{"id":35549,"date":"2026-07-27T13:30:08","date_gmt":"2026-07-27T13:30:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/ripples-other-ledger-what-48-million-in-politics-buys\/"},"modified":"2026-07-27T13:30:38","modified_gmt":"2026-07-27T13:30:38","slug":"ripples-other-ledger-what-48-million-in-politics-buys","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/ripples-other-ledger-what-48-million-in-politics-buys\/","title":{"rendered":"Ripple\u2019s other ledger: What $48 million in politics buys"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><\/p>\n<div class=\"post-detail__content blocks\">\n<p class=\"is-style-lead\">While the market watched the token and the trade press counted the acquisitions, Ripple became the second-largest corporate political donor in America. The crypto industry now supplies more than a third of all corporate election money, its flagship super PAC holds a $193 million war chest, and the bill it was all built to pass is on the Senate floor this month. Here is the audit of the spend.<\/p>\n<div id=\"cn-block-summary-block_f308f01ce3db49ab1bddd7d8eda35e88\" class=\"cn-block-summary\">\n<div class=\"cn-block-summary__nav tabs\">\n        <span class=\"tabs__item is-selected\">Summary<\/span>\n    <\/div>\n<div class=\"cn-block-summary__content\">\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Fairshake and its two affiliated super PACs entered the 2026 midterm cycle with roughly $193 million in cash, a figure disclosed ahead of the January Federal Election Commission deadline and larger than the entire crypto industry deployed across all of 2024.<\/li>\n<li>Ripple has contributed about $48 million this cycle, second only to Andreessen Horowitz among corporate donors by one accounting, alongside Coinbase at roughly $56 million, with a further $1 million sent directly to a single Senate candidate.<\/li>\n<li>Public Citizen\u2019s tally puts total crypto election spending near $189 million, roughly 37% of all corporate money in the cycle, more than artificial intelligence, Big Tech, and online gambling combined.<\/li>\n<li>The structure is three PACs, not one: Fairshake for bipartisan candidate spending, Protect Progress for Democratic races, and Defend American Jobs for Republican ones, a design that lets the same money work both sides without appearing in the same place.<\/li>\n<li>The investment gets marked this month: the market-structure bill the spending exists to pass faces its decisive Senate window before the August recess, and roughly $110 million of the war chest remains unspent with the November midterms four months out.<\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><!-- .cn-block-summary --><\/p>\n<p>Ripple spent about $4 billion buying companies over three years, and this publication audited that empire last week. The company also spent roughly $48 million buying something else, and almost nobody has audited that at all. The second purchase does not appear on any acquisition list, produces no revenue line, and cannot be valued by any multiple, but it is aimed at the same outcome as the first: a legal environment in which the assembled business is permitted to operate. Ripple is now, by one national tally, the second-largest corporate political donor in the United States this cycle, behind only Andreessen Horowitz and ahead of every bank, airline, pharmaceutical company, and defense contractor in the country. It sits alongside Coinbase inside Fairshake, the crypto industry\u2019s flagship super PAC network, which entered the 2026 midterm cycle with roughly $193 million in cash, more than the entire industry deployed across the whole of the 2024 elections, and which has already spent more than $82 million with four months of campaign still to run. The industry as a whole now supplies more than a third of all corporate election money in America. This piece is the ledger: what was given, how the machine is built, what the last cycle\u2019s version of it actually bought, where it demonstrably failed, and why the next few weeks are when the position gets marked.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-x wp-block-embed-x\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"550\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">LATEST: More than 200 crypto firms including Coinbase, Ripple, and Kraken press the U.S. Senate for a vote on the Clarity Act.  The industry-wide effort seeks swift passage of the legislation <a rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/NFsjGXWGUB\">https:\/\/t.co\/NFsjGXWGUB<\/a> <a rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/YuroZHiIp4\">pic.twitter.com\/YuroZHiIp4<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) <a rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/cryptodotnews\/status\/2064297956296015915?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">June 9, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The ledger, itemized<\/h2>\n<p>Start with the numbers, because their scale is the part most coverage understates.