Worldcoin will cut WLD’s daily unlock rate by about 43% from July 24, halving community emissions and trimming team and investor unlocks as selling pressure concerns mount.

According to Worldcoin, a total of 4.9 billion WLD — 49% of the token’s 10 billion maximum supply — has been unlocked so far, with approximately 3.3 billion WLD in actual circulation. The project emphasized that WLD uses a continuous linear unlocking mechanism with “no one‑time large unlocks (cliffs),” arguing that the scheduled rate change is “due to established on‑chain contract arrangements” rather than a discretionary decision by the foundation or contributors.

The adjustment will hit different stakeholder buckets in distinct ways. The unlock rate for the “World community” allocation, which covers tokens distributed to users and operators, will be cut from 3.2 million WLD per day to 1.6 million, a 50% reduction. At the same time, the unlock rate for “team and investors” will fall from 1.9 million WLD per day to 1.3 million, a smaller but still significant 32% reduction. In aggregate, daily unlocks drop from about 5.1 million WLD to roughly 2.9 million WLD, a change the team says is intended “to gradually reduce selling pressure” as more of the supply becomes liquid.

The blog frames this as a “tokenomics milestone,” suggesting that the most aggressive phase of emissions is now behind the project. Worldcoin officials argue that a predictable, linearly slowing unlock schedule is better for long‑term holders than either perpetual high emissions or lumpy cliff events that can shock markets.

For traders and existing holders, the immediate takeaway is nuanced. On one hand, a 43% cut in the daily unlock rate mechanically reduces the amount of new WLD that can hit secondary markets each day, all else equal. On the other, nearly half of the total supply is already unlocked, and about 3.3 billion WLD is circulating, meaning that any relief from slower future emissions has to be weighed against the large base of tokens that can already be sold.

Market reaction will ultimately depend on whether demand for WLD — from governance, staking, ecosystem incentives or speculative flows — grows faster than the slowed unlock curve. If activity around the Worldcoin protocol and its associated World ID infrastructure accelerates, the new schedule could help absorb selling and support price. If adoption stalls, slower unlocks alone may not be enough to prevent further dilution for existing holders.

A long-running dispute between OKX founder Star Xu and Binance founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao resurfaced Thursday, with Xu calling CZ a “habitual liar” in a series of posts on X that revisit allegations dating back more than a decade.

The clash traces back to Zhao’s brief tenure at OKCoin, founded by Xu, when he was accused in 2015 of “harmful acts of conduct” and misleading statements tied to a contract dispute involving Roger Ver, claims Zhao has previously disputed.

This latest flare-up also follows an earlier public disagreement in January, when Xu blamed Binance-linked market dynamics for amplifying the Oct. 10 crypto crash, a claim Binance and other market participants disputed. The latest flare-up was triggered by CZ’s memoir, published earlier this week, Xu said.

He revived the decade-old issues, saying he had no “intention of revisiting these old issues involving CZ [..] but since I’ve been dragged into this again because of the book, let’s restate the facts,” he wrote.

“Out of the blue, Star [Xu] said that I had somehow forged a contract when working there [at OKCoin],” CZ said in his book. “… In May 2015, I got annoyed and made a public post on Reddit, obviously denying forging any contracts … while I was at it, I detailed a few problems I saw at OKCoin.”

Xu, in his recent posts, pointed to a video he said shows evidence of conflicting contract versions and reiterating that Zhao had misled the public about the matter.

“After spending four months in prison, he continues to make false statements to the world,” Xu wrote, adding that “a habitual liar never changes their nature.”

The dispute escalated when Xu questioned whether Zhao had misrepresented his marital status, referencing earlier CoinDesk reporting in which Zhao’s spouse was described as his “wife” in a letter submitted to a judge. Xu said he would apologize if Zhao could produce a divorce agreement signed by both parties.

Zhao responded that he is “officially divorced” and challenged Xu to a $1 billion bet or any amount Xu chose, that the divorce had been finalized, saying lawyers could verify the agreement while declining to publish documents.

Xu rejected the wager, citing compliance considerations tied to running a regulated exchange, and instead pressed Zhao on whether his Binance stake had been legally separated as part of any divorce.

Zhao dismissed the line of questioning, saying his Binance stake was “none of your business” and accused Xu of deflecting.

Key Takeaways

• CRWD shares tumbled more than 5% amid investor anxiety that AI-powered solutions might threaten conventional cybersecurity subscription revenues.
• Macroeconomic headwinds, including weakening GDP figures and conservative guidance from Zscaler, intensified selling pressure across the sector.
• Executive stock sales raised eyebrows despite management’s announcement of an enlarged buyback program.
• CNBC’s Jim Cramer countered bearish sentiment, claiming Anthropic’s AI capabilities would actually strengthen demand for cybersecurity services.
• The unveiling of “Project Glass Wing,” a collaborative security initiative between Anthropic, CrowdStrike, and Palo Alto Networks, sparked a major stock recovery.

