Crypto Breaking

Ethereum is staring at a looming funding gap for its core development work, according to a warning from former Ethereum Foundation contributor Trenton Van Epps. In a blog post published Thursday, Van Epps argued that reductions in Ethereum Foundation spending and the April expiration of the Client Incentive Program leave the broader “core development ecosystem” needing roughly $30 million per year to sustain itself.
Van Epps characterized the situation as a potential “slow-burning funding crisis,” while pointing to ongoing organizational churn at the Ethereum Foundation that has accelerated departures among leadership and staff. The concern is already colliding with a separate policy debate: Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has said the foundation’s remaining resources are limited and that it has been prioritizing “longevity over breadth” with less ETH selling.
Key takeaways
Van Epps estimates Ethereum’s core development funding need at about $30 million annually, citing spending cuts and the April end of the Client Incentive Program.
He warned of a potential “slow-burning funding crisis” within the next three to nine months unless new funding sources emerge.
Buterin has said the Ethereum Foundation holds only about 0.16% of Ether’s total supply, limiting its ability to cover a wide range of ecosystem costs.
Recent treasury actions—including unstaking and selling ETH—suggest the foundation has been adjusting how it finances development needs.
Why Van Epps says Ethereum could run into a funding cliff
Van Epps’ central claim is that the Ethereum Foundation’s recent financial and program changes have removed support that previously helped keep core development functioning. He linked the risk directly to two developments: the Ethereum Foundation’s spending reduction and the expiration of the Client Incentive Program in April.
Based on conversations with core development contributors, Van Epps said the network’s core development ecosystem requires approximately $30 million in annual funding. He further warned that without additional funding streams, Ethereum may be headed toward a “slow-burning” shortfall—an issue that may not trigger an immediate shutdown, but could gradually worsen delivery timelines, contributor incentives, and the capacity of maintainers across critical client and infrastructure components.
Van Epps wrote that the crisis timeframe could land within three to nine months, making the next few quarters a crucial window for funding stability.
Leadership departures intensify the pressure on continuity
Van Epps’ funding concerns come as the Ethereum Foundation itself undergoes significant personnel changes. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted a wave of departures from the organization, including the announcement from co-executive director Hsiao-Wei Wang that she would step down from her role.
According to that reporting, the estimated number of layoffs and departures at the Ethereum Foundation reached 19 so far this year. While staffing changes do not automatically translate into funding shortages, they can compound uncertainty for a system already dependent on predictable support for long-term engineering work.
Cointelegraph also reported it was unable to independently verify Van Epps’ estimated $30 million annual requirement and contacted the Ethereum Foundation for comment.
Buterin’s “longevity over breadth” and the limits of foundation resources
The funding debate is not occurring in a vacuum. On May 24, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin posted on X that the Ethereum Foundation’s available resources are limited—saying it holds only about 0.16% of Ether’s total supply. He contrasted that with foundations linked to other networks, which can hold a much larger share of their ecosystem’s supply.
Buterin said the Ethereum Foundation was originally designed for a narrower mission: developing Ethereum’s core software and helping the network move through major roadmap milestones, many of which he said were largely completed by 2022. With that in mind, he argued that the foundation now faces trade-offs about where to deploy remaining resources.
“And so today, the EF is choosing to use its remaining resources to pursue longevity over breadth (yes, this means we sell less ETH),” Buterin wrote.
That framing matters because it implies the foundation may increasingly prioritize sustained maintenance and long-horizon stability rather than broad, multi-program ecosystem support—an approach that can leave gaps if other funding sources do not fill the remainder.
Treasury adjustments: unstaking, sales, and a policy recalibration
The foundation’s funding position has been reflected in recent treasury activity. Cointelegraph reported that the Ethereum Foundation unstaked 17,000 ETH in late April, and then another 21,270 ETH in early May, at the time reported as worth $50 million. The foundation had nearly surpassed 70,000 ETH staked earlier in the year, according to the same reporting.
Cointelegraph also noted the foundation sold 10,000 ETH in an OTC deal on May 1 to Bitmine, described as the largest corporate ETH holder. Arkham, a blockchain analytics platform, suggested the unstaking may have been driven by the need for funds to continue developing the network.
These transactions represent another step in what Cointelegraph described as ongoing adjustments to the Ethereum Foundation’s treasury strategy. In a June 2025 policy update, the foundation said increasing its staking participation would help fund protocol development while limiting future ETH sales, following earlier community backlash over disposals.
Taken together, the funding warning from Van Epps and the foundation’s described treasury choices point to a structural tension: if the organization is trying to sell less ETH while also reducing operational spending and losing certain incentive programs, the ecosystem’s remaining funding capacity becomes harder to sustain—particularly during a period when maintenance needs continue regardless of roadmap milestones.
What to watch as the funding timeline tightens
For investors, builders, and client maintainers, the immediate question is whether Ethereum can secure stable, predictable support for core development within the next three to nine months—especially after the Client Incentive Program ended and as the foundation reshapes how it finances development through treasury policy. The next developments to monitor are any new funding commitments and how Ethereum’s core contributors adapt if annual support still fails to match the roughly $30 million level Van Epps described.
This article was originally published as Ex-contributor Warns Ethereum Core Funding Crisis as EF Cuts Spend on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Kalshi, one of the best-known US prediction market platforms, is reportedly in early, informal discussions with investment banks about pursuing an initial public offering (IPO), according to a Friday report by The Information.
The same report says Kalshi is exploring an IPO after surpassing $2 billion in annualized revenue. A Kalshi spokesperson declined to comment on the matter.
Key takeaways
Kalshi is reportedly in early, informal talks with investment banks about an IPO after reaching more than $2 billion in annualized revenue.
Sports betting-related contracts appear to be the platform’s largest trading category, making regulatory risk especially prominent.
Multiple US states are suing prediction market operators, arguing the platforms operate illegal or unlicensed sports betting.
Regulators and operators disagree on whether these event contracts should be treated as swaps under federal commodities law or as sports betting needing state licensing.
The CFTC has attempted to clarify reporting rules through no-action relief and has pursued litigation to establish its oversight authority.
IPO discussions amid rapid revenue growth
If the reported IPO talks progress, Kalshi would be testing a path from venture-backed fintech to public markets at a time when regulators are actively challenging how prediction market platforms structure their offerings.
Per The Information, Kalshi’s IPO discussions are at an early, informal stage and are tied to the platform crossing $2 billion in annualized revenue. While the company did not comment, the figure matters because IPO readiness typically depends on sustained performance, investor interest, and a clearer risk picture—particularly around legal exposure.
Sports contracts drive most trading volume
Kalshi’s public-market ambitions come with a specific business concentration: sports event contracts. According to Dune data cited in the report, sports betting contracts represent about 53% of Kalshi’s weekly notional trading volume, making them the leading category on the platform.
The same Dune-based breakdown also places sports at the center of Polymarket’s activity, where sport-related betting accounts for about 69% of weekly trading volume, based on the article’s referenced figures.
This concentration creates a practical tension for Kalshi’s near-term outlook. As sports-related contracts draw the most attention from regulators and litigants, any restrictions or adverse rulings could disproportionately affect revenue and volume—two core inputs markets typically scrutinize ahead of public listings.
States vs. prediction markets: licensing and legality disputes
The legal pressure on prediction markets has intensified, especially where sports events are involved. Cointelegraph reported that Kentucky became the latest state to sue five prediction market operators, including Kalshi and Polymarket. The lawsuit alleges they are “operating unlicensed and illegal sports betting and gambling platforms.”
Beyond Kentucky, the article notes that at least 17 other states have pursued legal action against prediction market operators, and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has been pulled into parts of this dispute.
The core disagreement is straightforward but consequential. State authorities argue that contracts tied to sports events require state-level licenses. Prediction market operators argue that their event contracts are structured as swaps governed by federal commodities law.
CFTC attempts to define federal oversight
As the state-level lawsuits accumulate, the federal regulator’s stance becomes increasingly central to the industry’s long-term viability. The article says the CFTC has argued that event contracts qualify as “swaps” because they are based on binary outcomes.
In a bid to address market operations while disputes continue, the CFTC issued a no-action letter on May 14 aimed at easing event contract reporting requirements. The reporting relief is intended to reduce immediate compliance pressure, but it does not resolve the broader question of whether these products should be regulated primarily as swaps under federal oversight or treated like state-licensed gambling.
The article also notes that the CFTC has sued multiple states, seeking to cement its authority over prediction markets. It references actions involving Wisconsin, New York, Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois.
What investors should watch next
If Kalshi’s IPO talks move from informal discussions to formal planning, investors will likely focus on how ongoing sports betting litigation evolves—particularly whether courts clarify that event contracts are swaps under federal law, and how any rulings or settlements might affect the portion of trading tied to sports.
This article was originally published as Kalshi Eyes IPO With Banks as Legal Scrutiny Grows Over Sports Bets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin miners have long been treated as high-beta exposure to BTC’s price cycle, but the operating model is shifting. With margin pressure squeezing traditional mining economics and the demand for AI compute steadily rising, major miners and infrastructure players are increasingly looking at power, data center capacity, and machine-hosting as their primary differentiators.
That broader pivot received fresh reinforcement this week after reporting that Nvidia was preparing a roughly $20 billion bond sale to fund the next phase of its AI expansion—underscoring how long-term capital spending in AI infrastructure is shaping adjacent parts of the crypto ecosystem.
Key takeaways
Bloomberg reports Nvidia is seeking to raise $20 billion via a multi-part bond offering tied to AI investment plans, highlighting sustained AI infrastructure spending.
As mining margins tighten, Bitcoin miners are increasingly positioning their power and data center assets for AI hosting and high-performance computing rather than only hash-rate competition.
Tokenized real-world assets continue to grow: Token Terminal data shows onchain financial assets have surpassed $43 billion, up 37% over six months.
Ripple is expanding payments in Africa through an investment in Flutterwave, bringing its RLUSD stablecoin and XRP Ledger infrastructure closer to a cross-border remittance hub.
Sam Bankman-Fried’s bid to overturn his FTX fraud conviction failed, with an appeals panel in Manhattan upholding the verdict.
Nvidia’s $20 billion bond plan signals the next AI buildout era
According to Bloomberg, Nvidia is pursuing a multi-part bond issuance intended to fund AI-related investments and refinance existing debt. The report also notes that the longest-dated bonds are expected to carry meaningfully higher yields than comparable US Treasuries.
While the bond sale itself is an equity-free financing event for a chipmaker, its relevance to crypto infrastructure is indirect but important: it reinforces that the AI buildout is not a short-term fad. For miners, the implication is that power availability and data center throughput may become more valuable than pure hash rate when AI workloads and hosting demand are sustained.
Many mining operators are already exploring that direction. Cointelegraph previously highlighted how some companies are repurposing energy-intensive infrastructure for AI and high-performance computing hosting as mining economics face ongoing headwinds (see crypto mining’s AI/data center infrastructure shift).
In that context, operators including HIVE Digital, Hut 8, CleanSpark, and TeraWulf are increasingly described as moving toward roles that resemble data center operators—leveraging their existing power relationships and site footprints to serve compute-hungry customers.
Tokenized real-world assets keep expanding despite broader crypto weakness
The tokenized real-world asset (RWA) sector is showing resilience even as the broader crypto market faces periodic downturns. Token Terminal data cited by Cointelegraph indicates that total value across onchain financial assets has surpassed $43 billion, up 37% over the past six months.
Tokenized funds make up the bulk of the category—nearly 80% of onchain financial assets—though commodities and tokenized stocks are gaining attention as additional use cases develop.
The trend matters for traders and builders because tokenized RWAs represent a different adoption pathway than speculative crypto trading. Instead of relying on market cycles alone, the sector’s growth is tied to institutional infrastructure, distribution, and compliance frameworks—often with longer-term capital planning.
Two major bank-style projections highlighted in the reporting also illustrate the scale investors believe could be possible: Standard Chartered forecasts that tokenization could help drive decentralized finance toward a $2.7 trillion market capitalization by 2030, while Citigroup projects tokenized RWAs could reach $5.5 trillion by the same point.