<\/p>\n<p>Fairshake and its affiliates disclosed roughly $193 million on hand in January, ahead of the Federal Election Commission\u2019s reporting deadline, a figure about 37% higher than its July 2025 disclosure. The second half of 2025 supplied the jump: Ripple contributed $25 million in a single commitment, Andreessen Horowitz added $24 million, and Coinbase had already put in $25 million earlier in the year, roughly $74 million from three companies in six months. Cycle-to-date totals run higher than those individual checks. Public Citizen\u2019s accounting puts Coinbase at about $56 million and Ripple at about $48 million across the cycle\u2019s channels, with a separate tally ranking Ripple second among all corporate donors nationally behind Andreessen Horowitz at $51.65 million. The figures differ because the counting differs, some tallies aggregate only Fairshake contributions while others include direct candidate giving and other committees, and any honest citation has to say which. What no accounting disputes is the order of magnitude: three crypto companies have put roughly $150 million into a single election cycle.<\/p>\n<p>The industry total is the number that reframes everything. Public Citizen puts crypto\u2019s 2026 election spending near $189 million, approximately 37% of all corporate political money in the cycle, against $517 million in total corporate spending that is itself up 12% from all of 2024. Artificial intelligence and Big Tech combined contributed about $60 million; online gambling about $45.6 million. One industry, younger than the iPhone, now outspends every other corporate sector in American politics, and roughly $56 million of crypto money went to MAGA Inc alongside the $82 million flowing through Fairshake.<\/p>\n<p>Beyond the flagship network sits additional capacity: a newer vehicle called Fellowship PAC claimed a $100 million commitment for pro-crypto candidates, meaning the sector\u2019s declared electoral firepower exceeds a quarter of a billion dollars before a single general-election ballot has been counted.<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- .cn-block-related-link --><\/p>\n<p>And then there is the retail-scale detail that shows the strategy has a second gear. Ripple sent $1 million directly to John Deaton, the pro-crypto attorney who lost Massachusetts\u2019s 2024 Senate race to Elizabeth Warren by nearly twenty points and is running again in 2026 for the state\u2019s other seat. Direct candidate contributions of that size are unusual, visible, and personal in a way super PAC money is not, which makes the Deaton line the clearest statement of intent in the entire ledger.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The machine: three PACs, one checkbook<\/h2>\n<p>The structure deserves explanation, because its design is the reason the money works harder than its size suggests.<\/p>\n<p>Fairshake operates as three entities. Fairshake itself directs funds to candidates across both parties. Protect Progress spends in Democratic races. Defend American Jobs spends in Republican ones. The architecture solves a specific problem in American electoral finance: money that visibly funds both parties is politically awkward in primaries, where partisan credibility is the currency, so the network splits itself into partisan-facing vehicles that draw from the same donor base and coordinate the same strategy. A Democratic primary voter sees Protect Progress; a Republican primary voter sees Defend American Jobs; both are the same industry, and neither ad mentions cryptocurrency at all, because Fairshake\u2019s signature tactic has always been to spend on issues unrelated to its own, funding advertisements about housing, healthcare, or a candidate\u2019s record while the crypto position remains the invisible criterion.<\/p>\n<p>The targeting is equally deliberate. Fairshake concentrates in primaries, where money moves outcomes furthest per dollar, and in a small number of races selected for signaling value. Protect Progress backed Adrian Boafo in a Maryland Democratic primary this cycle, and he won. That pattern, early money in low-turnout contests, is how a nine-figure war chest contests dozens of races without ever needing to win a national argument about digital assets.<\/p>\n<p>The strategic effect is the one Fairshake\u2019s own spokespeople describe most plainly: the network is standing infrastructure now, not a one-cycle experiment. The 2024 build converted heavy experimental spending into permanent capability, with money left over, $64 million carried into this cycle before a dollar of new fundraising. An industry that can credibly promise to spend against a legislator in the next primary does not need to spend in most of them, which is the quiet dividend of the whole enterprise and the reason the unspent balance matters as much as the deployed one.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What the money bought last time<\/h2>\n<p>The 2024 record is the only evidence base for what this spending achieves, and it points in one direction while carrying an important asterisk.<\/p>\n<p>Fairshake and its affiliates raised approximately $93 million across the 2023-2024 build and spent more than $130 million on media buys supporting candidates they classified as pro-crypto and opposing those classified as anti-crypto. Two results defined the cycle\u2019s reputation: Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, both incumbent House members regarded as industry critics, lost primaries in which Fairshake-funded advertising was widely credited as a decisive factor. Neither race was fought on crypto policy. Both outcomes were read across Capitol Hill as proof that the industry could end a career in a primary, and that reading, more than any individual seat, is what the money actually purchased. Legislative behavior since has been consistent with the lesson having landed: the House passed the market-structure bill 294 to 134, the stablecoin statute cleared with bipartisan support, and the number of members willing to be publicly identified as anti-crypto has thinned considerably.