buyape

The Kalshi lawsuit alleges the platform offered unlicensed sports wagering in Massachusetts by categorizing bets as “event contracts.” Kalshi says it is federally regulated by the CFTC and will defend its business model in Suffolk County Superior Court as a protected prediction market innovation.

Kalshi lawsuit alleges unlicensed sports wagering under Massachusetts law

Kalshi states it is regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) at the federal level.

Massachusetts claimed 75%+ of Kalshi’s volume was sports-related as of May 2025, higher than some established operators.

Kalshi lawsuit: Massachusetts accuses Kalshi of unlicensed sports wagering; read concise legal analysis, regulatory context, and what investors should watch next — learn more.

What is the Kalshi lawsuit?
The Kalshi lawsuit is a civil action filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts alleging that Kalshi offers unlicensed sports wagering to state residents by listing sports-related event contracts. The suit seeks to enforce Massachusetts gambling statutes against Kalshi while Kalshi maintains it falls under federal CFTC oversight.

How does Massachusetts say Kalshi violated state law?
Massachusetts’ complaint, filed in Suffolk County Superior Court, argues Kalshi masks sports bets as “event contracts” to evade the state’s sports wagering regulations. The filing cites internal volume figures and market composition data, asserting sports-related trading dominates Kalshi’s platform activity.

In comments to Cointelegraph, Kalshi claimed that Massachusetts is “trying to block Kashi’s innovations by relying on outdated laws.”

Prediction market operator Kalshi announced it will defend the platform against the Massachusetts lawsuit, saying the complaint misunderstands the nature of federally regulated event contracts.

“We are proud to be the company that has pioneered this technology and stand ready to defend it once again in a court of law,” a Kalshi spokesperson told Cointelegraph in prior comments. The company adds that prediction markets represent modern financial innovation and should be accessible under appropriate federal oversight.

Why does Kalshi argue the CFTC regulates these markets?
Kalshi argues that its event contracts are within the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) federal jurisdiction, not subject to state gambling enforcement. The company points to prior CFTC guidance and federal authority over derivatives-style contracts as the basis for its defense.

What precedents and related actions exist?
Kalshi has previously received cease-and-desist orders from multiple states, including Arizona, Montana, Ohio, and Illinois. Regulators and companies in this sector frequently reference federal guidance from the CFTC and state gambling laws when assessing jurisdiction.

Source: Dustin Gouker

The Massachusetts filing stated that as of May 2025, more than three-quarters of Kalshi’s trading volume was related to sports, a proportion the state said exceeded comparable shares at some established operators. Kalshi disputes the legal framing and emphasizes federal regulatory channels.

How does this case relate to other market entrants like Polymarket?
Industry developments include activity by other blockchain-based prediction platforms. Polymarket has announced plans to explore a U.S. return, with public statements referencing CFTC engagement. Business Insider reported on funding interest and market valuation conversations in the sector, while Polymarket’s leadership has referenced CFTC approvals in social posts.

Frequently Asked Questions
Question 1: How will the court decide jurisdiction?
The court will evaluate statutory definitions, comparable federal authority, and precedents distinguishing derivatives from state-regulated gambling. Expect focused legal briefs on the nature of event contracts and federal preemption arguments.

Question 2: What does this mean for users in Massachusetts?
Practically, users should monitor court rulings; state enforcement could affect access or platform features for Massachusetts residents. Companies may restrict state access during litigation to limit legal exposure.

Key Takeaways
Legal conflict: Massachusetts claims Kalshi offered unlicensed sports wagering; Kalshi disputes state jurisdiction.
Regulatory focus: The case centers on whether the CFTC’s federal oversight preempts state gambling statutes.
Market impact: Outcomes may influence how prediction markets operate in the U.S. and how other platforms engage with regulators.
Conclusion
This legal dispute places Kalshi at the center of a broader regulatory debate over prediction markets and sports wagering in the U.S. The case will test lines between state gambling laws and federal CFTC authority. Stakeholders should follow court developments and official regulator statements for implications on market access and compliance.

