In publishing that article, I did not independently verify the existence of a specific bill number, legislative text, or official Congressional or White House documentation. Given the scale and seriousness of the claim, that was a lapse in judgment. I am normally more rigorous when assessing developments of this magnitude, and in this case I placed too much trust in reporting from neighbouring publications rather than confirming the primary sources myself. For that, I owe readers a clear apology.
Concerns about central bank digital currencies and financial surveillance are not new here. We have covered them consistently and at length, often well ahead of mainstream reporting. Because of that context, the claim that a digital currency law had quietly taken effect appeared plausible and aligned with a trajectory we have long outlined. However, further examination of public records shows that the specific “Digital Currency Modernization Act” described in those reports does not exist in Congress.gov, in White House releases, or in official legislative archives.
This was a rare error on my part, driven by repetition across multiple outlets rather than by primary evidence. I regret the oversight and take responsibility for it. That said, the correction does not invalidate the broader issue we have been reporting on, nor does it diminish the importance of scrutinising financial centralisation and digital currency policy.
You can continue to rely on this publication for independent, critical reporting, including on subjects that receive limited or selective coverage elsewhere. In this case, we trusted alternative sources too readily, and that standard will be tightened going forward....<<<Read More>>>...