Ripple pushes deeper into African payments via Flutterwave investment
Ripple has invested in Flutterwave, one of Africa’s fastest-growing remittance and payments companies, in a deal valued at $3.3 billion. The investment amount was not disclosed, but Cointelegraph reports that it connects Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin, Ripple Payments platform, and XRP Ledger infrastructure with a payments provider operating across 35 countries.
The move aligns with a broader theme in cross-border finance: demand for faster and lower-cost transfers continues to rise as businesses and individuals look for alternatives to traditional remittance rails. By integrating into one of Africa’s major payment networks, Ripple is effectively betting that stablecoin-enabled settlement and ledger-based infrastructure will gain traction where payment friction has historically been higher.
Cointelegraph notes that the investment is also part of Ripple’s continuing expansion on the continent. Earlier, the company partnered with South Africa’s Absa Bank to provide institutional digital asset custody solutions, strengthening its presence in local financial infrastructure.
Court outcome: Sam Bankman-Fried’s conviction stands
In legal news with ongoing implications for the crypto industry’s regulatory trajectory, former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried failed to overturn his fraud conviction. A three-judge appeals panel in Manhattan upheld the verdict, concluding that he received a fair trial.
As quoted in the reporting, Circuit Judge Barrington Parker wrote that while Bankman-Fried was publicly reassuring customers, investors, and regulators that FTX customer funds were safe, he was also using FTX as a personal source of funds—spending customer money on real estate, political contributions, and investments.
Bankman-Fried was convicted on fraud and conspiracy charges tied to FTX’s collapse and sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2024. Cointelegraph also points out that he formally applied for a presidential pardon, with the request appearing on the Pardon Attorney website in early June.
For market participants, the practical takeaway is that the case remains an enforcement reference point. Appeals outcomes shape how regulators, courts, and legal teams evaluate fraud, custody, and customer-protection frameworks across the sector.
What to watch next
Miners will be watching whether AI compute demand translates into durable hosting contracts and stable power-utilization economics, while tokenized assets investors will look for continued growth in onchain financial asset totals and broader institutional participation. On the legal front, further filings tied to Bankman-Fried’s pardon process could keep FTX’s compliance lessons in the spotlight.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Miners Shift Toward AI as Tokenized RWA Demand Rises on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has indicated it is prepared to regulate tokenization of real-world assets (RWAs), arguing that the Philippines has both the legal basis and supervisory mindset to handle the technology. SEC Commissioner Rogelio Quevedo made the comments during Philippine Blockchain Week 2026, framing tokenized assets as a potential catalyst for innovation in the capital markets while also improving investor protection.
In remarks shared with Cointelegraph, Quevedo said the SEC is “now fully convinced” that the country has the right laws and regulatory readiness to support asset tokenization. He also tied the development to a pressing local problem: scams that target overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) searching for legitimate places to invest. According to Quevedo, regulated tokenized investment products could offer OFWs a clearer path to putting their capital to work.
Key takeaways
The Philippine SEC, through Commissioner Rogelio Quevedo, says the regulator believes the legal and regulatory groundwork for RWA tokenization is in place.
Quevedo positioned tokenization not only as market modernization, but also as a tool to help combat investment scams that exploit OFWs.
The SEC’s StratBox regulatory sandbox underpins how new financial products can be tested under supervision before broader rollout.
Quevedo said the SEC is using artificial intelligence to identify and pursue illegal investment offerings online, including coordination efforts with major platforms.
Why tokenization is now on the SEC’s radar
Quevedo’s comments suggest the SEC is shifting from treating tokenization as a theoretical or emerging concept to viewing it as something that can fit within existing regulatory structures. Speaking at Philippine Blockchain Week 2026, he said the commission has the “proper law” and the appropriate regulatory experience to accept asset tokenization.
For investors and market participants, that matters because tokenization changes how ownership, settlement, and distribution of assets can be structured—especially when dealing with traditionally illiquid instruments like real estate or other hard-to-trade claims. A regulator that signals readiness can influence how quickly compliant issuers and platforms develop products, and it can also clarify expectations for disclosures, oversight, and investor safeguards.
Regulation as investor protection: focus on OFWs
Beyond capital markets modernization, Quevedo linked tokenized offerings to the protection of a specific group that has faced repeated targeting: OFWs. He told Cointelegraph that OFWs often have capital but lack knowledge about where to place their money productively, making them vulnerable to fraudulent schemes promising returns.
By highlighting regulated tokenized investment products as a more legitimate alternative, the SEC’s messaging aligns tokenization with a broader enforcement goal: reducing the gap between where consumers look for returns and the regulated channels that can safely meet that demand. In practice, this implies that the SEC is likely to scrutinize not just the technology, but also the marketing, product structure, and distribution model—especially for services marketed to Filipino investors abroad.
Using enforcement and AI to target scams
Quevedo said the SEC is better prepared to oversee emerging technologies because it has expanded enforcement capabilities. He also stated that the regulator is using artificial intelligence to identify “unscrupulous scams,” and that it is working with major online platforms—including Google and TikTok—to remove illegal investment offerings.
This is a significant signal for participants in the tokenization ecosystem. While asset tokenization is frequently discussed as a fintech or blockchain innovation, the real-world outcome for investors often depends on whether enforcement can keep pace with online distribution of fraudulent products. The SEC’s emphasis on AI-assisted investigations and platform cooperation indicates a strategy aimed at reducing the scale and reach of scam operations that rely on rapid online promotion.
Quevedo’s stance also fits into the SEC’s ongoing efforts to pursue unregistered investment schemes in the Philippines, an activity noted in the same Cointelegraph framing of the regulator’s broader posture.
StratBox and the roadmap for testing tokenized products
The SEC’s direction on tokenization builds on its Strategic Sandbox, known as StratBox. According to documentation from the SEC, StratBox is designed to let fintech companies test new products and business models in a live but controlled environment, under regulatory supervision. The framework permits the SEC—within the scope of its legal authority—to waive or modify certain regulatory requirements for individual sandbox participants.
However, Quevedo’s remarks do not suggest that the sandbox is a free pass. The StratBox structure also makes clear that participation does not automatically exempt a company from existing laws, and it cannot be used to bypass legal or regulatory obligations outside the boundaries of the sandbox arrangement.
That structure is particularly relevant for tokenized RWAs because the main compliance questions typically involve who can issue tokenized instruments, what disclosures are required, how custody and transfer mechanics are supervised, and how investor rights are protected. A supervised testing environment can reduce uncertainty for both regulators and market entrants—allowing regulators to observe real behavior while testing whether existing rules can accommodate the technology.
The StratBox approach has already been used for fintech experimentation. In November 2025, the SEC said four companies were admitted to the sandbox, including one testing a tokenized real estate offering. Two participants were exploring access to United States equities, and BlockShoals Technologies reportedly received in-principle approval to test crypto-related products and services—each showing that tokenized or crypto-adjacent infrastructure continues to fall within the sandbox’s practical scope.
For the market, the key question now is how the SEC intends to translate sandbox learning into clearer, repeatable guidance for tokenized RWAs. Tokenization can involve multiple parties—platforms, issuers, and intermediaries—so regulatory clarity on roles and responsibilities will be crucial for scaling compliant projects beyond pilots.
Readers should watch how the SEC follows up on Commissioner Quevedo’s readiness statement: whether additional sandbox admissions focus specifically on real-world asset tokenization, and whether the regulator’s AI- and platform-backed enforcement efforts expand in parallel as tokenized products gain visibility in the Philippines.
This article was originally published as SEC Commissioner Says Philippines Is Prepared for RWA Tokenization on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has indicated it is prepared to regulate the tokenization of real-world assets (RWAs), arguing that the legal and supervisory framework needed for the next wave of capital-markets infrastructure is already in place. Speaking at Philippine Blockchain Week 2026, SEC Commissioner Rogelio Quevedo said he believes the regulator now has the “proper law” and the “proper regulatory mind and background” to support asset tokenization.
Quevedo’s comments also tied tokenization to a consumer-protection goal: expanding legitimate investment channels for overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), who often have capital but limited avenues to put it to work safely. He said enhanced enforcement—including the use of artificial intelligence—has improved the SEC’s ability to respond to scams, and that the agency is working with major online platforms to remove illegal offerings.
Key takeaways
The Philippine SEC signaled readiness for regulated RWA tokenization, with Commissioner Rogelio Quevedo saying the legal and regulatory groundwork is in place.
Quevedo framed tokenized products as a potential way to offer more legitimate investment options for OFWs amid persistent scam activity.
The SEC is leveraging enforcement tools, including AI, and collaborating with online platforms to target fraudulent investment promotions.
The SEC’s Strategic Sandbox (StratBox) provides a controlled environment for fintech firms to test new models while remaining subject to existing laws.
Tokenization positioned as innovation—and protection
Quevedo said the SEC’s confidence in tokenized assets stems from both legal authority and operational capacity. In his remarks, he suggested that asset tokenization could stimulate broader innovation within the capital markets and potentially reshape how exchanges function, describing the technology as having the potential to “revolutionize” stock exchange activity.
Just as important to the commissioner’s framing was investor protection. According to Quevedo, many OFWs have funds available but may struggle to identify credible investment routes. He pointed to scams that promise returns and target Filipinos looking for ways to grow their money. By supporting tokenized investment products within a regulatory structure, the SEC appears to be aiming to reduce the gap between where investors want to deploy capital and the quality of products available to them.
Quevedo also highlighted the regulator’s enforcement evolution. He said the SEC is using artificial intelligence to pursue “unscrupulous scams” and is coordinating with platforms such as Google and TikTok to remove illegal investment offerings. That combination—technology-assisted monitoring alongside platform-level takedowns—signals a more aggressive approach to combating fraudulent activity in parallel with any move toward tokenization.
StratBox: testing new models under SEC supervision
Quevedo’s statements build on the SEC’s existing sandbox mechanism, known as the Strategic Sandbox (StratBox). The framework, described in an SEC memorandum circular, is designed to let fintech companies test new products and business models in a live environment while remaining under regulatory supervision. The SEC may waive or modify certain regulatory requirements for individual sandbox participants—within the boundaries of its legal authority.
Just as the sandbox can offer flexibility, it does not create a blanket exemption. Participation does not automatically excuse firms from complying with applicable laws, and the sandbox cannot be used to sidestep legal or regulatory obligations. For investors and market participants, that distinction is crucial: tokenization may be explored in controlled conditions, but compliance expectations remain in view.
Earlier sandbox admissions hint at tokenization’s direction
The SEC’s sandbox approach has already included test cases relevant to tokenization and digital-finance workflows. In November 2025, the SEC said four companies were admitted to the StratBox, including one testing a tokenized real estate offering. Other participants were reported to be testing access to United States equities, while BlockShoals Technologies received in-principle approval to test crypto-related products and services, as described in coverage of the SEC sandbox process.
These prior admissions suggest the SEC’s sandbox is being used not only to observe digital finance features in isolation, but to evaluate how tokenized or crypto-adjacent models might interact with traditional investment access and regulatory expectations. At the same time, the commissioner’s 2026 remarks indicate that tokenization is no longer just an experimental topic—it is now being discussed as a policy priority backed by institutional readiness.
Why the SEC’s position matters for Philippine capital markets
If the SEC follows through on its readiness narrative, tokenization could become a more structured part of the Philippines’ capital-market development rather than a purely offshore or unregulated trend. For potential issuers, the key takeaway is that the regulator is signaling willingness to accommodate asset tokenization under a framework that includes legal structure, supervision, and enforcement capability.
For investors—especially those with cross-border ties—this could translate into a wider menu of regulated investment options. Quevedo’s remarks about OFWs underscore that the SEC is explicitly thinking about who is most exposed to scam targeting and what kinds of legitimate products might reduce that vulnerability. The enforcement emphasis, including AI-assisted pursuit of fraudulent schemes and engagement with large social and search platforms, also signals that the SEC is trying to close the channel through which illegal offerings are often promoted.
However, the sandbox model also implies a measured pace. Because StratBox participants are expected to remain subject to existing laws, tokenization in practice will likely advance through controlled pilots and specific approvals rather than open-ended experimentation. The details of how specific tokenized products would be authorized and supervised—especially across categories such as real estate, equities access, and other RWAs—remain for future regulatory guidance and individual approvals.