$APE
#BuyAPE

Yuga Labs lawsuit dismissed: a US federal judge found Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs, ApeCoin and other Yuga-issued tokens do not meet the Howey Test’s three prongs and therefore are not securities, ruling purchasers bought consumable digital collectibles rather than investment contracts.

Judge ruled NFTs were consumable collectibles, not investment contracts

Judge Fernando M. Olguin found no common enterprise or explicit profit promise tied to Yuga’s NFT sales.

Court cited precedent that most digital assets are not securities and noted independent fees and public blockchain trading data.

Yuga Labs lawsuit dismissed: Judge rules BAYC NFTs not securities under Howey Test — read the ruling and implications for NFT buyers and markets.

What is the ruling in the Yuga Labs lawsuit?
Yuga Labs lawsuit dismissed by Judge Fernando M. Olguin concluded the plaintiffs failed to show Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), ApeCoin (APE) and other Yuga NFTs qualify as securities under the Howey Test. The court held purchasers bought consumable digital collectibles and membership perks, not investment contracts tied to Yuga’s efforts.

How did the court apply the Howey Test to BAYC and ApeCoin?
The judge assessed the three Howey prongs—an investment of money, a common enterprise, and an expectation of profit produced by others—and found the plaintiffs proved none. The ruling noted Yuga marketed NFTs as collectibles with membership benefits and did not make explicit profit promises to buyers.

Judge Olguin dismisses investor lawsuit against Yuga Labs. Source: Court Listener
Why did the court find no common enterprise or profit expectation?
Judge Olguin determined the NFTs’ trading on public blockchains and the transactional structure did not create the ongoing, dependent financial relationship required for a common enterprise. Fees paid to Yuga were treated as independent charges, and the roadmap and promotional statements did not equate to enforceable profit promises.

The court emphasized: “Statements about a product’s inherent or intrinsic value are not necessarily statements about profit.” Even references to past prices or trading volumes were insufficient to establish an actionable expectation of profit under Howey.

What evidence and precedent influenced the decision?
The ruling referenced legal precedent that most digital assets are not automatically securities and examined specific contractual and marketing language from Yuga. Commentary from market participants and attorneys — including public posts by industry lawyers — were discussed as factual context without altering the court’s statutory analysis.

Do the court’s findings apply to all NFTs?
The decision applies to the specific facts of the Yuga Labs case. It reinforces that classification depends on contractual terms, marketing, purchaser expectations and how tokens function in practice.

What role did the project roadmap play in the ruling?
The roadmap and forward-looking statements were reviewed but the court found they did not create enforceable promises of profit tied to Yuga’s efforts, and thus did not satisfy the Howey expectation-of-profit prong.

Key Takeaways
Legal outcome: Federal judge dismissed investor claims that BAYC and related NFTs are securities.
Howey Test application: Plaintiffs failed to show a common enterprise or clear expectation of profit produced by Yuga.
Market implication: The ruling underscores that NFT classification is fact-specific; creators should clarify marketing and purchaser expectations.
Conclusion
The Yuga Labs lawsuit dismissal clarifies how a federal court applied the Howey Test to iconic NFTs, emphasizing that marketing as consumable collectibles and the absence of explicit profit promises weigh against securities classification. Market participants should document product features and communications to reduce regulatory ambiguity. COINOTAG will monitor further developments and related rulings.

$APE
#BuyAPE

Bessent's opinion piece appears to signal an escalation in the Trump administration's criticism of the Federal Reserve, moving beyond merely calling for rate cuts to questioning the Fed's overall operational model and its foundation as an independent institution.

