If you have U.S. dollars, one simple option is to keep them in a checking account at your bank. It’s safe and convenient—you can pay bills easily, and your money is insured by the U.S. government (up to a certain amount). But there’s one big downside: you’ll earn almost no interest—often close to 0%.

Here’s why: The bank uses your money to do other things, like make loans or buy investments. They earn money from those activities, but they don’t share much of that with you. They also spend money on branches, employees, ads, and more. What you get in return is convenience and security—not profits.

Now, if you want to earn more on your money, you have to give up some convenience or safety. You could invest in stocks, private credit funds, or even Bitcoin. But these are not replacements for a checking account—they come with risks and can be hard to access quickly.

One safer option? Treasury bills.

Treasury bills (T-bills) are short-term loans to the U.S. government that pay about 3.6% interest. They’re very low-risk and easy to sell if you need cash. But they’re not as flexible as a checking account—you can’t use them to pay for groceries or rent directly. You’d have to sell them first, move the cash to your checking account, then pay.

So what if someone built a better banking option?

Imagine this idea:

– Start a bank.
– Offer checking accounts.
– Take deposits and use all the money to buy short-term Treasury bills.
– Skip everything else: no loans, no credit cards, no fancy branches or huge staff.
– Keep costs super low—just a website and a small team.
– Pass most of the 3.6% T-bill yield back to customers—say 3.5%.

This would be a huge upgrade over traditional banks:

1. Customers earn 3.5% instead of almost nothing.
2. The bank is safer—it doesn’t take risky bets or make bad loans. All the money goes into Treasury bills, which are backed by the U.S. government.

Sure, it wouldn’t have branches or top-notch customer service, but in today’s world—where most people use their phones for banking—that’s probably fine.

Can this actually be done?

Kind of—but not easily.

U.S. banking rules make it tricky. Banks must hold some capital (extra money) when they invest in assets—even safe ones like T-bills. So you can’t pass all the interest back to customers. Plus, regulators don’t love this model because it doesn’t support lending—the way banks help fuel the economy.

There was even a real example: TNB USA Inc.—The Narrow Bank—tried this model using Federal Reserve deposits instead of Treasury bills (same idea: safe and interest-paying). The Fed said no. The headline could’ve been: “Fed Blocks Bank for Being Too Safe.”

Why was the Fed concerned?

Because regular banks use your deposits to fund loans—for homes, businesses, and more. That’s a key part of keeping the economy running. If everyone pulled their money out of traditional banks to move it into “narrow banks” during tough times, it could destabilize the whole system.

That’s why true narrow banking isn’t fully allowed in the U.S.—though there are exceptions. For example, N3XT is a Wyoming-based financial company that backs every dollar of customer deposits with either cash or short-term Treasury securities. It’s one of the first narrow banks in the country.

You can also get close to this model without being a bank.

Money market funds are one example. These funds invest mostly in Treasury bills and offer yields around 3.6%. Brokers even let you write checks against them sometimes. They don’t face the same capital rules as banks.

Still, regulators worry that these funds also pull money away from traditional banks—especially when bank troubles arise.

Another close cousin? Stablecoins.

Stablecoins are digital tokens usually pegged to the dollar and backed by safe assets like cash and Treasury bills. They’re widely used in crypto markets for fast payments and trading.

But regulators don’t want stablecoins acting like high-yield bank accounts. That’s why laws like the GENIUS Act say stablecoins can’t pay interest directly.

Even so, companies find workarounds:

– Stablecoin issuers might pay fees to crypto exchanges for promoting their coins.
– Exchanges then pass those “rewards” on to users—acting like interest.
– Users can also lend stablecoins out and earn interest through crypto lending platforms.

So stablecoins end up behaving like interest-paying products—even if they technically aren’t.

Banks are not thrilled about this.

They argue it’s unfair competition—crypto firms offer what feels like high-interest checking accounts without following all the banking rules or holding capital reserves.