Readers should watch for how the SEC translates commissioner-level confidence into concrete licensing, product rules, and sandbox outcomes—particularly whether tokenized real estate and tokenized market access cases move from controlled testing toward broader authorization. Equally, the SEC’s use of AI and platform cooperation will be a key indicator of how quickly enforcement can keep pace with any expansion of tokenized offerings.
This article was originally published as Philippine SEC Says It’s Ready to Enable RWA Tokenization on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Charles Schwab is reportedly preparing to step into prediction markets, with plans to let customers place straightforward yes-or-no wagers tied to whether the S&P 500 closes above or below a selected price level. If the announcement holds, it would be one of the biggest mainstream finance players yet to formally offer event-style contracts to retail investors.
According to a Friday Wall Street Journal report, the firm is considering options contracts built around S&P 500 performance. The rollout is expected to happen in a matter of months through a partnership with Cboe Global Markets, potentially marking Schwab’s first entry into the prediction market category.
Key takeaways
Schwab is reportedly planning yes-or-no options contracts based on whether the S&P 500 closes above or below a chosen price.
The move is expected to be delivered via a partnership with Cboe Global Markets, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Prediction platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket already offer similar S&P 500 contracts, creating direct competitive pressure.
US regulators and lawmakers continue to scrutinize prediction markets, including disputes over classification and jurisdiction.
Schwab’s reported wager on the S&P 500
The reported Schwab product would focus on a narrow type of bet: a simple “yes” or “no” outcome tied to the S&P 500 index finishing above or below a target level. Unlike prediction venues that list a wide range of event outcomes—from political developments and sports results to weather and corporate-related milestones—this proposal is said to center on a single, market-linked question.
Earlier examples show how common such “index range” contracts have become. Platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket already provide S&P 500 event contracts, including structures built around the index’s closing level.
For Schwab, the significance is less about adding a new speculative category and more about packaging a format that has gained momentum among retail participants into a product framework familiar to traditional brokerage customers—options-style contracts for mainstream equity exposure.
How prediction markets could intersect with brokerage infrastructure
Prediction markets have expanded well beyond crypto-native audiences, but the most controversial parts of the ecosystem often involve how the products are structured and regulated. If Schwab’s approach is delivered through options contracts in coordination with Cboe, it could suggest a path that aims to fit event trading within established market mechanics rather than operating as a standalone betting platform.
That matters because Schwab is not new to expanding into digital asset-adjacent services. In May, the firm announced the launch of spot Bitcoin and Ether trading for certain retail clients, deepening its participation in crypto-related markets. It also reported record performance for its first quarter of 2026, including net income of $2.5 billion, per Schwab’s earnings release.
While digital assets and prediction markets differ in mechanics and regulatory frameworks, both are increasingly converging on retail demand for “market-like” ways to express views. The reported Schwab plan—anchored on a major benchmark index—could be viewed as a further test of whether prediction-style trading can grow inside institutions that already manage retail trading activity.
Why the timing is sensitive: regulation and ongoing litigation
Even as prediction markets have gained attention, they remain under legal and political pressure in the US. The scrutiny is not limited to any single platform: multiple entities, including Kalshi and Polymarket, have faced challenges tied to how their event contracts are regulated, as well as disputes connected to state oversight.
Lawmakers and state authorities have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest—especially the idea that elected officials might profit from trading on nonpublic information. There have also been broader questions about whether prediction markets should be allowed to offer event contracts related to sports, an area where some state gaming authorities have challenged platforms’ authority.
At the federal level, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under Chair Michael Selig has argued that event contracts in prediction markets can qualify as “swaps,” implying the agency holds exclusive jurisdiction for regulation and enforcement. The resulting regulatory boundary has been a recurring theme in enforcement actions and court cases involving Kalshi, Polymarket, and the CFTC, alongside additional challenges brought by state regulators.
For Schwab, that backdrop makes the reported partnership approach especially important. A mainstream entrant will likely be expected to navigate not just product design, but also the classification of the contracts it sells and the oversight regime under which the business is operating.
Crypto exchanges also eye prediction markets
The Schwab news arrives at a moment when prediction markets are already part of the broader conversation in crypto. Cryptocurrency exchanges have explored prediction offerings, and earlier reporting highlighted that firms such as Coinbase had moved closer to bringing prediction market products to users.
In the same ecosystem, forecasts have suggested that prediction markets could reach very large annual volumes by the end of the decade, driven by retail interest in event trading. Even if those forecasts are aspirational, the common thread is that platforms are competing for the same user behavior: willingness to take positions on uncertain outcomes and pay for exposure to those bets.
If Schwab’s contract structure narrows the focus to index close outcomes, it may also be attempting to differentiate on simplicity and familiarity—offering a more “finance-native” way to place uncertainty around a benchmark—while avoiding some of the event categories that have drawn the most regulatory and reputational attention.
For traders and investors, the key question to watch next is how Schwab’s product will be structured and supervised: whether it truly fits within established brokerage and exchange oversight, and whether ongoing court and regulatory disputes around prediction markets affect its timeline or eventual rollout details. The outcome will likely shape how quickly prediction-style contracts can move from niche platforms into mainstream financial channels.
This article was originally published as Charles Schwab to Launch Prediction Markets via S&P 500 Wagers: WSJ on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Two brothers accused of holding a Minnesota family at gunpoint to steal approximately $8 million worth of cryptocurrency have entered guilty pleas in connection with the armed robbery, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota. The case underscores how crypto-related thefts increasingly intersect with traditional violent crime—raising distinct enforcement and compliance challenges for financial institutions and regulated crypto businesses.
On Thursday, Isiah Angelo Garcia and Raymond Christian Garcia pleaded guilty to Interference with Commerce by Robbery. Prosecutors said the brothers traveled to Minnesota from Texas and used firearms to coerce a victim and his family into facilitating transfers from online accounts and hardware wallets.
Key takeaways
Garcia brothers pleaded guilty in federal court to robbery-related interference with commerce, facing a maximum of 20 years in prison.
Prosecutors allege the attack relied on threats with firearms to force cryptocurrency transfers, including from hardware wallets.
The defendants agreed to pay more than $8 million in restitution; sentencing dates were not yet scheduled at the time of the announcement.
The case reflects broader efforts by U.S. authorities to prosecute violent crypto thefts under federal criminal statutes.
European policymakers have also moved toward targeted prevention measures amid rising reported “wrench attacks.”
Minnesota kidnapping case ends in guilty pleas
Federal prosecutors said that on Sept. 19, 2025, the brothers traveled to Minnesota with the intent to kidnap and threaten a victim and his family. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the District of Minnesota, the confrontation involved firearms and was aimed at compelling the victim to move cryptocurrency held in digital accounts.
The indictment and related filings described a sustained period of coercion at the family’s home, followed by transportation of the victim to a separate location. Prosecutors said the victim was ultimately forced to transfer $8 million in cryptocurrency, while the victim’s wife and son were held for approximately nine hours inside their residence.
Authorities reported that the kidnapping was identified after the victim’s son managed to make an emergency call. Deputies responded and later located firearms—reported as a rifle and a shotgun—along with surveillance footage and other evidence that prosecutors said linked the brothers to the burglary and robbery.
What the guilty pleas cover—and the compliance angle
In their pleas, both defendants admitted to using firearms to threaten the victims as part of a robbery. The U.S. Attorney’s Office stated that the brothers agreed to pay more than $8 million in restitution. Prosecutors also noted that sentencing hearings had not yet been scheduled.
From a regulatory and compliance perspective, the case highlights a recurring pattern: violent actors frequently attempt to obtain crypto through coercion of individuals’ credentials and access pathways, rather than purely exploiting market or technical weaknesses. This distinction matters for firms implementing risk controls around customer protection, incident response, and red-flag monitoring, as well as for banks and other regulated intermediaries that may be asked to support law enforcement requests or freeze assets tied to criminal activity.
For institutional stakeholders, it also reinforces the importance of clearly documented processes to distinguish between:
voluntary customer transfers that occurred under threat or duress, and
criminally directed movements involving stolen or coerced assets.
While a guilty plea does not automatically answer restitution allocation mechanics or any downstream asset recovery questions, it does strengthen the evidentiary record used by prosecutors and may affect how regulated entities handle subpoenas, restraining orders, and asset-freezing requests tied to the same conduct.
Broader enforcement and policy context for “wrench attacks”
The Minnesota case comes amid growing attention to incidents in which perpetrators use weapons to obtain cryptocurrency. In a separate context, Cointelegraph reported on findings from blockchain security and intelligence firm CertiK. The reporting referenced an increase in crypto-related assaults and kidnappings and cited estimated losses associated with such attacks.
U.S. authorities have continued to use federal criminal tools to address violent theft of digital assets. For example, prosecutors have previously unsealed indictments involving alleged “violent robbery sprees” targeting cryptocurrency owners and described tactics such as coercing victims through home entry and physical threats.
Internationally, French officials have also signaled that governments are treating these crimes as a public safety issue requiring targeted prevention. During Paris Blockchain Week, a French interior ministry delegate described “preventive measures” against crypto wrench attacks, including a prevention platform that attracted sign-ups.
For compliance programs, these cross-border developments have practical implications: legal thresholds for information sharing, consumer protection obligations, and licensing regimes can vary substantially between jurisdictions, but the underlying risk mechanism—coercion of access to wallets and accounts—tends to be consistent. As a result, firms may need harmonized training and controls across jurisdictions, even where regulatory frameworks differ.
What happens next
Sentencing is the next key step in the Garcia brothers’ case, and it will likely clarify the final penalties and restitution terms. More broadly, as enforcement actions accumulate and governments pursue prevention initiatives, regulated crypto firms and their banking counterparts will want to review whether their customer safeguarding, incident response, and law-enforcement workflow policies adequately address the realities of coercion-driven theft, including duress-related transfer scenarios.
This article was originally published as Texas Brothers Plead Guilty After Minnesota Crypto Kidnapping, $8M on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Two brothers accused of kidnapping a Minnesota family at gunpoint to steal cryptocurrency have pleaded guilty in federal court, according to the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota. The case centers on an alleged $8 million theft from the victim’s online accounts and hardware wallets.
The guilty pleas, entered on Thursday by Isiah Angelo Garcia and Raymond Christian Garcia, underline how “wrench attacks” — violent robberies targeting crypto holders — are increasingly prompting coordinated law-enforcement action. The development also comes as analysts report a sharp rise in crypto-related assaults and kidnappings in recent years.
Key takeaways
Garcia brothers pleaded guilty to Interference with Commerce by Robbery, a federal charge carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
Prosecutors say the kidnapping was used to force a victim to transfer $8 million in cryptocurrency from online accounts and hardware wallets.
Both defendants admitted using firearms to threaten victims and agreed to pay more than $8 million in restitution.
Sentencing has not yet been scheduled, leaving the timeline for final penalties still open.
The case adds to a growing US and international crackdown on violent robberies aimed at crypto owners.
Guilty pleas in Minnesota kidnapping-for-crypto case
According to the US Attorney’s Office of the District of Minnesota, Isiah Angelo Garcia and Raymond Christian Garcia entered guilty pleas on Thursday in connection with an armed robbery in Minnesota. The charge is Interference with Commerce by Robbery, with prosecutors noting a maximum possible federal prison term of 20 years.
US Attorney Daniel Rosen said the pleas reflect the government’s effort to hold defendants accountable for the choices they made.
The criminal conduct prosecutors describe began when the two men allegedly traveled from Texas to Minnesota in September 2025. Prosecutors said their aim was to seize cryptocurrency by holding a victim and his family at gunpoint.
How prosecutors say the $8 million theft unfolded
In an earlier filing, the US Attorney’s Office stated that on Sept. 19, 2025, the brothers allegedly held the victim’s family at gunpoint and forced the victim to transfer cryptocurrency. Prosecutors said the robbery involved both online accounts and hardware wallets.
The alleged kidnapping lasted for hours. Prosecutors said the victim’s wife and son were held in their family home for about nine hours, while the victim was taken to a cabin roughly three hours away.
Police involvement began after the victim’s son was able to make an emergency call. Washington County sheriff’s deputies responded, and investigators later found a rifle and a shotgun. Prosecutors also pointed to surveillance footage and other evidence connecting the brothers to the burglary.