<\/p>\n<p>The asterisk is Massachusetts. The industry\u2019s most direct 2024 investment, backing John Deaton against Elizabeth Warren, its most prominent legislative opponent, failed by nearly twenty points, and it failed in the way that matters analytically: money could not make a general-electorate race about crypto when the electorate cared about something else. That result maps the strategy\u2019s boundary precisely. Fairshake money is extremely effective in low-turnout primaries where a modest advertising advantage decides a small electorate, and largely ineffective in high-salience general elections where partisan identity dominates. Deaton is running again in 2026, with another $1 million from Ripple already committed, which will test whether the boundary moved or whether the industry is buying the same lesson twice.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The countervailing case, made properly<\/h2>\n<p>An audit owes the other side its strongest form, and there are two of them, pointing in opposite directions.<\/p>\n<p>The critics\u2019 case is structural rather than moral. Public Citizen\u2019s objection is not that crypto participates in politics but that the concentration distorts: when a single industry supplies more than a third of all corporate election money, the ordinary pluralism that keeps any one sector from dominating a legislature stops functioning, and legislators facing a nine-figure adversary in their next primary make different choices than legislators facing ordinary lobbying. The insider-adjacent critique is sharper still. The industry is spending to shape the rules governing its own regulation, and the rules in question, market structure, agency jurisdiction, and enforcement authority, determine whether the same companies face securities liability. That is not corruption in any legal sense, and it is exactly the arrangement campaign-finance reformers have described as legalized capture for fifty years.<\/p>\n<p>The industry\u2019s case is that this is what every regulated sector does, and it is not a weak argument. Banking, pharmaceuticals, energy, and telecommunications have all spent decades funding candidates and shaping the statutes that govern them, and crypto arrived to a legal environment in which its participants faced enforcement actions predicated on rules nobody had written for them. Political spending, on this reading, is the industry\u2019s only proportionate response to an existential regulatory posture, and its bipartisan structure, funding Democrats and Republicans by design, is evidence of issue-based rather than partisan intent. Both cases are true simultaneously: this is normal American interest-group politics, and it is happening at a scale and concentration that has few peers in the modern record.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-x wp-block-embed-x\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"550\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">NEW: More than 100 crypto companies, including Coinbase, Ripple, and a16z, are pressing the Senate Banking Committee to move forward with the CLARITY Act, citing risks of jobs moving overseas without US regulatory clarity <a rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/NFsjGXWGUB\">https:\/\/t.co\/NFsjGXWGUB<\/a> <a rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/OObAR7EP8j\">pic.twitter.com\/OObAR7EP8j<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) <a rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/cryptodotnews\/status\/2047713175101985033?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">April 24, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The week the position gets marked<\/h2>\n<p>Which brings the ledger to the present, where several clocks converge at once.<\/p>\n<p>The market-structure legislation that the entire apparatus exists to pass faces its decisive Senate window before the August recess, with the outcome resting on a small number of Democratic crossover votes and a negotiation whose remaining disputes this publication has covered in detail. Fairshake\u2019s money did not buy those votes and cannot, super PAC spending is prospective leverage over future primaries, not a transaction over a pending bill, but it is unquestionably part of the environment in which those senators are calculating. If the bill passes, the industry\u2019s electoral investment will be credited with having built the conditions for it, and the remaining balance rolls into November with a validated theory. If it fails, roughly $110 million of unspent capacity meets a midterm election in which the industry has both the resources and the stated motive to remove specific legislators from office, and the 2027 Congress becomes the target instead.<\/p>\n<p>Either way, the more interesting question for Ripple specifically is the one the ledger poses and cannot answer: the company has now spent about $4 billion assembling an institutional financial business and about $48 million assembling the political conditions for it, and only one of those investments has a disclosed return. The empire, as this publication\u2019s audit found, is designed to succeed with or without the token. The political spend is designed to make the empire legal. Neither line item is about XRP, which is perhaps the most honest summary available of where Ripple\u2019s actual priorities sit, and the market that still prices the company through its token\u2019s chart is, once again, reading the wrong ledger.