Banking groups have voiced concern that customers may move their money into stablecoins, hurting local banks’ ability to lend and support communities.

One solution? Let stablecoins pay interest—but require them to follow banking regulations too. That hasn’t happened yet—and probably won’t anytime soon.

Let’s shift gears.

Covenant-lite private credit

In the past, companies borrowed money either through bonds or bank loans:

– Bonds were sold to many investors with few strings attached.
– Bank loans were personal—negotiated with bankers who knew the business well.

Bank loans had something called maintenance covenants: rules like “your debt can’t exceed six times your earnings.” If you broke that rule—even if you were still paying interest—you were technically in default, and the bank could demand repayment.

These covenants weren’t meant to punish borrowers but acted as early warning signals. They gave banks leverage to renegotiate if things went south.

But bonds didn’t include these covenants. Why? Because bondholders are scattered—there’s no easy way to renegotiate with dozens or hundreds of investors if something goes wrong.

Over time, bank loans started acting more like bonds:

– Loans were syndicated—sold off to many investors.
– Hedge funds and credit funds bought in.
– Loans became tradeable assets—not long-term relationships.

As a result, maintenance covenants started disappearing—giving rise to “covenant-lite” loans.

Recently, private credit has surged in popularity.

Private credit lenders operate more like old-school banks: one lender works directly with one borrower and holds the loan long-term. These loans usually still include maintenance covenants—since both sides have an ongoing relationship.

But now even private credit is trending covenant-lite:

– Deals are getting bigger.
– Loans are traded more.
– Relationships become less personal.
– Lenders are accepting fewer protections in return for growth.

In short: private credit is slowly turning into just another version of bond lending—with fewer guardrails.

MrBeast joins Ethereum treasury strategy

BitMine Immersion Technologies used to mine Bitcoin using immersion cooling tech—a niche but clever approach. But in 2025, they pivoted big-time: from mining to becoming a crypto treasury company focused on Ethereum.

By late 2025, BitMine claimed to be the largest corporate holder of ETH—over 3.7 million tokens worth more than $10 billion.

Their pitch was simple: “We’ll hold a ton of Ethereum and benefit as its value rises.” They called it “The Alchemy of 5%,” hoping to eventually own 5% of all ETH.

Now? That strategy is starting to look shaky. Their $14 billion in Ethereum assets now trades at a market cap of just $13.3 billion—meaning investors don’t see much upside anymore.

So what’s next?

BitMine just invested $200 million into Beast Industries—aka MrBeast’s company. He’s one of the most popular content creators online with massive Gen Z appeal.

Why partner with him?

BitMine says it makes sense: Ethereum is the future of finance, and MrBeast connects with younger generations who will shape that future.

Also, investing outside of crypto could help BitMine look more like an operating business instead of just a crypto fund—which may help with regulatory classification and investor appeal.

And hey—if holding ETH isn’t trendy anymore, maybe investing in YouTubers will be!

Securities fraud meets AI hype

Big tech companies have been pouring money into AI—and that means building massive data centers funded by debt and long-term leases.

Good for AI growth? Sure.

But some investors—especially bondholders—aren’t happy about all that new debt suddenly appearing on the books after they bought company bonds expecting low risk.

Take Oracle as an example:

In September 2025, Oracle raised $18 billion through bonds. Then news broke they planned another $38 billion in debt for AI infrastructure—and bond prices fell fast.

Bondholders sued, claiming Oracle didn’t disclose this plan ahead of time—even though offering documents did warn about potential future debt. Still, investors say they should’ve known more specifics before buying.

And it’s not just bondholders complaining.

Shareholders jumped in too after Oracle’s stock dropped following news of higher spending on AI data centers. Lawsuits allege Oracle misled investors about how much it would cost to build this infrastructure—and how it could affect financial performance.

Bottom line: Every big financial move—even investing in hot AI trends—can become grounds for a lawsuit if investors feel blindsided or lose money as a result.

In today’s market? Even building data centers counts as potential securities fraud.