What the pleas mean legally and financially
In their guilty pleas, both defendants admitted to using firearms to threaten the victims as part of the robbery, according to the US Attorney’s Office. The plea agreement also includes restitution obligations exceeding $8 million.
Although the guilty pleas mark a major procedural step, the case is not yet at sentencing. The US Attorney’s Office said sentencing hearings have not been scheduled, meaning the final duration of prison terms remains uncertain.
For crypto owners and the broader market, cases like this are not only about criminal punishment. They also signal that investigators are willing and able to pursue federal charges in violent schemes tied to crypto custody and transfers, rather than treating them solely as isolated robberies.
Part of a wider pattern of crypto wrench attacks
The Minnesota case lands amid growing concerns about violent crimes specifically targeting cryptocurrency. In February, CertiK reported that the number of crypto-related assaults and kidnappings increased 75% in 2025 compared with the prior year. CertiK also estimated that losses from such attacks in the first four months of 2026 had already reached $101 million, according to a Cointelegraph report referencing CertiK’s findings.
This broader context helps explain why authorities appear to be pursuing multiple cases in parallel. Earlier in the year, US authorities unsealed an indictment involving three men accused of stealing at least $6.5 million in what prosecutors described as a violent robbery spree targeting cryptocurrency owners. In that case, prosecutors alleged the defendants posed as delivery drivers to enter residences and use violence to extract cryptocurrency.
Outside the US, the issue has also drawn official attention. During Paris Blockchain Week in April, Jean-Didier Berger, a minister delegate to the interior minister of France, said his office has taken “preventive measures” against crypto wrench attacks, including launching a prevention platform that generated thousands of sign-ups, according to a Cointelegraph report.
What to watch next
With the brothers now pleading guilty and restitution agreed, the next key development will be sentencing scheduling and the terms the court imposes. More broadly, investors and users should watch whether prosecutors continue to expand federal cases in wrench-attack schemes and how prevention efforts evolve as reported losses rise.
This article was originally published as Crypto Kidnappers Admit Role in $8M Robbery of Minnesota Family on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Sonic Labs’ board shake-up has spilled over into the market, with the network’s native token, S, sliding after the company announced that three former executives are stepping down from its board. The move comes as Sonic continues an overhaul of leadership and governance amid ongoing criticism from sections of its community.
On Friday, S fell to around 0.031, down 5% over 24 hours. The resignations include Michael Kong, previously CEO of the Fantom Foundation and a director at Sonic Labs; David Richardson, who served as executive chairman of Sonic Labs; and Andre Cronje, the project’s former chief technology officer, who had earlier posted a statement about his board resignation at andrecronje.info.
Key takeaways
Sonic Labs announced the resignations of three board members, prompting a 5% drop in the S token over 24 hours.
The departures include Michael Kong, David Richardson, and Andre Cronje; Sonic is naming new top roles including Matt Visser as CEO.
Sonic said outgoing leaders will remain invested but will no longer make organizational business decisions.
The changes are positioned alongside promises of more transparent governance, clearer updates, and new risk/compliance oversight.
The leadership transition targets dissatisfaction linked to S’s long-running decline since Sonic’s January 2025 network upgrade.
Token drop follows board changes
The immediate market reaction to Sonic Labs’ announcement reflects how quickly governance headlines can influence token sentiment. S moved lower after the company said three former executives resigned from its board, while also detailing a broader leadership restructuring.
In its announcement, Sonic Labs emphasized continuity in a way that tries to address trust concerns. Outgoing board members “built what Sonic is today,” the company said, adding that they will “remain invested in Sonic’s success” and are transferring responsibilities “the right way.” Sonic’s statement also stressed that, after the transition, they “will no longer make business decisions for the organization.”
Sonic simultaneously named Matt Visser as its new CEO and Kosta Kourkoumelis as chief operating officer, framing the board exit as part of an attempt to reset how the organization is run and communicated.
Why the resignations matter for investors and users
For S holders, governance isn’t just corporate housekeeping—it can shape development priorities, treasury decisions, and the pace of execution. Sonic Labs’ own messaging suggests it is responding to mounting dissatisfaction in the community, while also acknowledging that the token’s performance has deteriorated since launch.
According to the article, Sonic Labs tied its governance overhaul to the “growing community dissatisfaction” and to what it called the prolonged decline in S. The token, launched in January 2025 as part of the Sonic network upgrade, is reported to have fallen 97% since that launch.
Rather than contesting the narrative, Sonic Labs said it would not present the situation as a success story. “We are not going to open with a victory lap. The token is down. Community sentiment is down. We see both clearly, we are not spinning it, and we are not asking anyone to pretend otherwise,” Sonic Labs stated.
This kind of direct acknowledgement matters because it can affect how quickly stakeholders believe management actions are aligned with delivered outcomes. It also sets a clear expectation: any subsequent improvements—whether in protocol development, ecosystem growth, or risk controls—will be judged against the backdrop of a steep drawdown.
Governance commitments and new oversight structures
Sonic Labs said the leadership change will be paired with governance and communications reforms. The company pointed to:
More transparent governance processes.
Clear communication around project updates.
The creation of a dedicated risk and compliance committee.
Those promises reflect a broader trend in crypto over the past year: when markets doubt project stewardship, teams often respond by formalizing accountability mechanisms and improving how information is shared with token holders.
However, governance changes also leave open a key question for investors: what will actually change operationally? Sonic’s restructuring indicates an intention to change decision-making and oversight, but readers will likely want to watch for concrete deliverables—particularly around how the new committee will function and how update cadence and transparency will be measured.
From Fantom to Sonic—and the leadership reorientation
Sonic Labs is the research and development organization behind the Sonic layer-1 blockchain. The network positions itself as an EVM-compatible chain designed for high performance, claiming 10,000 transactions per second and subsecond finality.
Sonic’s identity shift is also part of the context. As described in the article, the project rebranded from Fantom to Sonic and introduced a major structural and technical upgrade, replacing the legacy Fantom Opera network.
Against that backdrop, the board reshuffle signals a second-phase transition: an evolution from building and migration into managing ongoing expectations. Sonic’s approach appears to be attempting to restore credibility by tightening governance and aligning leadership roles with a new operating structure.
The timing is also notable in relation to wider industry developments. The article notes that this comes just days after Ethereum Foundation co-executive director Hsiao-Wei Wang announced she had stepped down, adding to a series of departures and layoffs reported earlier in the year. While that is a separate organization, it underscores that governance and leadership volatility is not unique to Sonic.
For now, the most important question is whether Sonic’s promised governance and oversight reforms translate into measurable progress that can stabilize community confidence and improve the token’s outlook. Investors should watch for how the new leadership structure operates in practice—especially update transparency, risk/compliance committee actions, and the project milestones that follow the board transition.
This article was originally published as S Token Slumps 5% After Sonic Labs Board Shake-Up and CEO Change on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Franklin Templeton has filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to launch two exchange-traded funds designed to turn dividend income from US stocks into Bitcoin exposure. The proposal, disclosed in a June 18 SEC filing, targets investors who want a rules-based path to add Bitcoin exposure without abandoning an equity allocation.
The funds—titled the Franklin US Equity Bitcoin DRIP Index ETF and Franklin US Innovation Bitcoin DRIP Index ETF—would follow indexes that reinvest dividends from selected US stocks into a predetermined Bitcoin allocation. According to the filing, the initial allocation framework would place 5% into Bitcoin exposure and 95% into equities, with the index methodology governing how that balance is maintained over time.
Key takeaways
Franklin Templeton filed for two dividend-reinvestment ETFs that convert stock dividends into Bitcoin exposure through proprietary index rules.
The proposed funds would start with a 5% Bitcoin exposure and 95% US equities allocation, then keep that target within limits through periodic rebalancing.
Bitcoin exposure could be gained through multiple instruments, including Bitcoin exchange-traded products, futures, options, and Bitcoin-backed depositary receipts, as described in the SEC filing.
The “Equity” fund would track a broad US large-cap benchmark, while the “Innovation” version would focus on the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on Nasdaq.
The filing arrives as at least several issuers continue experimenting with Bitcoin strategies beyond traditional spot ETF wrappers, amid reported softness in US spot ETF flows.
How Franklin Templeton’s “DRIP into Bitcoin” approach would work
In its SEC filing, Franklin Templeton describes two ETFs that use a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) concept—but with the reinvestment redirected toward Bitcoin exposure. The indexes underlying each fund would systematically direct regular and special dividends from the equity holdings into Bitcoin within the index’s allocation framework.
Per the filing, the funds would launch with the same starting mix: 5% Bitcoin exposure and 95% US equities. The mechanism is intended to create a structured way to accumulate Bitcoin exposure over time as dividends are generated by the equity portfolio.
The SEC filing also outlines how the funds would maintain the allocation. It states that the indexes would be rebalanced quarterly to keep the Bitcoin allocation inside predefined boundaries, and that the indexes would be reconstituted semiannually.
Where the Bitcoin exposure could come from
One of the more practical details in the filing is how the funds plan to access Bitcoin exposure. Rather than relying on a single instrument, Franklin Templeton indicates that the proposed ETFs could gain Bitcoin exposure using a range of options. These include:
Bitcoin exchange-traded products
Bitcoin futures contracts
Bitcoin options
Bitcoin-backed depositary receipts
In addition, the filing states that the funds may hold certain Bitcoin-related investments through a wholly owned Cayman Islands subsidiary. The inclusion of a subsidiary structure signals that the issuer is planning for operational flexibility in how it sources or holds the relevant Bitcoin-linked instruments.
Two equity universes, one Bitcoin reinvestment rule
The two proposed ETFs differ in the equity set used to generate dividend income, even though both would follow the same dividend-to-Bitcoin investment concept.
According to the filing, the Franklin US Equity Bitcoin DRIP Index ETF would track an index built around a US large-cap equity benchmark. The Franklin US Innovation Bitcoin DRIP Index ETF, meanwhile, would track an index composed of the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on Nasdaq.
Both funds would be passive index ETFs tracking proprietary VettaFi indexes. Franklin Templeton’s filing also indicates that those indexes would be managed with quarterly rebalancing and semiannual reconstitution, meaning the reinvestment-to-Bitcoin process would remain rule-bound even as the underlying equity constituents potentially change.
Why this filing matters as issuers test income-focused Bitcoin products
Franklin Templeton’s proposal adds to a growing trend among asset managers: developing Bitcoin strategies designed to generate or enhance returns through structured rules, including income-focused methods. The filing comes after other major players explored Bitcoin-related products aimed at harvesting yield characteristics rather than relying solely on spot price appreciation.
Earlier this year, BlackRock filed for the iShares Bitcoin Premium Income ETF, which would use an options strategy tied to Bitcoin and its spot ETF to pursue additional returns. In April, Goldman Sachs outlined plans for a Bitcoin income ETF that would invest in spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products and sell call options against those holdings—aimed at generating yield while reducing sensitivity to price swings. Hamilton ETFs also moved toward a covered-call-style approach in Canada with a proposed leveraged Bitcoin income fund, as described in earlier reporting.
At the same time, the filing appears amid concerns about the near-term demand picture for US spot Bitcoin ETFs. CoinShares data cited that spot products have seen persistent outflows—though the source provided in the text points to SoSoValue, noting six consecutive weeks of net outflows between May 15 and June 18.
That backdrop helps explain why dividend-reinvestment mechanics could be appealing. By funneling cash generated from equity holdings into Bitcoin exposure on an ongoing basis, the strategy may offer a different “behavioral” path into Bitcoin—one anchored to equity dividends and disciplined index rules, rather than investor timing decisions alone.
What to watch next
Investors should watch how the SEC evaluates the proposed index methodology, particularly the practical implementation of Bitcoin exposure via futures, options, or Bitcoin-linked instruments, and whether the issuer specifies any additional constraints as part of the review. If approved, the funds would represent another step in Bitcoin ETF design—shifting the conversation from “spot access” to “systematic, income-linked allocation.”
This article was originally published as Franklin Templeton Files ETFs Linking Stock Dividends to Bitcoin Exposure on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Sonic Labs’ latest governance shake-up has spilled into the market, with the network’s native utility token, S, sliding shortly after the firm announced the resignation of three high-profile board members. According to the report, the departures include Michael Kong, David Richardson, and Andre Cronje, who had previously played key roles across Sonic’s predecessor ecosystem and the project’s technology.
