This article is reprinted with authorization from Automatic Observation Beating, author: Rhythm Editorial Department, copyright belongs to the original author.

On the early morning of October 11, 2025, an account on the cryptocurrency trading platform Hyperliquid caught the attention of traders.

That day, this account did only one thing. It established a massive short position on Hyperliquid thirty minutes before Trump announced a 100% tariff on China.

It shorted Bitcoin and also shorted Ethereum.

Thirty minutes later, Trump's announcement was made, and the cryptocurrency market crashed. Bitcoin fell from $122,500 to $105,000, a drop of nearly fifteen percent. The account owner closed the position, making a profit of $192 million.

On that day, hundreds of billions of dollars in leveraged positions were liquidated across the network, and countless retail investors watched helplessly as their accounts went to zero.

On Twitter, on-chain analyst @mlmabc wrote: "This is just a public trade on Hyperliquid; imagine what he did on centralized exchanges or elsewhere. I am very sure he is a key player in today's events." This tweet quickly garnered over a million views.

A thirty-minute window, a profit of $192 million.

When these facts are laid out together, the word "coincidence" seems so powerless.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Five months ago, the nonprofit investigative organization ProPublica released a lengthy investigative report. The title was direct and sharp: "More than a dozen U.S. officials sold stocks before Trump's tariffs caused market crashes."

The content of the report was even more shocking than the title. Since Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, at least a dozen senior officials from the executive branch and congressional aides engaged in unusually precise stock trading. They completed their sell-offs before the market plummeted due to tariff policies.

Tobias Dorsey, the acting general counsel of the White House Office, is responsible for providing legal advice to White House officials, including the U.S. Trade Representative's Office.

On February 25 and 26, 2025, he sold index funds worth between $120,000 and $180,000, as well as stocks from nine companies.

The morning after the trades were completed, Trump announced on social media that significant tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China would be implemented as planned. The S&P 500 index fell nearly two percent that day, and six weeks later, the cumulative decline approached eighteen percent.

When questioned by the media, Dorsey responded that selling the stocks was a decision made by his wife to pay for tuition, and he himself did not possess any non-public information.

Marshall Stallings' actions were even more noteworthy. He was the director of intergovernmental affairs and public engagement at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, a position highly sensitive to policy trends.

On March 25 and 27, 2025, Stallings sold stocks of Target and Freeport-McMoRan, with amounts between $20,000 and $30,000. Strangely, he had just purchased these stocks a week prior. A few days later, Trump announced the most severe round of tariffs. Target's stock price plummeted by 17%, and Freeport-McMoRan fell by 25%.

When pressed by reporters, Stallings chose to remain silent.

Stephanie Syptak-Ramnath was a senior official at the State Department and was still serving as the ambassador to Peru until April of this year. Her trading records show that between March 24 and 25, 2025, she sold stocks worth between $255,000 and $650,000 while buying an equivalent amount of bonds and treasury funds.

On March 31, just two days before Trump announced the "Liberation Day" tariffs, she sold another $15,000 to $50,000 worth of total market stock funds.

After the market crash, Syptak-Ramnath bought back the same amount in another fund. She explained to the media that these trades were due to "family obligations" and "responses to economic changes," denying any possession of insider information.

There are many similar cases.

Current Ambassador to Slovakia Gautam Rana sold total market index funds worth between $830,000 and $1.7 million on March 19, just a week before Trump announced auto tariffs and two weeks before "Liberation Day." Rana declined to comment.

The most attention-grabbing case was that of Attorney General Pam Bondi. On April 2, 2025, she sold Trump Media stocks worth between $1 million and $5 million. After the market closed that day, Trump announced the "Liberation Day" tariffs, and the market immediately crashed.

According to ethical guidelines, Bondi was required to liquidate these holdings by early May, but she did not explain why she chose to sell on that day. The Department of Justice also remained silent.

ProPublica reporters Robert Faturechi, Pratheek Rebala, and Brandon Roberts wrote in the report that these trades may have violated the STOCK Act, which was passed in 2012 to prohibit public officials from using non-public government information for securities trading.

But for thirteen years, it has never been used to prosecute anyone.

If the previous trades could still be somewhat explained by "coincidence," then Trump's actions on April 9, 2025, made that explanation seem incredibly weak.

That morning, shortly after the U.S. stock market opened, Trump posted in all caps on Truth Social—"THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!"

Four hours later, he announced a suspension of the most severe tariffs imposed on most countries. The Dow Jones index surged nearly three thousand points by the close. Any investors who followed his advice to enter the market that morning would have reaped substantial rewards by that evening.

The question is, did Trump know at the time of that tweet that he would announce a policy shift four hours later?

The answer is self-evident.

This was not the first time Trump used a tweet to influence the market.

As early as his first term in the White House in 2017, he had a habit of releasing policy information through social media, which often triggered significant market fluctuations. By his second term, this behavior became more frequent and more blatant.