CrowdStrike (CRWD) experienced significant turbulence recently as shares plunged more than 5% during a period of heightened anxiety across the cybersecurity industry. Investor apprehension centered on whether emerging agentic artificial intelligence platforms might eventually displace traditional subscription-based security solutions that form the revenue backbone for firms like CrowdStrike.

CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc., CRWD

The downturn extended beyond a single company. Cybersecurity stocks broadly faced renewed scrutiny as market participants reassessed the sector’s long-term revenue potential and profitability assumptions in an AI-driven landscape.

This unease had been percolating for several weeks. Central to the narrative was Anthropic, the organization responsible for developing the Claude AI model. Growing market chatter suggested that Anthropic’s advanced autonomous agent technology might possess sufficient sophistication to render conventional cybersecurity platforms redundant.

CrowdStrike and Palo Alto will no longer be manipulated when it comes to Anthropic after this announcement today ,,,CRWD and PANW can go much higher now

— Jim Cramer (@jimcramer) April 7, 2026

CRWD’s year-to-date trajectory already mirrored these mounting concerns, with shares retreating approximately 15.8% prior to the latest selloff. Daily trading volume typically hovers around 4 million shares, while technical indicators had flipped to bearish territory.

Broader economic conditions compounded the pressure. Recent data releases revealed decelerating U.S. economic expansion, while rival firm Zscaler (ZS) delivered a measured demand forecast that dampened sentiment. When industry leaders express reservation about future business conditions, markets typically extrapolate those concerns across comparable companies.

Executive Stock Disposals Undermine Repurchase Program

CrowdStrike attempted to bolster investor confidence through action. Management unveiled an enhanced share repurchase authorization, a signal ordinarily interpreted as faith in the company’s intrinsic worth.

Unfortunately, the announcement failed to gain traction. Disclosure of stock sales by senior leadership emerged simultaneously, creating doubt about whether executives truly share the optimistic outlook implied by the buyback expansion. The market registered this contradiction.

Cramer Challenges Bears as Anthropic Collaboration Emerges

The pessimistic narrative didn’t go unchallenged. Television personality Jim Cramer from CNBC mounted a defense, and his commentary proved remarkably prescient.

During a recent broadcast, Cramer confronted the Anthropic anxiety head-on. His position was that cybercriminals leveraging AI agents would amplify rather than diminish the necessity for established cybersecurity defenses. “Without the help of traditional cybersecurity, you’re more vulnerable than ever,” he stated emphatically.

CrowdStrike’s CEO George Kurtz reinforced this perspective during his appearance on Cramer’s program, characterizing the AI revolution as favorable for cybersecurity demand.

Shortly thereafter came the development that appeared to vindicate Cramer’s analysis. Anthropic introduced “Project Glass Wing,” a cooperative security framework incorporating both CrowdStrike and Palo Alto Networks (PANW), aimed at safeguarding Anthropic’s user base. The revelation triggered a 24-point surge in CRWD shares within a single trading day.

Palo Alto Networks experienced its own significant decline in recent trading, dropping approximately 7.3%, indicating that broader industry uncertainty persists despite positive partnership news.

CrowdStrike maintains a market capitalization of roughly $100.1 billion, though shares continue trading approximately 15.8% below their year-to-date starting point as markets prepare for the upcoming session.

Circle said trust in digital assets depends on security, accountability, and the rule of law. The company made the case after the April 1 exploit at Drift Protocol. Public reports placed losses at more than $270 million. Circle said the event renewed debate over controls and open access in crypto.

The company said stablecoin issuers should not act as private police. It said legal process must guide any freeze action.

Circle also said open financial systems need better protection across the crypto stack. The statement placed the issue within current U.S. stablecoin policy work.

Circle Says Asset Freezes Follow Legal Orders

Circle said it freezes USDC only when the law requires action. It said sanctions, court orders, and law enforcement requests drive those decisions. The company said this is a compliance duty, not a discretionary move. It also said the process protects user rights and privacy.

Circle described USDC as a regulated financial instrument under U.S. and EU laws. It said that framework prevents arbitrary interference with user funds. The company argued that legal limits matter as much as technical controls. It said privacy and property rights remain core design goals.

Drift Exploit Renews Debate on Shared Security Duties

Circle linked its comments to the Drift Protocol exploit on April 1. It said bad actors do more than steal funds during such attacks. They also test weak points between wallets, protocols, exchanges, issuers, and regulators. Circle said those gaps let attackers move quickly.