On Friday, the S token traded around 0.031, down 5% over 24 hours. The same announcement also named new top leadership—Matt Visser as chief executive officer and Kosta Kourkoumelis as chief operating officer—while describing the changes as part of a broader effort to respond to community criticism and a long-running decline in the token’s value since the Sonic upgrade.
Key takeaways
Sonic Labs confirmed board resignations from Michael Kong, David Richardson, and Andre Cronje, shortly before new executives were named.
The S token fell to about 0.031 on Friday, reflecting immediate market sensitivity to governance changes.
Sonic Labs attributed leadership transitions to a shift away from business decision-making by the departing board members.
The company linked the overhaul to community dissatisfaction and a prolonged decline in S since the network upgrade.
Sonic Labs said it will pursue more transparent governance and establish a dedicated risk and compliance committee.
Board resignations and a rapid leadership reconfiguration
Sonic Labs said that the resignations reflect an orderly handover from long-time builders who helped shape the organization. In a statement attributed to Andre Cronje’s prior communication regarding his resignation, Sonic Labs framed the departing executives as remaining invested in Sonic’s long-term success, while stepping back from ongoing business decisions.
The report lists the three resigning figures as:
Michael Kong, described as a former CEO of the Fantom Foundation and director at Sonic Labs.
David Richardson, who served as executive chairman of Sonic Labs.
Andre Cronje, previously chief technology officer.
Sonic Labs also announced new leadership appointments to steer the organization forward. Matt Visser was named chief executive officer, and Kosta Kourkoumelis was appointed chief operating officer. The reshuffle suggests Sonic Labs intends to pair the board-level changes with day-to-day management restructuring, rather than treating the resignations as purely administrative.
Why the token is reacting now
The immediate drop in the S token comes at a moment when Sonic Labs has been under scrutiny for both performance and sentiment. The article states that S has fallen 97% since launching in January 2025 as part of a network upgrade, and that this decline has occurred alongside a “prolonged decline” in the token and growing community dissatisfaction.
In its own remarks about the situation, Sonic Labs reportedly acknowledged negative price action and weaker community sentiment, emphasizing that it would not treat the downturn as a temporary optics problem. The reported message—“We are not going to open with a victory lap. The token is down. Community sentiment is down. We see both clearly, we are not spinning it”—signals that the company views current market mood as a governance and communication challenge, not just a trading-cycle issue.
For investors and traders, the practical takeaway is that Sonic Labs appears to be responding to a credibility gap. Even when token fundamentals don’t change overnight, governance shifts can affect perceived execution risk—especially for protocols that rely on continued developer confidence and stable institutional oversight.
Governance reforms: transparency, communication, and compliance
The article notes that Sonic Labs is overhauling its leadership and governance structure. Sonic Labs said the changes include a commitment to more transparent governance and clear communication about project updates. It also highlighted plans to create a dedicated risk and compliance committee, a move that may be aimed at strengthening internal controls as the network continues to mature.
The reorientation is important because Sonic is described as an EVM-compatible layer-1 that positions itself around speed, including claims of 10,000 transactions per second and subsecond finality. Where performance claims meet reality depends on consistent execution and sustained coordination among leadership, developers, and stakeholders. Governance reform—especially involving risk and compliance—can help reduce uncertainty for users and ecosystem partners, even if it doesn’t immediately reverse token price momentum.
From Fantom to Sonic: a major technical shift still unfolding
The background to this governance update is Sonic’s origin story. Sonic Labs is described as the successor to the Fantom Foundation, founded in 2018. The network’s rebrand from Fantom to Sonic is characterized as a major structural and technical upgrade, including the replacement of the legacy Fantom Opera network.
That context matters because the S token launched as part of the Sonic upgrade in January 2025. When a protocol undergoes a migration and replatforming event, it often takes time for liquidity, ecosystem incentives, and community alignment to stabilize. The article’s claim that S has declined 97% since launch suggests that, at least so far, the market has judged the post-upgrade execution and traction against expectations.
At the same time, Sonic Labs’ stated focus on transparent governance and better project communication indicates it sees the present moment as a pivot point—an opportunity to rebuild alignment after leadership changes and community complaints intensified.
Elsewhere in the broader crypto sector, the article also references a leadership departure at the Ethereum Foundation, where co-executive director Hsiao-Wei Wang reportedly stepped down on Thursday, following a year that included layoffs and departures. While the Ethereum Foundation event is separate from Sonic’s day-to-day operations, it underscores a wider theme: institutional governance in crypto continues to experience personnel volatility, which can influence sentiment across the industry.
What to watch next for Sonic and S
Following the board resignations and the new CEO and COO appointments, investors will likely watch whether Sonic Labs can translate governance promises—particularly around transparent decision-making, clearer project updates, and a risk/compliance framework—into measurable progress on ecosystem delivery. The key question is whether improved accountability can stabilize community sentiment and, over time, narrow the gap between Sonic’s stated roadmap and market expectations.
This article was originally published as S token Slides 5% After 3 Former Execs Resign From Sonic Labs Board on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ethereum is facing an urgent funding squeeze for its core development work, according to a warning from a former Ethereum Foundation contributor. Trenton Van Epps said the network’s funding apparatus could be pushed into a “slow-burning funding crisis” within the next three to nine months as key Foundation spending cuts and program expirations reduce the pool of ecosystem support.
The concern arrives amid a broader period of organizational churn at the Ethereum Foundation. Cointelegraph reported a continuing wave of leadership exits, including co-executive director Hsiao-Wei Wang announcing Thursday that she would step down—bringing departures and layoffs at the Foundation to 19 so far this year, according to the report.
Key takeaways
Former Ethereum Foundation contributor Trenton Van Epps warns that the Ethereum ecosystem may need about $30 million annually to sustain core development.
He links the risk to the Foundation’s spending reduction and the expiration of the Client Incentive Program in April.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin previously argued the Foundation has limited resources and framed its remaining ETH holdings as supporting “longevity over breadth.”
Earlier treasury actions—un-staking and sales of ETH—suggest the Foundation has been adjusting its strategy to raise funds for protocol work.
A looming gap in core development support
In a blog post published Thursday, Van Epps said he is drawing his assessment from discussions with core development contributors. His central claim is that Ethereum’s core development ecosystem currently requires roughly $30 million in annual funding to function effectively.
Van Epps attributed the funding pressure to two concrete developments: the Ethereum Foundation’s reduction in spending and the expiration of the Client Incentive Program in April. Those changes, he argues, reduce recurring support for the teams and contributors that help keep Ethereum’s core clients and infrastructure moving.
“Slow-burning” is the key phrase here—rather than an immediate collapse, Van Epps suggests the situation may worsen gradually as funding for ongoing engineering efforts becomes harder to maintain. For readers, the practical takeaway is that ecosystem reliability and delivery timelines could become increasingly sensitive to how quickly new or replacement funding streams are established.
Treasury strategy shifts: “sell less ETH” and fund development
The funding debate is closely tied to how the Ethereum Foundation manages its ETH holdings. In a May 24 X post, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin described the Foundation’s resources as limited, noting that it holds about 0.16% of Ether’s total supply—far below the share held by some other networks’ foundations.
Buterin said the Ethereum Foundation was originally designed for a narrower scope: advancing Ethereum’s core software and helping the network reach major roadmap milestones. He argued that many of those milestones were largely completed by 2022, which frames a strategic shift toward what he described as longevity-focused use of remaining resources.
“And so today, the EF is choosing to use its remaining resources to pursue longevity over breadth (yes, this means we sell less ETH),” Buterin wrote.
According to Cointelegraph coverage, the Foundation has already taken steps that adjust its ETH exposure and liquidity. It reportedly un-staked 17,000 ETH in late April and then un-staked another 21,270 ETH in early May, after nearly surpassing 70,000 ETH staked earlier in the year. Cointelegraph also reported that the Foundation sold 10,000 ETH to Bitmine in an OTC deal on May 1.
Blockchain analytics platform Arkham suggested the un-staking may have been tied to the Foundation’s need for funds to continue developing the network. While Arkham’s explanation is not a formal confirmation of intent, it aligns with the broader pattern: if development funding needs remain, the treasury will face pressure to provide capital without destabilizing its longer-term strategy.
Policy update attempts to balance staking and sell pressure
The Foundation’s stance on treasury management has also evolved in response to community reaction. Cointelegraph reported that the Ethereum Foundation published a June 2025 policy update stating that increasing its staking participation could help fund protocol development while limiting future ETH sales after backlash over earlier disposals.
That approach matters because it highlights a tension investors and builders may be watching closely: the Foundation needs enough liquidity to support core work, but it also faces political and reputational costs when selling ETH is perceived as excessive. The reported mix of un-staking, OTC sales, and a subsequent policy pivot toward staking suggests the Foundation is trying to thread a needle—raising funds while reducing the rate of direct ETH disposals.
At the same time, Van Epps’ warning raises a different question: even if treasury mechanics are tweaked, is the resulting funding level sufficient and stable enough to cover the ecosystem’s real-world costs?
Why the funding crisis risk is now more than theoretical
The reason this story is likely to matter beyond internal governance debates is that “core development” is not a static category. Client teams, security research, protocol maintenance, and infrastructure improvements are continuous efforts. If funding drops abruptly—especially through the expiration of a program like the Client Incentive Program in April—then the ecosystem may need time to reallocate responsibilities or secure replacement support.
Van Epps’ estimate of an approximately $30 million annual requirement provides a concrete yardstick for measuring whether proposed changes—whether treasury adjustments, new funding mechanisms, or redesigned incentives—can offset the gap created by earlier spending reductions. If the gap persists, the most likely consequences are slower delivery, fewer funded contributors, or increased reliance on volunteers and short-term grants.
Layered on top of this are the leadership changes highlighted by Cointelegraph, including Hsiao-Wei Wang stepping down. Organizational transitions don’t automatically determine engineering outcomes, but they can affect how quickly decisions get made and how funding priorities are implemented—particularly during a period already flagged as vulnerable.
For now, readers should watch whether the Ethereum Foundation’s funding strategy adjustments translate into sustained support at the ecosystem level—especially once the next funding cycles approach. The open uncertainty is whether treasury policy changes and ETH management actions can fully cover the annual core development needs Van Epps outlined, or whether Ethereum will need genuinely new funding sources sooner than expected.
This article was originally published as Ethereum Core Dev Funding Crisis Could Impact Roadmap, Ex-Contributor Warns on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance’s attempt to secure a Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) license in Greece has triggered fresh scrutiny about how much influence the European Central Bank (ECB) could have during the review process—even though MiCA licensing authority is held by national regulators, not EU institutions.
The situation gained momentum after reports claimed the ECB signaled that Binance would be unwelcome in Europe, following indications that Greece’s market regulator was moving toward rejection before MiCA’s July 1 transitional deadline. Legal experts responding to Cointelegraph say MiCA’s framework does not bar the ECB from sharing views with national authorities, raising questions about how political priorities and regulatory review intersect.
Key takeaways
Under MiCA, crypto-asset service provider (CASP) licenses are issued by national competent authorities (NCAs) such as Greece’s Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC), not directly by the ECB.
MiCA’s wording permits other EU institutions to communicate with NCAs, according to lawyers speaking to Cointelegraph, even though licensing decisions remain national.
Reports linked the ECB’s involvement to broader concerns about privately issued stablecoins—an area where the ECB has been especially outspoken.
Binance has said it believes its application is being advanced through ESMA-level review, but Greece’s regulator has not publicly issued a decision.
With MiCA’s transitional period ending July 1, timing is critical for firms seeking authorization to continue operating EU-wide under the new rules.
How MiCA licensing is supposed to work
MiCA establishes a licensing pathway for CASPs through national regulators, with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) playing an oversight and coordination role rather than acting as the licensing authority itself.
In the Binance case, Greece’s Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC) is the body that would determine whether the exchange meets MiCA requirements for approval in Greece. Binance previously stated it had applied for a MiCA license in Greece.
MiCA’s approach is explicitly tied to the NCAs for authorization decisions, a point that matters for readers because the ECB cannot formally issue a CASP license. Still, experts argue that the regulation does not prevent an EU institution from offering input to the relevant national authority during review.
