Crypto's share of the losses
The FBI's annual tally covers everything from phishing to ransomware to business email compromise. But crypto-related complaints alone made up more than half of the total. That's a significant shift, and it's a big reason why the new federal program is aimed at foreign criminal networks — many of which rely on crypto to move money.
But we said "many of which rely on crypto" - that's not in the facts. We can't say that. We can say "The new program is aimed at foreign criminal networks, which are often involved in crypto-related crime." But that's also not in the facts. We need to avoid that. We can just say "The new program is aimed at foreign criminal networks." And then we can say "The FBI's numbers show that crypto is a major part of the problem." But that's an inference. We can say "The FBI's numbers show that crypto-related complaints are a major part of the problem." That's a direct statement from the facts. So we can say "The FBI's numbers show that crypto-related complaints are a major part of the problem." That's fine. Let's rewrite that paragraph: The FBI's annual tally covers everything from phishing to ransomware to business email compromise. But crypto-related complaints alone made up more than half of the total. That's a big chunk of the overall losses, and it's a clear sign that digital assets are a major target for criminals. But "clear sign" is a bit editorial. We can say "The numbers underscore the scale of crypto-related crime." That's okay. But we need to avoid AI tics like "underscore". We can say "The numbers show how big a piece of the pie crypto has become." That's a bit informal. Let's keep it simple. We can have a second section: "What the new program does" - that's a good H2.The memorandum directs the creation of a federally supervised program to disrupt foreign criminal networks. It would allow vetted U.S. companies to participate in those efforts. The directive doesn't spell out how the program will be structured or which agencies will oversee it, but it's a clear move to bring the private sector into the fight.
But we don't know if it's a clear move. We can say "The directive doesn't spell out how the program will be structured or which agencies will oversee it." That's a safe statement because we don't have that info. We can say "The memorandum doesn't provide details on implementation." That's fine. We can have a third section: "What's next" but that's a generic heading. We can have "The road ahead" but that's also generic. We can have "Unanswered questions" - but that's also generic. We can have "The program's timeline" - but we don't have a timeline. We can have "What the directive leaves open" - that's a bit specific. Let's do "What the directive leaves open" as an H2.The memorandum is short on specifics. It doesn't say which federal agency will run the program, how companies will be vetted, or what kinds of actions they'll be allowed to take. It also doesn't set a deadline for when the program should be up and running. Those details will presumably come later, but for now, the directive is a statement of intent.
But we are speculating "presumably" - we can say "Those details will have to come later." That's fine. We need to end with a concrete next step. We can say "The FBI's report and the memorandum together signal a growing focus on crypto-related crime. How the program takes shape — and whether it actually moves the needle on the billions lost — will be the test." But that's a bit summary. We can say "The program's structure and timeline remain unclear. What is clear is that the government is treating crypto crime as a national priority." That's a bit editorial. We can end with "The FBI's numbers are a reminder of the scale of the problem. The memorandum is a response. Whether it works is another question." That's a bit dry but okay. We need to avoid "It remains to be seen" - that's a banned phrase. We can say "Whether it works is another question." That's fine. Let's write the full content with proper HTML. We need to ensure word count 450-700. Let's count. We'll write: Lead: 2 sentences. Section 1: 2-3 sentences. Section 2: 2-3 sentences. Section 3: 2-3 sentences. Total maybe 10-12 sentences, around 200-300 words. We need to expand a bit. We can add more detail from the facts. We can mention that the FBI received reports, not just losses. We can say "The FBI received reports of $20.877 billion in internet-crime losses during 2025." That's the exact fact. We can also say "Complaints involving cryptocurrency accounted for $11.37 billion of those losses." So we can use those exact numbers. We can also mention that the program is "federally supervised" and "vetted U.S. companies" - we can elaborate on that. We can have a section "Why the FBI's numbers matter" but that's analysis. We can have a section "The scale of crypto crime" - but we don't have other data. We can have a section "The new program" and then a section "What's missing" - that's good. Let's structure: Lead: The FBI logged $20.877 billion in internet-crime losses in 2025, and crypto-related complaints accounted for $11.37 billion of that. President Trump has signed a memorandum directing the creation of a federally supervised program to disrupt foreign criminal networks, with vetted U.S. companies allowed to participate. H2: Crypto's $11.37B slice Paragraph: The FBI's annual internet crime report covers a wide range of schemes, from phishing to ransomware to business email compromise. But crypto-related complaints alone made up more than half of the total losses. That's a big number, and it's a clear sign that digital assets have become a primary target for criminals. But we said "clear sign" - that's okay. We can say "That's a big number, and it shows how much of the problem is tied to crypto." That's fine. H2: What the new program does Paragraph: The memorandum directs the creation of a federally supervised program to disrupt foreign criminal networks. It would allow vetted U.S. companies to participate in those efforts. The directive doesn't spell out how the program will be structured, which agencies will run it, or how companies will be vetted. It also doesn't set a timeline for when the program should be operational. H2: What's left unclear Paragraph: The memorandum is short on specifics. It doesn't say which federal agency will take the lead, what kinds of actions companies will be allowed to take, or how the program will coordinate with existing law enforcement efforts. Those details will have to come later. For now, the directive is a statement of intent — and a signal that the government is treating crypto-related crime as a national priority. But we said "signal" - that's okay. We can end with "The FBI's numbers are a reminder of the scale of the problem. The memorandum is a response. Whether it works is another question." That's a good ending. We need to avoid "It remains to be seen" - we have "Whether it works is another question." That's fine. Now we need to ensure we don't have any banned phrases. We have "clear sign" - that's not banned. We have "statement of intent" - that's fine. We need to vary sentence length. We have some short sentences: "That's a big number." "Those details will have to come later." Good. We need to use contractions: "doesn't", "it's", "won't" - we have "doesn't" and "it's". We have "won't" not used. We can use "won't" somewhere. We need to avoid rhetorical questions. We don't have any. We need to avoid "" etc. We don't have. We need to ensure the H2s are specific. "Crypto's $11.37B slice" is specific. "What the new program does" is a bit generic but okay. "What's left unclear" is also a bit generic but acceptable. We can make them more specific: "The FBI's crypto tally" and "The memorandum's details" and "Unanswered questions" - but we have "What's left unclear" which is fine. We can also have a section "Why the program matters" but we don't have that.
