When Voltron, Startup, which creates AI tools, especially for federal contractors, reported it $ 22 million in financing round Earlier this week, it ensured that the key investor: Craft Ventures, a company founded by the White House AI Advisor David Sacks. “
The announcement has raised questions about the conflict of interest in the Trump administration, where the sacks act as both the AIs and Crypto Tits, while maintaining their role in Craft Ventures – an arrangement that critics consider to be a new state service model where public obligation and private lines have become unclear.
Sacks has not secured one, but two ethics, who allow him to modify federal politics while maintaining financial contributions in the fields they control. It firstThe March 11-page document covers his encryption investments. It secondJune, especially his ai -owned share. Together, they have made it possible for ethical experts to call an unprecedented arrangement.
“This is a transfer,” said Kathleen Clark, a lawyer at the University of Washington, who specializes in the government’s ethics, while checking out the abandonment of Sacks encryption technology. “This is a lawyer In the White House counseling office, which makes Trump’s offers, gives (sacks) earning money, isolating him from criminal liability. “
Clark analysis is critical. He states that abandonment deals with the percentage of total sacks – when it was signed, his share in Craft’s total portfolio was less than 3.8% of his total resources, for example – but never revealed the actual dollar quantities. “The fact that this interest is only 3.8% of someone’s total resources is something if you talk about a law professor. But 3.8% of this guy’s funds are a lot of money,” Clark said.
Clark also claims that abandonment does not take into account any upside down. In addition to current value, federal regulations also require “potential profit or loss”. Clark states, as to a Sacks -like venture capitalist, “even though his shares are) less than 3.8% of his property, if it goes well, it may be more.”
Craft Ventures did not respond to several techcrunch requests this week to discuss this story.
TechCrunch event
San Francisco
And
27.-29. October 2025
VULTRON investment
The timing of the Voltron announcement illustrates the complexity. Voltron says its AI tools are “built on the demands of a changing federal procurement landscape for purpose”. The company has a reduction in proposal schedules from “week to day” and claims that one Fortune 500 client now saves “more than 20 hours per week for the federal contract work.
A nearby source for the company says that the investment of Craft Ventures precedes the name of the Sacks Board of Directors. However, the timing raises questions: the nation’s AI Tits has an economic share of a company that benefits from helping companies to overcome the federal agreements that their policies affect.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has been one of the loudest critics of these arrangements. The Senate Banking Committee’s Ranking Member questioned the government’s ethics agency in a letter in May and stated that he was at the same time as “hosted a $ 1.5 million head dinner for the encryption industry” while designing a federal encryption policy.
“Mr. Sacks simultaneously leads the attempt to encrypt, directing the nation’s encryption policy,” Warren wrote. “Generally, federal law prohibits such an explicit conflict of interest.”
Sacks is largely abandoned by Warren’s concerns, accusing her “pathological anger for a cryptocurrency community. “He has said separately that he sold the property in Krypto before joining a white house” because I didn’t even want to be occurrence conflict. “
Indeed, the supporters of the chess refers to the sacrifices he has made from the government’s service. According to him, he and Craft Ventures have handed over $ 200 million of digital property, and at least $ 85 million is due to him. He has sold stakes in rapidly growing companies, including his position in Elon Musk’s XAI, and has started selling interest in about 90 risk capital funds, including Sequoia Funds.
The source near the chess emphasizes these donations, noted that, because of his role, Craft Ventures now must now conclude every contract related to the white house’s ethical committee. They propose that this control is unlikely to invest in entry funds and smaller offers, given the number of participating employees.
Clark claims that the underlying ethical frame is still deficient. According to him, the abandonment itself is designed to provide legal protection to solve ethical concerns. “This is calcified,” he said. In general, complex issues Sacks work as a state employee only 130 days a year – practically every other week – while maintaining commercial activities during the season. For example, in September, Sacks and his popular podcast host, All in, organize what has become an annual three -day conference, with participants paying $ 7,500 per person. Although these functions are legally allowed, they continue to obscure lines between his or her public and private roles.
Some observers wonder if Sacks-yourself declares the billionaire forbes estimates and will completely leave the government’s service. In the Genius Act, he may consider his primary task after completing his / her primary task: bringing the cryptocurrency from the edges to the center.
But it will probably take time. Yesterday, the Fox News announcement used in detail after his immediate priorities after the law, emphasizing the development of regulatory frames in three key areas, including the definition of market structure classes (compared to digital assets compared the cover of the property.
At the same time, critics who are concerned about conflicts of interests claim that the precedent has been set up. The rapid consumption of cryptocurrency legislation combined with continuous investment in AI companies serving federal government indicates that sacks and others with the same arrangements have set themselves and wider orbit to benefit their government.
Does this new normal Silicon Valley relationship with Washington or instead of the abnormalities of future administrations can still be seen. It is clear that the traditional ethical framework may be inadequate for the era, allowing venture capitalists to maintain their investment activities while designing policies that determine the future value of these investments.
So far, the arrangement continues, protected by carefully shaped abandonments that ethical experts have questioned but are legally uncomfortable. As Clark states, “No one can blame him.”