According to David Lesperance, founder at Lesperance & Associates, MiCA does not restrict a third party—such as the ECB—from providing its opinion to a national regulator assessing an application.
What reports claim—and the legal argument around “informal” influence
Cointelegraph reported that the new wave of concern followed two related developments: an earlier Reuters report indicated Greece’s market regulator was expected to reject Binance’s MiCA application, and a subsequent report from The Big Whale claimed ECB President Christine Lagarde had conveyed to Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis that Binance was not welcome in Europe.
The timing is especially sensitive: the reports emerged less than two weeks before the end of MiCA’s transitional period on July 1, which affects which firms can continue operating across the EU under the licensing regime.
But the key question for market participants is not only what has been said publicly—it’s what is procedurally permissible. Lawyers told Cointelegraph that MiCA’s text does not bar other EU bodies from engaging with national regulators, even if those bodies are not the final decision-makers.
Yuriy Brisov, a lawyer at Digital & Analogue Partners, said nothing in MiCA prevents the ECB from talking to, advising, or raising concerns with an NCA. However, he noted that the ECB’s role is clearly spelled out in other parts of MiCA—particularly rules governing stablecoin issuers—rather than in the exchange licensing chapter that covers CASPs like Binance.
Binance itself, in a blog post published after the Reuters coverage, said it understood HCMC had completed its review for compliance and that the application was also subject to review at the ESMA level. The exchange later told Cointelegraph it believed ESMA intended to move the application forward and authorize it at an upcoming board meeting.
Separately, Brisov said HCMC has not published a decision on Binance’s application. Cointelegraph also noted that ESMA does not authorize CASP licenses under MiCA, reinforcing that the core licensing decision ultimately rests with the national regulator.
Why stablecoins are at the center of the dispute
The broader political context appears to be stablecoins. The ECB has repeatedly argued that privately issued stablecoins should not replace tokenized financial infrastructure anchored by central bank money. According to The Big Whale’s reporting, Lagarde’s intervention—if accurate—was linked to this stablecoin position.
Cointelegraph previously covered the ECB’s stance that Europe should prioritize regulated settlement systems over reliance on private stablecoins. The ECB has also raised concerns that stablecoins could further entrench US dollar dominance in global finance. Executives within the ECB have framed these risks in structural terms, suggesting stablecoins are not only a technical or market issue but also a strategic one.
For Binance, the stablecoin angle is particularly consequential. Market data cited in the report indicates that Binance has been a dominant liquidity hub for stablecoins on centralized exchanges.
According to CryptoQuant data reported in February, Binance held approximately $47.5 billion in stablecoins, representing about 65% of total stablecoin reserves across centralized exchanges. The same dataset indicated the figure was higher than roughly $35.9 billion a year earlier.
This helps explain why investors may view Binance’s licensing outcome as more than a single-company regulatory event. If the ECB’s priorities influence how NCAs approach CASP risk considerations—directly or indirectly—then large stablecoin “rails” may face heightened scrutiny, especially during fast-approaching deadlines.
Binance’s importance to stablecoin liquidity is also reflected in how regulators and analysts track market structure: when a firm serves as a major exchange venue for stablecoin trading and reserves, its compliance pathway can become a proxy battleground for Europe’s broader position on tokenized money and settlement.
What happens next before July 1
With the MiCA transitional period set to end on July 1, the immediate focus for market participants is whether HCMC issues a decision in Binance’s case and, if authorization is denied or delayed, what alternative routes remain for the exchange to operate lawfully across the EU under MiCA.
Cointelegraph also reported that ESMA and HCMC did not provide immediate comment to its inquiries. Meanwhile, the ECB and the French regulator AMF declined to comment in connection with the claims.
There were also claims about possible other regulatory pathways, including France being mentioned as a potential remaining route in coverage by The Big Whale; however, Cointelegraph’s reporting did not indicate that any formal French MiCA application had been filed at the time of publication.
For readers, the practical takeaway is that MiCA’s deadline structure can compress uncertainty into a narrow window. Even if MiCA licensing authority is formally national, the scope and timing of ESMA-level review—and any policy input from EU institutions—could shape outcomes that determine whether large trading venues can keep serving European customers.
Until HCMC publishes a decision and the regulatory process becomes clearer, investors and operators should watch for two signals: whether the Greek authorization timeline moves toward approval or rejection, and how stablecoin-focused concerns translate into CASP-level licensing expectations across EU member states as the July 1 cutoff approaches.
This article was originally published as Binance’s MiCA challenge sparks debate over ECB regulatory role on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Charles Schwab is reportedly preparing to enter the prediction markets space, starting with options contracts tied to a widely tracked benchmark: the S&P 500. According to a Friday Wall Street Journal report, the firm plans to offer yes-or-no wagers on whether the S&P 500 closes above or below a specified level.
The project is expected to roll out within months as part of a partnership with Cboe Global Markets, potentially marking Charles Schwab’s first step into prediction-market-style contracts for retail customers.
Key takeaways
Schwab is reportedly developing yes-or-no options on whether the S&P 500 finishes above or below a target price.
The initiative is expected to be launched in partnership with Cboe Global Markets, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The contract structure would mirror a narrow category of existing S&P 500 event markets already offered by platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
Prediction markets in the US remain subject to intense regulatory scrutiny and ongoing litigation between regulators and market operators.
Schwab’s move follows its earlier expansion into crypto trading services, signaling continued push into newer financial markets.
A broker’s likely first foray into event-style derivatives
Prediction market platforms have gained mainstream attention by allowing users to trade event outcomes—ranging from politics and sports to weather and corporate developments—using event contracts. The reported Schwab offering, however, appears more limited in scope.
As described by the Wall Street Journal, the planned product would rely on yes-or-no positions tied to a single metric: whether the S&P 500 closes above or below a predetermined price level. That narrower design is notable because it suggests Schwab may start with a product that maps more cleanly to index exposure than to broader “anything can be predicted” event trading.
It also positions Schwab against already established S&P 500-oriented contracts. Both Kalshi and Polymarket have previously offered similar event structures related to projections of the index’s range or directional outcomes.
Why Schwab’s timing could matter for investors
For retail participants, the significance of the move isn’t just that prediction markets exist—it’s where they may be accessed from. Charles Schwab is a widely used financial services brand, and if it brings event contracts into its product lineup, it could lower friction for some users who currently interact with prediction platforms through crypto-native or specialized venues.
Schwab’s reported entry also comes at a moment when parts of the financial industry appear to be moving closer to prediction-market concepts. Cryptocurrency exchanges, in particular, have increasingly discussed or explored prediction offerings. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Coinbase has moved closer to prediction-related offerings, with many market watchers projecting large growth in prediction-market volume over the long term.
In that broader context, a major legacy broker adopting a restricted, benchmark-based prediction format could serve as a bridge between traditional retail brokerage channels and the fast-evolving derivatives ecosystem that prediction platforms have helped popularize.
Regulatory friction remains the central question
Despite rising interest, prediction markets in the US have been under close scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators. State-level gaming authorities have questioned whether certain event-contract products fit within existing rules, including challenges involving sports-related markets. Separately, members of US Congress have called for oversight, with concerns often focused on conflicts of interest—such as the potential for elected officials to profit from nonpublic information.
Regulatory classification also remains a core issue. The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), under Chair Michael Selig, has taken the view that event contracts in prediction markets can qualify as “swaps,” giving the agency the relevant jurisdiction for regulation and enforcement. The result has been ongoing litigation involving the CFTC, as well as cases touching platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, alongside actions from state authorities.
For Schwab, that environment matters because it will likely shape product design and rollout pace. A yes-or-no index close bet may be simpler than a broader library of event categories, but it still falls within the same contested regulatory territory that has defined the prediction-market debate in the US.
Schwab’s wider expansion into modern markets
This reported initiative would also fit within Schwab’s broader efforts to expand beyond conventional trading offerings. In May, Charles Schwab announced the launch of spot Bitcoin and Ether trading for retail clients, marking another step into digital-asset related services.
The company has also continued reporting strong financial performance. Charles Schwab reported net income of $2.5 billion for the first quarter of 2026.
Against that backdrop, the prediction-market proposal reads less like a random new product bet and more like a continuation of Schwab’s push into alternative market structures—where derivatives-like contracts can be packaged in ways that appeal to retail risk-taking and speculation.
As details emerge—especially around contract settlement mechanics, product scope, and regulatory approach—market participants will watch closely to see whether Schwab’s limited S&P 500 yes-or-no design can navigate the same legal and oversight hurdles that have surrounded prediction platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket, and whether broader retail access changes how quickly the sector evolves.
This article was originally published as Charles Schwab Eyeing S&P 500 Prediction Markets, WSJ Reports on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin is approaching a key options expiration on June 26 with a skewed derivatives landscape that could make it harder for bulls to regain control. With roughly $13 billion in Bitcoin options open interest set to expire, market structure currently points toward downside risk—at least for the near-term window around the monthly settlement.
According to data from Deribit, where most of the activity is concentrated, put options (sell) are positioned more favorably than call options (buy). That imbalance has traders watching not only the current price around the $63,000 area, but also whether the positioning traps bullish momentum as the expiry approaches.
Key takeaways
Deribit’s June 26 options open interest totals about $13B, with puts holding the advantage versus calls.
Calls are heavily concentrated above $72,000, leaving upside bets more vulnerable if BTC fails to rebound quickly.
Puts show less concentration at the deep-down strike area, increasing their odds of retaining value across more price outcomes.
Market concentration matters: Deribit accounts for about 79% of the options open interest.
Deribit dominance and why the strike mix matters
Options positioning is not just about totals—it’s also about where the contracts are concentrated across strike prices. Deribit is the center of the June 26 contract universe, holding $10.4 billion in open interest, or 79% of the market share. OKX is next with around 6%, while Binance and CME each account for 5%. Bybit follows at 4%.
On Deribit specifically, total call open interest is about $6 billion, but 78% of that call exposure is tied to strikes at $72,000 or higher. With less than a week until expiration, that type of concentration is typically less forgiving if price fails to climb quickly.
Put options tell a different story. Deribit’s put open interest is about $4.5 billion, and only 28% of it is dependent on BTC falling to $57,000 or below. In practical terms, that means a larger share of put exposure could remain relevant across a wider range of downside scenarios leading into settlement.
The broader implication for holders of call options is straightforward: if BTC doesn’t regain higher levels fast enough, a major portion of call OI may lose effective value. Meanwhile, the structure of the put book creates a more durable hedge profile for bears as the expiry nears.
Strategy activity, ETF flow pressure, and regulatory uncertainty
The derivatives setup doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Earlier bullish expectations appear to have been influenced by spot buying and optimism around the US policy outlook—but the macro signals have shifted.
Some of the earlier bullish overreach is traced to Strategy’s aggressive BTC accumulation in April and May. The firm added 62,841 BTC in four weeks, a move that helped support price strength and pushed BTC above $73,000 in May. However, sentiment deteriorated as US-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs began experiencing outflows starting in mid-May, according to coverage linked to Cointelegraph’s reporting on ETF outflows beginning in mid-May.
Market pressure also intensified alongside regulatory uncertainty. Bulls had placed hopes on the Digital Asset PARITY Act, which—if passed—would have aimed to exempt certain mining and staking rewards from taxes until sold. Those hopes faded as the outlook worsened, and the market reacted to Strategy’s sale of 32 BTC, as referenced in Cointelegraph coverage at Strategy’s purchase activity and related context. The resulting ETF outflows added further weight to the bearish narrative, even as parts of traditional markets showed strength.
For investors, the key tension is that bullish spot narratives are not translating into consistent support in derivatives positioning. When ETF flows weaken and regulatory timelines become less favorable, call-side conviction often struggles to hold through expiry cycles—even if large holders continue to buy at times.