Trump's operational model has formed a clear cycle. He first threatens to impose high tariffs, causing the market to drop, and retail investors panic and sell. Then, he tweets that "now is a great time to buy," and retail investors re-enter the market. Soon after, he announces a suspension or reduction of tariffs, and the market rebounds rapidly.

At every node of this cycle, the core circle can operate precisely, buying low and selling high, moving in and out in an orderly manner; while those retail investors who follow the tweets can only repeatedly become the bag holders.

California Senator Adam Schiff and Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego requested in a letter to the White House for an "urgent investigation into whether President Trump, his family, and government officials are involved in insider trading or other illegal financial activities." Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren questioned during a congressional speech: "Is this blatant corruption?"

The response from White House spokesperson Kush Desai was that these accusations were merely "partisan games," and the president has a responsibility to "reassure the market and the American people about their economic security."

Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and former chief ethics lawyer for President Bush, publicly countered. He said, "We cannot allow senior public officials, including the president, to make decisions that directly affect stock prices while discussing buying and selling. If someone in the Bush administration had made similar statements, that person would have been fired long ago."

But Trump will not be fired because he is the boss.

Outside of power, there are no constraints.

In theory, the United States has three lines of defense to prevent government officials from engaging in insider trading: laws, regulatory agencies, and congressional oversight. However, during the Trump era, these three lines of defense have almost simultaneously failed.

The first line of defense is the STOCK Act.

In 2012, under public pressure, Congress passed this law, explicitly prohibiting members of Congress and executive officials from using their positions to buy and sell securities. It was a significant victory, representing the public's expectation for institutional transparency.

But more than a decade has passed, and this law has hardly ever been effective.

For thirteen years, the STOCK Act has never been successfully used to prosecute any case. Legal experts widely doubt whether it can withstand judicial scrutiny.

In recent years, the U.S. judicial system has tightened the definition of "illegal insider trading," making the applicability of this law increasingly vague.

Tyler Gellasch, a former congressional aide who participated in drafting the STOCK Act, said that decisions made by the executive branch almost daily affect market trends. In theory, they should not personally hold or trade stocks; if they have investments, they should be independently managed by others to avoid the intertwining of power and interests.

But that is just "theory." In reality, no one is held accountable.

The second line of defense is the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

It should be the gatekeeper of market order, responsible for investigating suspicious trades, punishing violations, and maintaining the credibility of the market. However, during the Trump administration, the SEC's role underwent subtle changes.

After Trump took office, he appointed Paul Atkins, a long-time advocate of "deregulation," as chairman. After Atkins took over, the SEC suspended or terminated twelve cases involving cryptocurrency fraud. In February 2025, Trump signed an executive order claiming greater power over independent regulatory agencies under the White House. This order unprecedentedly weakened the SEC's independence.

According to NPR data, during Trump's first term, the number of insider trading enforcement cases brought by the SEC fell to the lowest level in a decade, with only thirty-two cases. As he entered his second term, that number continued to decline. The disappearance of regulatory actions also dissipated the market's fear of violations.

Regulators no longer regulate but instead greenlight the regulated.

The third line of defense is congressional oversight.

By design, Congress should provide checks and balances to the executive branch to prevent the abuse of power. However, in the reality of partisan polarization, when the same party simultaneously controls both the executive and legislative branches, oversight gradually evolves into protection.

Now, the Republican Party controls both the House and Senate. Democratic lawmakers have repeatedly called for investigations into Trump and his officials' trading activities but have received no response. Faced with increasingly obvious conflicts of interest, Republican lawmakers choose to turn a blind eye, and silence has become the default stance.

Former Republican Congressman Charlie Dent once served as the chairman of the House Ethics Committee. He said, "No one should be allowed to profit from public office while in office. Members of Congress would never be allowed to engage in the kind of Memecoin trading that the president is currently involved in."

But Dent is no longer in Congress.

Colleagues remaining in Washington are well aware that challenging Trump means the end of a political career. So, they have learned to bow their heads.

In 2019, Trump publicly criticized cryptocurrencies on Twitter, stating that "unregulated crypto assets could facilitate illegal activities, including drug trafficking," and asserted that the value of such assets is "highly volatile and built on air."

Two years later, during an interview with Fox News, he again stated that Bitcoin "looks like a scam."

However, by 2025, everything had reversed. Trump announced that he would make America the "cryptocurrency capital of the world" and end the resistance to the crypto industry.

What changed his mind was not the maturity of technology or an understanding of financial innovation, but something more direct: self-interest.

Just days before his inauguration, Trump launched his own meme coin, $TRUMP.

This was a token with no actual utility, entirely relying on his personal brand and political aura to attract buyers. Once issued, the token raised approximately $148 million in a short time, with most of the funds coming from anonymous accounts and overseas buyers.

Months later, on May 22, 2025, Trump hosted a private dinner at his golf club in Virginia. The invitees were the top twenty-five holders of the $TRUMP coin. The next day, they were also given a special tour of the White House.