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-x wp-block-embed-x\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"550\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">JUST IN: David Schwartz reportedly sends undisclosed amount of XRP to support John Deaton\u2019s Senate campaign. <a rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/vxk3I6m9oM\">pic.twitter.com\/vxk3I6m9oM<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) <a rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/cryptodotnews\/status\/2056435397996241051?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">May 18, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What to watch<\/h2>\n<p><strong>The FEC filings after the Senate acts.<\/strong> Contribution and expenditure reports covering the coming weeks will show whether the industry accelerates into November or banks the balance. Sharp increases immediately after a legislative outcome, in either direction, would confirm the spending is tightly coupled to the bill rather than to a general political posture.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Deaton\u2019s Massachusetts numbers.<\/strong> The rematch is the strategy\u2019s clearest controlled experiment: the same candidate, the same state, a different seat, and a second round of industry money. A materially closer result would suggest the 2024 ceiling has lifted; a repeat would confirm that Fairshake money buys primaries and not general elections.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Which incumbents draw funded challengers.<\/strong> Watch whether the senators who blocked or slowed the market-structure bill face Fairshake-affiliated primary spending in their next cycles. That is the mechanism by which the 2024 lesson gets re-taught, and it is the most direct measure of whether the industry treats this vote as a scorecard.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The disclosure gap.<\/strong> Independent tallies of crypto political money differ by tens of millions depending on which vehicles are counted, and some contributions surface only in later filings. Any figure quoted before the FEC\u2019s next full disclosure cycle, including the ones in this piece, is provisional, and the revisions are usually upward.<\/p>\n<p>A closing observation about what this spending is not, because the distinction gets lost in the headline numbers. Campaign money is the smaller and more visible half of the industry\u2019s influence apparatus; the larger half is conventional lobbying, trade associations, regulatory comment letters, personnel flowing between agencies and firms, and the technical assistance that shapes statutory language line by line long before any floor vote. Fairshake\u2019s $193 million buys electoral leverage, which is a blunt instrument aimed at composition: who sits in the chamber. The quieter machinery aims at text: what the bill says once the chamber has been settled. Ripple\u2019s participation in both is the reason the acquisition audit and this one belong on the same shelf, since a chartered bank application, a prime brokerage, and a stablecoin all depend on statutory definitions that are drafted in rooms no super PAC advertisement can reach. Judged only by the electoral ledger, the industry\u2019s investment looks enormous and its returns ambiguous. Judged across both channels, the returns are already visible in the shape of the legislation itself, an asset taxonomy the industry helped define, a developer shield it asked for, a grandfather clause that resolves its most valuable assets\u2019 status by statute. The $48 million is the part that files with the Federal Election Commission. It is not the part that writes the law, and the two should never be confused, least of all by anyone trying to estimate what the money actually bought.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong> <em>This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, or political advice. Campaign finance figures are drawn from third-party tallies and disclosures that vary by methodology and are revised as filings are published. Nothing here is a recommendation regarding any company, asset, candidate, or political position. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 26, 2026.<\/em><\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n<div id=\"rank-math-faq\" class=\"rank-math-block\">\n<div class=\"rank-math-list \">\n<div id=\"faq-question-1785150224995\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \"><strong>How much has Ripple spent on US politics this cycle?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n<p>Approximately $48 million across the 2026 cycle by Public Citizen\u2019s accounting, including a $25 million contribution to the Fairshake network disclosed in late 2025, plus about $1 million given directly to Senate candidate John Deaton in Massachusetts. One national tally ranks Ripple second among all corporate political donors this cycle, behind Andreessen Horowitz at roughly $51.65 million.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1785150236137\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \"><strong>What is Fairshake?