At a time when markets and other central banks around the world are concerned and questioning whether the Trump administration is endangering the Federal Reserve's independence, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently published an opinion article stating that the Fed's own problems—including policy mistakes and functional expansion—are what truly threaten its independence, and called for a comprehensive, independent review of the Federal Reserve.
Bessent traced back to the 2008 financial crisis, stating that one might think the new tools created after 2008 and the centralization of financial markets would give the Fed deeper insight into the direction of the economy, or at least enable it to guide the economy more effectively. But this was not the case. In 2009, the Fed predicted that real GDP in 2011 would accelerate to 4%. Instead, growth slowed to 1.6%. During this period, the Fed's two-year forecasts cumulatively overstated actual GDP by more than 1 trillion USD. "Repeated mistakes show that the Fed is overly confident in its own abilities and in expansionary fiscal policies to stimulate growth. When the Trump administration shifted to tax cuts and deregulation, the Fed's forecasts became overly pessimistic, highlighting its reliance on flawed models and neglect of supply-side effects." He added that the continuous interventions during and after the 2008 financial crisis provided de facto support to asset owners, but younger and less wealthy households were excluded from asset appreciation and thus suffered the most from inflation.
In addition to policy mistakes and exacerbating the wealth gap, Bessent further wrote that the Fed's "ever-expanding footprint" has profound implications for its independence. By extending its authority into areas traditionally reserved for the fiscal sector, the Fed has blurred the lines between monetary and fiscal policy. The Fed's balance sheet policies directly affect which sectors receive capital, intervening in areas that should belong to the market and elected officials. He said the Fed's entanglement with Treasury debt management also creates the perception that monetary policy is being used to meet fiscal needs, and that the President and Congress can rely on the Fed to bail out the government after poor fiscal choices.
Furthermore, Bessent wrote that the Fed's excessive regulation has also worsened the problem. The Dodd-Frank Act greatly expanded the Fed's regulatory scope, making it the primary regulator of U.S. finance. Fifteen years later, the results are disappointing. The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023 demonstrated the dangers of combining regulation and monetary policy. The Fed regulates, lends to, and sets profitability calculations for the banks it oversees, creating an inevitable conflict that blurs accountability and endangers independence. He suggested that a more coherent framework would restore specialization: authorizing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to lead bank regulation, while allowing the Fed to conduct macro supervision, act as lender of last resort, and manage monetary policy.
"The Fed's expansion of duties beyond its statutory scope has damaged its own credibility and political legitimacy. Excessive use of non-standard policies, mission creep, and institutional bloat threaten the central bank's independence." Bessent concluded, "The core of independence lies in credibility and political legitimacy. The Fed's expansion beyond its authority has threatened both its credibility and political legitimacy. Large-scale interventions have produced severe distributional consequences, undermined credibility, and threatened independence. Looking ahead, the Fed must reduce its distortions to the economy. Unconventional policies such as quantitative easing should only be used in true emergencies and coordinated with other federal government departments. There must also be an honest, independent, and nonpartisan review of the entire institution, including monetary policy, regulation, communication, staffing, and research."
Bessent's opinion piece appears to signal an escalation in the Trump administration's criticism of the Federal Reserve, moving beyond merely calling for rate cuts to questioning the Fed's overall operational model and its foundation as an independent institution. This situation also confirms previous concerns among market participants. As early as when the Trump administration suddenly eased its pressure on Powell to cut rates and instead seized on the Fed building renovation case, Swiss Pictet Wealth Management senior U.S. economist Cui Xiao told Yicai Global that the Trump administration might use the renovation case as a pretext to propose more oversight and institutional reforms for the Fed, which would create greater room for maneuver and possibilities than simply dismissing Powell.
Trump's preferred successor to the Fed chair, Warsh, has also previously called for a comprehensive reform of the Fed's operations and suggested drafting a new "Treasury-Fed Accord" to replace the 1951 Treasury-Fed Accord, which former Fed Chair Paul Volcker called the "Charter of Central Bank Independence." "Once changes begin, many mechanisms could be reformed or altered, essentially opening a 'Pandora's box'," Cui Xiao said. In this way, Trump would find it easier to impose his policy preferences on the Fed.

$APE
#BuyAPE

Apple will introduce the iPhone 17 next week. It offers updated design and performance improvements and includes a security feature intended to protect digital assets.

For many crypto holders, the iPhone now appears more affordable and less expensive, even though the dollar price remains stable.

Security Function Targets Crypto Wallet Vulnerabilities
The iPhone 17 uses the new A19 chip, enabling a Memory Integrity Enforcement (MIE) system. The mechanism detects and blocks memory-based vulnerabilities such as buffer overflows or use-after-free errors. These weaknesses are frequently used in attempts to breach crypto wallets.

