mining group BitRiver, in the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Buryatia, media reports unveiled. A failed multimillion-dollar investment of the mining behemoth in the region is at the heart of the case. Some say it is the mistake that led to the company’s financial strains and subsequent problems with the state, including the recent arrest of its CEO. According to the regional news outlet “Number One,” which first spotted the court filing , the project to construct the 100 MW data processing center (DPC) in the Mukhorshibirsky District of the Far Eastern territory was first announced in 2020. The local subsidiary, incorporated in the rural administrative center Mukhorshibir with a registered capital of 100,000 rubles, was established to implement the ambitious project, initiated by BitRiver founder and chief executive Igor Runets himself. Construction began in 2022, with a planned launch in the second half of 2024 that never materialized. By February 2024, BitRiver had invested 1.4 billion rubles (over $18 million) in the facility, according to the business news portal RBC. The site was intended to house powerful equipment for big data processing, digital currency mining, and cloud computing, and was supposed to create 100 jobs in the area. However, the project’s realization coincided with expanding restrictions on coin minting in this part of Siberia. In the spring of 2025, the DPC was reportedly ready to commence operations but as a facility repurposed to serve the needs of artificial intelligence (AI) applications. In January of 2026, Russian authorities imposed a full ban on Bitcoin mining in Buryatia for the next five years. Failed mining project blamed for BitRiver’s troubles Sources familiar with these developments claim the failure of the data center project in Buryatia dealt a major blow to the Russian mining giant. Quoted by RBC, they said the group could never recover and was eventually forced to halt mining operations at other places as well. That happened amid mass employee departures and mounting lawsuits filed by contractors and energy suppliers against its entities. BitRiver was established in 2017 and has since become Russia’s largest operator of crypto mining farms and the country’s leading importer of mining hardware. Founder Igor Runets was accused of tax evasion at the end of January, detained and placed under house arrest. One of the demands of Russian prosecutors was that his firms pay due salaries. Russian media reports in the following weeks detailed a tax-dodging scheme allegedly implemented by mining enterprises in the country. Commenting on the BitRiver case, the chairman of the parliamentary Energy Committee, Nikolai Shulginov, accused Russian miners of hiding crypto-related income by officially using the same equipment to provide other services that need computing devices. Russia legalized the minting of digital coins in 2024, requiring those engaged in the activity to register with the FNS and pay due taxes. However, only a third of known mining businesses have done that so far, according to government estimates. BitRiver’s revenue for that year exceeded 10 billion rubles (about $130 million), helping the group top Russian rankings of mining companies in 2025, ahead of Intelion Data, which recently secured Russia’s first loan using cryptocurrency as collateral. Want your project in front of crypto’s top minds? Feature it in our next industry report, where data meets impact.
