Listen to the article
Eric Trump Disputes Forbes Report on American Bitcoin, Claims $500M Lost by Retail Investors
Eric Trump has vehemently rejected a Forbes investigation claiming his Bitcoin venture has wiped out approximately $500 million in retail shareholder value since going public. The American Bitcoin (ABTC) co-founder accused Forbes of being “acquired by China” and called the publication “an embarrassment to journalism” in response to the critical report.
The Forbes investigation, published Tuesday, characterized American Bitcoin as an “arbitrage vehicle” that sells inflated shares and channels the proceeds into Bitcoin purchases. According to the report, ABTC’s market capitalization has plummeted roughly 92% from its peak of $13.2 billion to approximately $1.24 billion, with small shareholders bearing significant losses.
The magazine further alleged that around 70% of ABTC’s Bitcoin holdings were purchased on the open market rather than mined as many investors might assume. Forbes calculates the company’s all-in cost per Bitcoin at nearly $90,000 once depreciation and overhead expenses are factored in—substantially higher than the $57,000 figure regularly cited by Eric Trump in public statements.
ABTC made its public debut in September through a merger with Hut 8 on the NASDAQ exchange. Since then, the stock has experienced a dramatic decline, losing over 90% of its value. The company last traded around $1.16 per share, far below its debut high of $14.52.
In his defense, Trump highlighted ABTC’s operational statistics, pointing to fourth-quarter revenue of $78.3 million, which represents a 22% increase quarter over quarter. He emphasized the company’s mining infrastructure, noting 28 exahash of capacity and nearly 90,000 miners in operation. Trump also claimed ABTC mines Bitcoin at a 53% discount to spot price.
“Friends, educate yourselves as to the source of your information… in this case, China!” Trump wrote in his rebuttal, suggesting Forbes had questionable motives behind its reporting.
Trump also touted the company’s Bitcoin treasury, which he says now exceeds 7,000 BTC, positioning ABTC as the 16th largest public holder of Bitcoin globally. This substantial holding represents significant value at current Bitcoin prices, which have been hovering above $60,000 in recent trading.
The “Chinese propaganda” framing employed by Trump mirrors tactics recently used by other figures in the financial world, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who dismissed a Financial Times story as “tabloid trash.” Similarly, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao has frequently contested mainstream media coverage of his cryptocurrency exchange.
Industry analysts note that Trump’s response notably lacks any direct defense regarding the retail investor losses highlighted in the Forbes article. The cryptocurrency mining sector has faced significant challenges over the past year, with rising energy costs, increased network difficulty, and regulatory uncertainties creating headwinds for many mining operations.
The dispute highlights ongoing tensions between cryptocurrency ventures and traditional financial media. As digital asset companies increasingly enter public markets, they face heightened scrutiny over their business models, operational transparency, and shareholder value creation—particularly when associated with high-profile names like the Trump family.
For retail investors in ABTC, the dramatic stock price decline represents a sobering reality regardless of the war of words between the company’s leadership and financial media. The situation underscores the highly speculative nature of cryptocurrency-related investments, especially those in mining operations whose profitability can fluctuate dramatically with Bitcoin’s price movements and network conditions.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
22 Comments
This dispute highlights the need for greater regulation and oversight in the cryptocurrency/blockchain space. Retail investors can be vulnerable to questionable practices, and publications like Forbes play an important role in uncovering issues. A balanced, evidence-based approach is needed here.
Well said. Cryptocurrencies and associated financial products require the same level of scrutiny as traditional markets to protect consumers. This case demonstrates the risks when transparency and accountability are lacking.
Interesting debate around Eric Trump’s claims about the Forbes report on his Bitcoin venture. I’d like to see a more balanced analysis from other reputable sources to get a clearer picture of the facts before forming an opinion.
While I don’t have a strong opinion on the merits of this specific case, I do believe it’s important for the media to hold companies accountable and report critically when warranted. Transparency and factual analysis benefit everyone.
This dispute highlights the need for greater regulatory oversight in the cryptocurrency sector. Retail investors deserve transparency and accountability, which seems to be lacking in this case based on the Forbes report. Both sides should focus on facts, not rhetoric.
I agree completely. Emotional accusations and deflections do not serve the interests of investors or the broader crypto industry. Fact-based analysis and clear financial disclosures are needed to restore trust and confidence.
The plunge in American Bitcoin’s market cap is certainly concerning, though the reasons behind it are not entirely clear from the limited information provided. More transparency from the company would help investors understand the situation better.
The dispute over Bitcoin mining costs is an interesting technical detail that deserves further scrutiny. Accurate reporting on the economics of crypto operations is crucial for informed decision-making.
The Forbes investigation raises some concerning allegations about this Bitcoin company’s practices and performance. While Eric Trump’s response is combative, the facts should take precedence. Increased transparency and independent audits could help resolve this dispute.
Well put. Resorting to political rhetoric distracts from the core issues. Investors deserve a clear, data-driven accounting of the company’s activities and finances to assess the legitimacy of the Forbes reporting.
The article raises some serious questions about the management and transparency of this Bitcoin company. A 92% decline in market cap is quite concerning for retail investors. Forbes’ investigation seems warranted, though Eric Trump’s response is rather combative.
Absolutely. If the Forbes reporting is accurate, then Eric Trump and his company have a lot of explaining to do to shareholders. Accusations of ‘Chinese propaganda’ seem like a distraction from the core issues.
This is a complex situation that requires careful analysis. While Eric Trump’s defense of his company is understandable, the Forbes investigation does appear to raise valid concerns about the Bitcoin venture’s practices and performance. Retail investors deserve transparency.
Agreed. The key is getting to the facts of the matter, rather than allowing it to devolve into political finger-pointing. Both sides should provide clear data to support their claims and let that inform the public assessment.
It’s always important to be cautious with investments, especially in volatile crypto markets. Retail investors should do their own thorough research before making decisions, rather than relying solely on company claims.
This seems like a heated debate between Eric Trump and Forbes over the Bitcoin venture he co-founded. It would be interesting to get more details on the specifics of the company’s operations and valuation to better understand the disagreement.
I agree, more transparency around the company’s financials and Bitcoin holdings would help shed light on the situation. Claims of ‘Chinese propaganda’ are concerning and call for closer scrutiny.
Accusations of ‘propaganda’ are often used to discredit unfavorable coverage. A more constructive approach would be to address the specific concerns raised in the Forbes report in a substantive manner.
Accusations of ‘Chinese propaganda’ seem a bit strong without more evidence. While the Forbes report may have been critical, it’s important to look at the data and analysis objectively rather than dismissing it outright.
I agree, knee-jerk accusations of bias are not very helpful. A more measured response examining the specific claims would be more constructive.
The claims of ‘Chinese propaganda’ seem like a deflection tactic rather than a substantive response to the Forbes investigation. If the company’s operations and finances are on the up-and-up, they should be able to provide clear data to refute the allegations.
Exactly. Resorting to political attacks instead of addressing the core issues raised by Forbes only raises more questions. The company should welcome an independent audit to demonstrate their legitimacy if they have nothing to hide.