What the June 26 expiry scenarios suggest for bulls
With calls clustered above higher strikes and puts distributed across a broader downside band, the June 26 outcomes are currently modeled to favor bearish instruments. Based on current price trends and the cited open interest distribution, four scenario bands have been outlined for the Deribit expiry at June 26:
$57,000–$61,000: net result favors puts by $3.4 billion
$61,001–$65,000: net result favors puts by $2.7 billion
$65,001–$69,000: net result favors puts by $1.7 billion
$69,001–$71,000: net result favors puts by $1 billion
Even under a bullish attempt to regain ground, the structure remains unfavorable for call holders. The analysis indicates that a 12% rally from around $63,000 would not be enough to swing the June expiry decisively in favor of calls. That doesn’t necessarily confirm control through the next month, but it does suggest that the June 26 settlement could weigh on bullish sentiment as traders reset positions for July.
Investors should note the asymmetry: for calls to materially benefit, BTC likely needs to move toward—and ideally sustain above—levels where the call OI is concentrated, particularly around the $72,000 and higher strikes. If price remains below that zone, call-side exposure may decay faster with time, while put-side positions can still retain value across more moderate downside outcomes.
Why this matters beyond one expiry
Monthly options expirations often act like psychological and liquidity inflection points. When call dominance is absent and put advantages remain consistent across plausible price ranges, traders may treat rallies as less “clean” and more likely to face selling pressure into key levels.
Going forward, the market will likely focus on whether BTC can regain levels fast enough to challenge the concentrated call strikes before June 26. Until then, the most immediate question for traders is whether the current bearish derivatives balance will amplify sell pressure into settlement—or whether a late-stage rebound can force a repricing of call value as expiration approaches.
This article was originally published as $13B Bitcoin Options Expiry Approaches: Key June Volatility Test on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A security incident led to the loss of about $4.7 million worth of assets on the Axelar cross-chain interoperability protocol, which has since shut down its bridge functionality with the Secret Network.
Exploit Traced to Secret Network’s ICS-20 Smart Contract
The hacker exploited assets being moved from the Axelar network to the Secret network via the Cosmos IBC (Inter-Blockchain Communication) protocol, according to Axelar. Initial findings indicate that the vulnerability was not in Axelar’s core infrastructure, but instead in the Secret-side ICS-20 smart contract that is managing IBC transfers between the two networks.
We have identified an incident affecting assets bridged over IBC to Secret Network from the Axelar chain, with approximately $4.67M worth of tokens taken. Based on current information, the issue is isolated to the Secret-side ICS-20 smart contract of the Cosmos IBC connection…
— Axelar Network (@axelar) June 19, 2026
For the incident, Axelar’s emergency committee closed down the connections of the Secret and Secret-SNIP bridge to prevent further losses and contain the attack. The protocol also confirmed that it has engaged relevant cryptocurrency exchanges and relevant authorities in its investigation.
The Secret Network is a blockchain that supports privacy and allows data associated with transactions to be encrypted, but not lose the ability to verify on-chain execution of smart contracts. The network has been used to create private cross-chain applications, such as confidential decentralized finance (DeFi) services, privacy-preserving NFT transactions, and anonymous governance mechanisms, among other applications.
Axelar Says Exploit Was Limited to Bridged Assets
According to Axelar, the attack seems to be confined to funds that were transferred to the Secret Network from the Axelar network. There is no evidence so far that any Secret-native assets have been compromised, nor any other IBC connections, nor any additional Axelar integrations, the company said.
The protocol stressed that its wide network was not compromised during the event. The issue is thought to be limited to the Secret-side contract that handles inbound transfers to the Secret ecosystem from Axelar.
Bridge routes in the affected area will continue to be closed until the attack vector has been investigated in detail and the extent of the damage assessed. Once it has finished its investigation, Axelar will be publishing a detailed post-mortem report, the company said.
The attack is part of a number of recent security incidents targeting cryptocurrency infrastructure projects in the past few weeks.
Earlier this month, Humanity Protocol announced its recovery efforts after it suffered an exploit on June 8, which prompted the project to withdraw its original H token from Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Humanity Mainnet. Those affected will be able to receive a replacement token in the form of an “airdrop” based on a new and audited ERC-20 contract deployed on the Ethereum network, the company stated.
Humanity Protocol said the attack occurred due to stolen credentials and noted that there was no breach to the token contracts, bridge infrastructure, or Safe wallet setup.
Binance Research Highlights Growing Security Pressures
Other operational implications have resulted from security incidents. This week, crypto payments platform Pyra announced that it would end its operations after it decided that it could not recover from the losses it suffered due to the Drift exploit.
In this context, Axelar’s attention is now on finding out how the attack was carried out and how to limit the spread of the Secret Network exploit. As of now, the company said, there is no evidence that other parts of the Axelar ecosystem were affected.
The latest hack follows a series of other attacks on DeFi that have been driven by increasing security concerns. Binance Research recently estimated that the amount of funds stolen through DeFi exploits across the sector during April resulted in nearly $13 billion of total value locked (TVL) outflows in the sector.
The on-chain leverage ratio also increased to approximately 38%, which is around the same time since the 2021 downturn, when TVL started to contract more than borrowing.
Market participants will be keenly observing Axelar as investigations proceed to see if the company will provide a final verdict and take any action to enhance the security of cross-chain infrastructure.
This article was originally published as Axelar Disables Secret Network Bridge Routes Amid $4.7 Million Security Breach on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin mining is increasingly becoming less about pure exposure to BTC price moves and more about building a business around electricity, compute supply chains, and AI-related infrastructure. The change is being reinforced by signals from outside crypto, including a report that Nvidia is seeking to raise $20 billion through a bond sale to fund additional AI expansion.
At the same time, other parts of the industry are showing resilience or momentum. Tokenized real-world assets continue to grow even as the broader crypto market struggles, while Ripple is expanding its payments footprint in Africa through an investment in Flutterwave. Separately, former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried’s attempt to overturn his fraud conviction has failed, according to an appeals panel in Manhattan.
Key takeaways
A reported $20 billion Nvidia bond offering underscores the scale and durability of the AI investment cycle that some Bitcoin miners are positioning to support.
Bitcoin mining firms are increasingly targeting AI hosting and high-performance computing opportunities as mining margins tighten.
Tokenized real-world assets have surpassed $43 billion in total value of onchain financial assets, with Token Terminal citing a 37% increase over six months.
Ripple’s investment in Flutterwave is another step in expanding stablecoin and payments infrastructure across Africa, where cross-border payments demand is rising.
Sam Bankman-Fried’s appeal to overturn his fraud conviction was denied by a Manhattan appeals panel.
Nvidia’s bond plan highlights why miners are looking beyond hash rate
According to Bloomberg, Nvidia is pursuing a multi-part bond offering totaling $20 billion to finance future AI-related investments and refinance existing debt. The report also notes that the longest-dated bonds are expected to carry meaningfully higher yields than comparable U.S. Treasury securities, reflecting investor pricing for longer-duration risk and returns.
The relevance for crypto comes from how the economics of mining have been shifting. For years, many miners effectively operated as leveraged vehicles for BTC: mining profitability tended to track Bitcoin’s price and difficulty dynamics, leaving little room for a broader corporate identity. But with mining economics under pressure and power costs remaining a constant constraint, miners have been exploring a new angle—using their energy access and data center capabilities for AI compute workloads.
As Cointelegraph previously reported, the AI and data center trend has created practical opportunities for miners, since many of their facilities already support high-density computing. Companies such as HIVE Digital, Hut 8, CleanSpark, and TeraWulf have been positioning themselves as AI infrastructure providers, effectively treating energy and hosting as primary assets rather than secondary byproducts of mining.
While Nvidia’s funding plan is not a direct endorsement of Bitcoin mining, it is a reminder that major AI infrastructure buildouts tend to be multi-year investments. That duration matters: investors and operators typically need a longer runway when converting electrical and facilities capability into new revenue streams. The key watchpoint is whether AI hosting demand continues to absorb capacity fast enough to offset ongoing mining margin compression.
Tokenized RWAs keep expanding even as crypto sentiment softens
The tokenized real-world asset market continues to grow despite weakness across wider crypto markets. Token Terminal reports that the total value of onchain financial assets has surpassed $43 billion—an increase of 37% over the past six months—suggesting ongoing institutional and product-level experimentation rather than a purely speculative boom.
Tokenized funds dominate the category, accounting for nearly 80% of all onchain financial assets, though other forms are gaining attention. Commodities and tokenized stocks are gradually strengthening their presence, indicating that issuers are exploring more than one blueprint for bringing traditional asset exposure onchain.
The momentum is also being reinforced by longer-term projections from major banks. Standard Chartered expects tokenization to help drive decentralized finance toward a $2.7 trillion market capitalization by 2030, while Citigroup projects tokenized RWAs could reach $5.5 trillion over the same period. Even if exact outcomes differ, these forecasts point to a consistent theme: large financial institutions see tokenization as a structural opportunity that could eventually scale beyond pilots.
For market participants, the practical implication is that the RWA sector may behave differently from mainstream crypto narratives. Growth appears tied to product distribution and balance-sheet-backed use cases, which can be less correlated with day-to-day volatility than trading-heavy segments.
Ripple doubles down on African payments with Flutterwave investment
Ripple has invested an undisclosed amount in Flutterwave, one of Africa’s fastest-growing remittance and payments firms, in a deal valuing the fintech at $3.3 billion. The investment is expected to connect Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin, Ripple Payments platform, and XRP Ledger infrastructure with Flutterwave’s payments reach.
Flutterwave operates across 35 countries, and this partnership aims to strengthen Ripple’s stablecoin-based rails for cross-border transfers. The pitch aligns with the broader industry demand for faster settlements and lower-cost remittances, especially in regions where traditional correspondent banking can be slow or expensive.
This development also fits Ripple’s continuing strategy to deepen its presence in Africa. In October, Ripple partnered with South Africa’s Absa Bank to provide institutional digital asset custody solutions—another area where regulatory frameworks and institutional adoption tend to matter as much as technology. Taken together, the Flutterwave investment suggests Ripple is seeking both market access and the operational capacity to serve institutional and consumer payment flows.
Manhattan appeals panel rejects Sam Bankman-Fried bid to overturn conviction
Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried failed to overturn his fraud conviction after a three-judge appeals panel in Manhattan upheld the verdict, finding that he received a fair trial. The denial comes after an appeal that challenged the conviction stemming from FTX’s collapse.
In an opinion attributed to Circuit Judge Barrington Parker, the court highlighted a central contradiction in Bankman-Fried’s conduct during the period leading to FTX’s failure: while he was publicly reassuring customers, investors, and regulators that customer funds were safe, the judge wrote that he was simultaneously using FTX funds for personal purposes, including spending on real estate, political contributions, and investments.
Bankman-Fried was convicted on fraud and conspiracy charges tied to the collapse of FTX and sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2024, according to earlier reporting. In addition, Cointelegraph reported that he formally applied for a presidential pardon from U.S. President Donald Trump, with the request appearing on the Pardon Attorney website in early June.
For observers, the outcome means the legal fight does not reset the underlying conviction. While additional post-conviction steps may still be possible in the future, this appeals decision closes a key chapter and keeps attention on the enforcement trajectory following one of crypto’s most consequential corporate failures.
Looking ahead, the most important signal to track is whether the AI infrastructure shift can convert into durable, measurable revenue for mining operators—especially as power and equipment costs remain the real battlefield. Meanwhile, tokenized RWAs will likely remain a key barometer for whether onchain finance can sustain growth through traditional finance’s adoption cycles, even when broader crypto markets cool off.
This article was originally published as AI’s Role in Reshaping Miner Strategy: Is It the Way Out? on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

U.S. Representative Bryan Steil, chair of the House subcommittee on digital assets, has introduced legislation aimed at preventing members of Congress—and certain family members—from profiting through prediction markets tied to public-policy decisions and “political outcomes.” The proposal, described in a Thursday notice from Steil’s office, would create a narrowly tailored restriction focused on event contracts that reference government action rather than all forms of political or market participation.
The bill reflects ongoing legislative efforts to address concerns that prediction markets could be used to translate privileged information into financial gain. It also adds a new compliance layer for platforms operating in the United States, particularly those marketing policy-relevant event contracts to U.S. users and institutions.
Key takeaways
Steil’s proposed “Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act” would bar members of Congress, along with spouses and dependent children, from placing bets on policy-aligned event contracts.
The restriction targets wagers tied to specific government policies, government actions, and “political outcomes,” with no blanket ban on all prediction-market activity.