MIE makes it harder for attackers to compromise private keys or assets stored on the phone. Smartphones are now central to financial activity, including digital asset storage. Because of this, expectations for wallet security are increasing. The addition of MIE shows the growing need to address more advanced cyber threats.

iPhone 17. Photo: Apple newsroom
As crypto values rise, attackers gain more substantial incentives, and hackers deploy increasingly complex techniques aimed at phones and wallet applications.

The introduction of MIE indicates Apple is dedicating resources to counter these risks. Consumers see little change in retail prices. Yet development costs for new security systems are growing.

Device Prices Remain Stable While Crypto Values Increase
Data from CoinGecko shows iPhone prices in US dollars have been stable since the iPhone 11 in 2019. For example, the iPhone 11 launched at $699, the iPhone 12 at $799, and the iPhone 16 at $799. During the same period, however, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) have risen sharply in value.

As a result, the amount of crypto required to buy an iPhone has decreased significantly. The iPhone 17, priced at $799 in 2025, costs approximately 0.0072 BTC, about half the price of the 0.0140 BTC required for the iPhone 16. In Ethereum terms, the iPhone 17 costs about 0.1866 ETH, down from 0.3386 ETH the previous year.

Figure: Apple has kept iPhone prices relatively flat in USD terms since the iPhone 11, while the rapid appreciation of Bitcoin and Ether has made the devices appear increasingly cheaper when measured in cryptocurrency.
The contrast highlights how steady hardware pricing interacts with volatile financial markets. It also shows how cryptocurrencies are increasingly viewed as long-term stores of value rather than purely speculative assets. The affordability paradox will continue if Apple holds prices steady while crypto values increase.

The post iPhone 17 Offers Strengthened Crypto Protection appeared first on BeInCrypto.

$APE
#BuyAPE

Dash (DASH), a cryptocurrency with a decade-long focus on privacy, has expanded its utility by integrating with NymVPN, a virtual private network (VPN) service endorsed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. This partnership allows NymVPN users to pay for their subscriptions using Dash , combining the cryptocurrency's low-cost and censorship-resistant transactions with Nym’s advanced metadata protection capabilities. The integration marks a significant step in the convergence of private payments and secure communications, addressing a long-standing challenge in the privacy sector: ensuring that the act of purchasing privacy services does not itself compromise privacy.

NymVPN offers two modes of service: a “Fast” WireGuard-based 2-hop configuration for everyday browsing and streaming, and an “Anonymous” 5-hop mixnet mode designed to obscure metadata from surveillance and censorship. By incorporating Dash as a payment option, users benefit from near-instant finality, minimal transaction costs, and optional privacy features that obscure financial data. This alignment between the cryptocurrency and the privacy infrastructure is highlighted as a crucial advancement in the privacy tech stack.

Joël Valenzuela, a core member of Dash DAO, emphasized the significance of the partnership, stating that it enables users to “pay for privacy with privacy.” This collaboration bridges the gap between securing online communications and ensuring that the payment process itself remains private. NymVPN CEO Harry Halpin noted that the integration supports their mission to offer privacy across various financial transactions, allowing users to access a metadata-resistant mixnet that further shields them from mass surveillance.

Dash, which launched in 2014 as Darkcoin, was among the first cryptocurrencies to introduce protocol-level privacy features and remains one of the few privacy-focused coins listed on major exchanges. Its integration into NymVPN underscores its role as a practical solution for both everyday and privacy-critical transactions. As concerns over surveillance and payment censorship continue to rise, the Dash-Nym partnership demonstrates how interoperable privacy tools can provide a comprehensive defense for users seeking to protect their identities and communications.

This partnership is more than a convenience; it serves as a blueprint for how privacy technologies can collaborate to offer full-spectrum protection. By ensuring that both the communication and payment layers of the service remain private, the Dash-Nym integration sets a precedent for future developments in the privacy space. As online threats evolve, this model of combining secure communications and private transactions may become increasingly vital in protecting user anonymity.

$APE
#BuyAPE