This dinner event sparked intense controversy.

Connecticut Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal commented, "Through this paid dinner, Trump has put the access and influence of the presidency on the auction block. The scope and scale of the corruption are shocking."

In addition to personally issuing coins, the Trump family also founded a cryptocurrency company called World Liberty Financial. This company was jointly launched by Trump and his two sons in the fall of 2024, with the family holding a stake of up to sixty percent.

In just a few months, World Liberty Financial raised over $500 million. According to disclosed data, the Trump family received about 75% of the revenue from cryptocurrency token sales.

Key figures in the company include Trump's Middle East envoy, real estate billionaire Steve Witkoff, who is both an investor and a co-founder. Trump's two sons actively promoted the company's projects and tokens in the Middle East and other regions.

After returning to the White House, Trump quickly relaxed regulations on cryptocurrencies. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suspended or terminated twelve cases involving cryptocurrency fraud, and the Department of Justice also halted investigations into several companies. Meanwhile, several long-time supporters of the crypto industry were appointed to key regulatory positions.

The benefits brought by this policy shift extended far beyond the Trump family itself.

On his campaign list, many cryptocurrency entrepreneurs and investors were significant political donors.

Elon Musk is one of the most notable. He spent nearly $300 million to help Trump get elected, and he holds substantial Bitcoin investments through Tesla and other companies. After the regulatory easing, market sentiment improved, and cryptocurrency asset prices soared. Musk's paper wealth also rose accordingly.

Steven Levitsky, a government professor at Harvard University and author of "How Democracies Die," stated that he has never seen such open and direct corruption in any modern government.

Former federal prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig expressed similar concerns. He pointed out that self-enrichment is precisely the form of power abuse that the Founding Fathers of America feared the most. For this reason, they established two clauses in the Constitution specifically to prevent personal conflicts of interest. Trump's profit from presidential memecoins is a typical scenario they sought to avoid.

Princeton University political historian Julian Zelizer was even more direct. He said, "To me, Trump's cryptocurrency trading seems quite clear. The policy decisions regarding the financial sector are not for the national interest but for his own wealth accumulation. It is hard to imagine that such decisions could bring any benefit to the country."

When these scattered events are pieced together, a complete system of power monetization emerges.

Trump controls the direction of tariff and regulatory policies, and these decisions have a massive impact on the market. Before policies are announced, the core circle often gets advance knowledge and quickly positions themselves in the market, whether to short, sell, or buy, depending on the direction of the policy. To evade regulation, they choose to use harder-to-trace channels like cryptocurrencies.

Once the policy is released, the market experiences violent fluctuations. The core circle closes their positions and exits, making huge profits; retail investors become the bag holders or are liquidated. The SEC turns a blind eye, Congress refuses to investigate, and the law becomes meaningless.

Then comes the next tariff, the next policy, the next harvest.

The operation of this system is almost perfect. From information transmission to market reaction, from positioning to cashing out, every link is intricately connected. It does not require secret meetings or underground transactions; everything happens in the sunlight, but no one can stop it.

Nixon resigned due to the Watergate scandal, but he did not profit from it. Clinton faced impeachment over a sex scandal and perjury, but he did not manipulate the market. In the Trump era, corruption has been institutionalized, industrialized, and even legalized, yet no one has been held accountable.

The emergence of all this has multiple causes. The designers of the U.S. Constitution set up layers of defenses against power, but they never envisioned a president would so brazenly use public power for private gain. Partisan polarization has rendered the checks and balances ineffective; Republican lawmakers will not oversee a Republican president, even when corruption has become public. The victory of money politics has created a symbiotic relationship between big donors and the president, with their investments being in power itself.

The paradox of populism is that voters chose Trump because he was "anti-establishment," but what he established is an even more corrupt establishment.

The thirty minutes on the early morning of October 11, 2025, is a microcosm of the entire corrupt system.

From White House legal advisors to trade representatives, from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Transportation, from cryptocurrency whales to Trump's family memecoin, all clues point to the same conclusion: this is a precisely operating, highly efficient power monetization machine.

The law has become meaningless, regulatory agencies have become accomplices, and Congress has abandoned oversight. All three lines of defense have collapsed, leaving only an unrestrained center of power.

Trump has proven one thing in his own way: in the twenty-first century, you can openly, systematically, and legally monetize power without paying any price.

When the president becomes the biggest insider trader, when the government operates like a hedge fund, and when tweets are used as signals to harvest retail investors, this is no longer a corruption scandal. It is a public auction, with the object being power itself.

And those ordinary investors who lost all their savings in thirty minutes are merely the most insignificant chips in this auction.

Related: Executives say Bitcoin (BTC) prices may experience "some volatility" due to concerns over Trump's tariffs.

Original: “$200 Million in 30 Minutes: A New Record for the Trump Trade”

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。