Violations would trigger a financial penalty of either a $2,000 fee or 10% of the prohibited bet’s value, depending on the bill’s enforcement mechanism.
The legislation would not explicitly extend to White House officials; the proposal instead focuses on elected members of Congress.
The move comes amid an active regulatory jurisdiction dispute in which the CFTC has sought federal control over prediction market oversight.
What the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act would change
According to Steil’s announcement, the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act is designed to prevent public officials from “wagering on public policy issues and political outcomes.” The bill’s stated focus is not on whether lawmakers may use prediction markets as participants broadly, but on whether they may place event-contract bets that map directly onto governmental policies, specific actions by the government, and political developments.
The proposal specifically contemplates restrictions for “members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children.” It would prohibit those individuals from using prediction market platforms—such as Kalshi and Polymarket—for contracts that are aligned with government policy or political results.
Steil’s office outlined a penalty framework for violations. Under the bill, prohibited participants would be subject to either a $2,000 fee or a penalty equal to 10% of the value of the affected bets, depending on the application of the statute. If Congress passes the act and the president signs it, the proposal would reportedly take effect 180 days after enactment.
Why it matters for compliance and institutional oversight
In practice, the bill would require prediction market operators to consider how to identify and restrict access by covered persons. Unlike broad trading prohibitions that target entire classes of market activity, this proposal aims at a defined subset: contracts tied to government actions and policy outcomes.
For compliance teams, that distinction matters. Platforms would need to define contract categories with sufficient specificity to determine which events are “policy-aligned” or concern “political outcomes,” and then implement controls that can flag when a covered person attempts to place a wager. The requirement also creates a compliance question for affiliates, payment processors, and customer due diligence processes: who must be screened, what documentation is necessary, and how sanctions and penalties would be monitored.
For institutional observers, the bill also functions as a legislative attempt to address reputational and governance concerns around the fairness of markets whose payoffs depend on political events. Even when a prediction market is structurally legal, policymakers and regulators frequently assess the risk of insider access, information asymmetry, and conflicts of interest—issues that are closely connected to broader AML/KYC and ethics compliance frameworks.
Limited scope: Congress-focused, not White House officials
Steil’s draft does not specifically establish a blanket prohibition on U.S. lawmakers using prediction market platforms, and it likewise does not broadly outlaw wagers on sporting events. Instead, it targets contracts tied to government policies, government actions, and political outcomes—categories that would likely require platform-specific classification and careful legal interpretation.
The proposed restriction is also notable for who is not included. The legislation does not explicitly bar White House officials, including the president and vice president. Coverage of the issue has also pointed to the involvement of Donald Trump Jr., who has been described as a strategic adviser to Kalshi, and to Polymarket, which has been referenced as having a sponsorship connection to a White House event.
Cointelegraph reported that Steil’s office was contacted for comment but did not receive an immediate response. That incomplete public record underscores an unresolved compliance gap: while Congress-focused restrictions could be implemented relatively directly, questions about broader conflicts of interest and political influence may persist if other officials remain outside the bill’s defined scope.
The broader fight over prediction market jurisdiction
Steil’s proposal arrives during an active federal regulatory dispute over prediction markets. Under the Trump administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and its chair, Michael Selig, have argued that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over regulation and enforcement for prediction market activity.
Cointelegraph has previously reported that the CFTC filed multiple lawsuits against state-level authorities that sought to restrict or ban prediction market platforms. The CFTC’s argument rests on the view that certain event contracts can be regulated as “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act—rather than ordinary bets—placing them within federal oversight.
Some legal experts have suggested that the ongoing jurisdiction battle could escalate further, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. If courts determine that the CFTC’s characterization is controlling, it could reshape the compliance landscape for platforms by centralizing federal enforcement rather than leaving states to impose varying restrictions.
That jurisdictional context is important to the new bill because it highlights a split between two overlapping regulatory aims: (1) enforcing insider-conflict and ethics concerns through legislation aimed at specific public officials, and (2) establishing which regulator has authority over the underlying trading instrument and platform activity. A bill that restricts participation by covered individuals does not automatically resolve instrument classification disputes; similarly, federal jurisdiction rulings do not determine how conflict-of-interest rules apply to lawmakers.
As enforcement frameworks develop, prediction market operators may face multi-layer compliance expectations: platform-level controls for participant eligibility and event-type categorization, alongside ongoing monitoring for activities that regulators might characterize as covered derivatives under federal law.
Closing perspective
While the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act targets a specific conflict-of-interest risk tied to policy and political event contracts, its prospects depend on congressional action and how it is operationalized by exchanges and market operators. The parallel CFTC jurisdiction litigation will likely remain a key driver of regulatory certainty, and the legal outcome may influence how quickly platforms can standardize compliance across states and federal enforcement positions.
This article was originally published as Republican Bill Targets Insider Trading in Prediction Markets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ethereum faced renewed pressure after a major transaction involving BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes entered the market. Hayes sold 6,000 ETH at a loss, while Ethereum continued trading near the $1,700 level. At the same time, several large holders increased their exposure to the asset, creating mixed signals across the market.
Arthur Hayes Exits Ethereum Position at a Loss
Arthur Hayes completed a large Ethereum sale after accumulating the asset over recent days. Blockchain data showed that he purchased nearly 5,900 ETH at an average price of $1,793. However, he later sold 6,000 ETH at around $1,690 per coin.
The transaction carried an estimated value of $10.14 million. As a result, Hayes recorded a loss of roughly $606,000 on the position. The move attracted attention because he typically executes trades that target profitable exits.
Market participants linked the sale to the ongoing weakness in Ethereum’s price action. Selling activity increased across the broader crypto sector, and several major digital assets moved lower. Consequently, Ethereum struggled to maintain support near the $1,700 level.
Whales Continue Accumulating Ethereum
Despite Hayes’ sale, other large holders continued purchasing Ethereum. Recent on-chain data showed strong accumulation from several whale wallets. These purchases occurred while Ethereum traded near recent lows.
K3 Capital acquired 10,000 ETH from Binance in a transaction worth approximately $16.92 million. The purchase represented one of the largest single acquisitions recorded during the latest trading session. Furthermore, the transaction suggested continued institutional-level interest in Ethereum.
Another wallet linked to Chun Wang acquired 7,650 ETH valued at about $12.93 million. The purchase added to a series of recent accumulation activities by large holders. Therefore, whale activity continued to provide a contrasting signal against recent selling pressure.
Ethereum Faces Key Price Levels Amid Market Weakness
Ethereum remained under pressure throughout the latest trading session. The asset touched a low near $1,670 before recovering slightly toward $1,700. However, sellers maintained control of short-term market direction.
Analysts identified several important price levels for Ethereum. Some market observers highlighted the possibility of a move toward $1,900 if buying momentum improves. Meanwhile, weaker conditions could expose the asset to additional downside near the $1,500 support zone.
Recent actions from Hayes added another layer of discussion around market sentiment. Earlier this month, he also reduced exposure to Worldcoin before the highly anticipated SpaceX IPO. In addition, he exited positions in Hyperliquid’s HYPE token and NEAR Protocol assets.
Ethereum remains the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalisation. The network supports decentralised finance applications, tokenised assets, and smart contract activity across the digital asset sector. Because of its role within the industry, major transactions involving prominent traders often attract significant attention.
Current market conditions continue to reflect competing forces. On one side, high-profile sales have increased discussions about short-term weakness. On the other side, sustained whale accumulation signals that some large holders still view current price levels as attractive entry points.
The coming sessions may provide greater clarity regarding Ethereum’s next direction. Until then, market participants will likely focus on support levels, whale activity, and broader crypto market performance. These factors could influence whether Ethereum stabilises above current levels or extends its recent decline.
This article was originally published as Arthur Hayes Sells Ethereum at a Loss While Large Holders Continue Buying on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

U.S. Representative Bryan Steil, who chairs the House subcommittee on digital assets, has introduced a bill aimed at curbing how elected officials participate in politically focused prediction market contracts. The proposal—called the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act—would restrict certain officeholders, along with their spouses and dependent children, from placing bets tied to specific government policies or political outcomes on platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
Steil’s announcement, made in a Thursday notice, outlines a financial penalty structure for violations: officials who fall under the ban would have to pay either a $2,000 fee or an amount equal to 10% of the value of the prohibited bets placed on participating prediction market platforms.
Key takeaways
Steil’s bill targets prediction market wagers tied to “government policies,” “government actions,” and broader political outcomes.
The restriction applies to members of Congress plus their spouses and dependent children, but does not broadly prohibit all event betting.
If enacted, the law would impose penalties ranging from a $2,000 fee to 10% of the bet value.
The legislation does not extend to White House officials, which may keep political questions around insider influence in the spotlight.
The bill lands amid ongoing federal-versus-state regulatory conflict over prediction markets led by the CFTC.
What the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act would bar
According to Steil’s notice, the bill is designed to prevent public officials from profiting from policy questions and political results. It does not attempt to shut down prediction markets entirely, and it does not frame the issue as a ban on lawmakers participating in all types of event contracts.
Instead, the proposed law focuses on the content of the wager: it would bar bets aligned with specific government policies, government actions, and “political outcomes.” In practical terms, that framing appears intended to cover politically sensitive contracts, which could include contracts reflecting election results or other outcomes closely tied to governmental decisions.
The bill also specifies timing. If passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, it would take effect 180 days after enactment.
Why lawmakers are targeting politically aligned event contracts
Steil’s proposal is the latest attempt to address concerns that lawmakers—or others with privileged access to information—could benefit from prediction markets before key developments become public. The push has gained public attention after widely reported claims surrounding political event betting.
Earlier coverage highlighted a case involving a U.S. soldier who allegedly placed more than $400,000 in bets related to the removal of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro on Polymarket. Maduro was reported to have been ousted by U.S. forces in January, according to earlier reporting from Cointelegraph. The incident became a focal point for broader questions about whether market participants may exploit privileged knowledge connected to government activity.
While Steil’s bill is not described as a direct response to that single case, it reflects a similar policy concern: when contracts are tied to governmental actions or political results, the potential for unfair advantage becomes a central political issue.
Limits of the bill—and the unanswered White House question
Although the bill is aimed at members of Congress, it does not specifically place the same restrictions on White House officials. That omission has practical relevance because prediction markets regulation and compliance debates often extend beyond Capitol Hill.
Cointelegraph previously reported that lawmakers have moved to address insider trading and related concerns in prediction markets, but Steil’s legislation—based on the description in the notice—does not explicitly cover White House figures, including President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Earlier reporting also noted that Donald Trump Jr. has served as a strategic adviser to Kalshi, while another adviser role was reported in connection with Polymarket.
Additionally, Cointelegraph noted Polymarket’s sponsorship of the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House on Sunday. While those details do not by themselves establish any wrongdoing, they help explain why critics may view the bill’s scope as incomplete—particularly if the objective is to reduce perceived conflicts of interest across the political ecosystem.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to Steil’s office for comment but did not receive an immediate response.
Prediction markets regulation is already a federal-state battleground
Steil’s bill enters a landscape where federal regulators have been asserting strong authority over prediction market activity. Under the Trump administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and its chair, Michael Selig, have maintained that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over regulation and enforcement related to prediction markets.
According to Cointelegraph, the CFTC has already filed multiple lawsuits against state-level authorities that attempted to restrict or ban prediction market platforms. The agency’s legal position, as described in earlier coverage, is that event contracts can be treated as “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act rather than as traditional bets subject to different regulatory frameworks.
Cointelegraph also reported that legal disputes over prediction markets could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, referencing the potential for continued appeals related to Kalshi. That federal litigation matters to investors and platform operators because it can determine whether prediction markets can expand nationally without being met by a patchwork of conflicting state rules.
In that context, Steil’s bill may function as a separate track—targeting conflicts of interest involving federal officeholders—while the broader question of regulatory classification and jurisdiction remains tied to ongoing court fights.
For market participants, the key next step is to watch whether the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act gains traction in Congress and how its political scope is debated—especially given the law’s apparent focus on members of Congress rather than the broader executive branch. Meanwhile, developments in the CFTC’s court strategy could still reshape the operational rules for prediction markets regardless of any new federal conflict-of-interest legislation.
This article was originally published as Republican Lawmaker Pushes Prediction Markets Insider Trading Ban on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.