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n<p>The cryptocurrency industry\u2019s flagship super PAC network, structured as three affiliated entities: Fairshake, which spends across both parties; Protect Progress, focused on Democratic races; and Defend American Jobs, focused on Republican ones. The network entered the 2026 midterm cycle with roughly $193 million in cash, funded primarily by Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreessen Horowitz, and had spent more than $82 million by mid-year.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1785150246327\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \"><strong>How does crypto\u2019s spending compare to other industries?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n<p>It leads all of them. Public Citizen puts crypto election spending near $189 million, about 37% of all corporate political money in the 2026 cycle, against roughly $60 million from artificial intelligence and Big Tech combined and $45.6 million from online gambling. Total corporate election spending reached about $517 million, up 12% from the entire 2024 cycle.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1785150254154\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \"><strong>Did this spending work in 2024?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n<p>In primaries, apparently yes. Fairshake and affiliates spent more than $130 million on media in 2024, and industry-funded advertising was widely credited with defeating incumbent House members Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush in primaries, outcomes read across Congress as proof the sector could end a career. In general elections the record is worse: the industry\u2019s backing of John Deaton against Elizabeth Warren failed by nearly twenty points.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1785150261773\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \"><strong>Why do the ads rarely mention crypto?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n<p>Because Fairshake\u2019s tactic is to spend on locally salient issues while the crypto position operates as the invisible selection criterion. Advertising in these races typically addresses housing, healthcare, or a candidate\u2019s record, which is more persuasive to primary electorates than digital-asset policy and avoids making the industry itself the subject of the campaign.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1785150273458\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \"><strong>Does this money buy votes on pending legislation?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n<p>Not directly, and the distinction matters legally and analytically. Super PAC spending is independent expenditure aimed at future elections, not payment for legislative action, and coordination with campaigns is prohibited. Its influence is prospective: legislators weigh the possibility of a well-funded primary challenge, which shapes the environment around votes without constituting a transaction over any particular one.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1785150282241\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \"><strong>What is the criticism of this level of spending?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n<p>Public Citizen and similar groups argue the concentration distorts representation: when one industry supplies more than a third of corporate election money, the pluralism that prevents any single sector from dominating legislative outcomes weakens, particularly when the industry is funding the rules governing its own regulation. The industry\u2019s response is that banking, pharmaceuticals, and energy have done the same for decades, and that political participation is a proportionate answer to enforcement-driven regulation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1785150289645\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \"><strong>What happens to the unspent money?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n<p>Roughly $110 million of the war chest remained unspent at mid-year with the November midterms approaching, and the industry has additional declared capacity, including a newer vehicle claiming a $100 million commitment. If the pending market-structure legislation passes, that balance rolls into November behind a validated strategy; if it fails, the same money meets an election in which the industry has stated its intent to change the composition of Congress. This is educational analysis, not investment or political advice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>    <!-- .cn-block-related-link --><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><script async src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>While the market watched the token and the trade press counted the acquisitions, Ripple became the second-largest corporate political donor in America. The crypto industry now supplies more than a&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":35550,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35549","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-cryptocurrency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35549","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35549"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35549\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":35551,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35549\/revisions\/35551"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/35550"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitunikey.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}