The company argued that no single part of crypto can carry the full burden. It said security and accountability must be shared across the ecosystem. That includes protocols, wallet providers, infrastructure firms, exchanges, and stablecoin issuers. Circle said each layer needs defenses that match its role.

It also warned against rushed policy responses that could harm open systems. Circle referenced debates over self-hosted wallets and permissionless DeFi. It said poorly designed restrictions could weaken innovation and open blockchain access. At the same time, it said openness without accountability creates risk.

Circle suggested added technical safeguards at the protocol level. It pointed to circuit breakers that could pause activity under set conditions. The company said such tools may help during fast-moving cyber threats. It added that threats can include social engineering and physical security risks.

Circle Backs New Legal Frameworks for Faster Action

Circle said the tools for faster intervention already exist in many cases. Yet it said the legal framework for coordinated action remains incomplete. The company argued that regulation has not kept pace with internet-based finance. It said this gap is a policy issue that needs a policy answer.

The firm said it is working with policymakers in the United States and abroad. It wants safe harbor rules and updated laws for digital asset markets.

Circle said those rules should let firms act faster against illicit activity. It also said any new framework must protect privacy and property rights.

Circle stated, “The goal is not a system where private companies unilaterally decide who loses access to their assets.” It added that the aim is lawful intervention that can move at the speed of threats. The company said that balance matters for both safety and openness. It framed the issue as central to trust in digital assets.

Circle tied that work to stablecoin legislation now under discussion in the United States. It referenced the GENIUS Act and broader market structure rules under the CLARITY Act. The company said these efforts offer an opportunity to establish standards before another major incident. It said those standards should protect due process, privacy, and legal accountability.

Digital assets have moved well beyond the hype cycle. What began as an experiment in decentralized value transfer has evolved into a serious conversation about how capital markets, custody, settlement and asset ownership could be re-imagined for the digital age. Tokenization, programmable money and distributed ledgers may deliver faster settlement, greater transparency and new efficiencies across the financial system.

The opportunity is both real and transformative, but accelerated adoption of digital assets is not guaranteed.

The ecosystem’s success will not be determined by any single technology, protocol, innovator or platform. Instead, it will hinge on whether the industry embraces a principle that traditional markets have relied on and come to expect for more than a century: choice.

If investors, issuers and intermediaries are forced into narrow paths and left without options, the promise of digital assets risks being constrained by the very silos they were meant to dismantle. For Web3 to flourish, market participants must be able to choose how, where and when they engage.

Choice in blockchain networks: avoiding silos

One of the most pressing challenges facing digital assets adoption today is fragmentation. New blockchains and networks continue to emerge, each optimized for different use cases, governance models or performance requirements. While innovation is healthy, disconnected ecosystems can quickly become a barrier to scale.

Without interoperability, assets risk being locked into isolated environments, limiting liquidity, mobility and investor access. The result is a digital version of the same inefficiencies that have historically plagued financial markets, with the added benefits of being faster and more complex.

Interoperability has the potential to change that result. A “network of networks” approach enables assets to move securely across platforms, enabling market participant firms and investors to take full advantage of tokenization’s potential while preserving market integrity and scale. It simplifies use cases, unlocks new business models and supports regulatory consistency, without forcing the industry to converge on a single chain.

Indeed, some investors may prefer open, public blockchains, while others may gravitate toward private blockchains. It’s not a matter of ‘or’ – both can and should be available.

Achieving this vision will require collaboration. Market infrastructure providers, technology firms and regulators must work together to establish frameworks that prioritize compatibility and interoperability over control. In a recent white paper authored by The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) in collaboration with Clearstream, Euroclear and BCG, we explored how shared standards and coordinated governance could help advance interoperability while maintaining trust and resilience. The message was and remains clear: interoperability is foundational to scale and the future growth of digital markets.

Choice in what assets to tokenize (and when!)

Tokenization is often discussed as an inevitability, but inevitability should not be confused with immediacy. Not every asset will tokenize, and those that do will not do so at the same pace.

For example, while The Depository Trust Corporation (DTC), as a securities depository, facilitates the post‑trade settlement of securities representing over $100 trillion in value, we are not advocating for broad, indiscriminate, or immediate tokenization. Particularly in the early stages of this ecosystem, disciplined sequencing, intentionality, and caution are essential.

Certain asset classes, especially those with clear operational inefficiencies, high reconciliation costs or settlement frictions, are natural early candidates for tokenization. Others may follow as technology matures, regulatory clarity increases, and market demand evolves. Giving issuers and investors the ability to decide what makes sense for their needs, and on their timeline, reduces risk and builds confidence.

Choice, in this context, is about sequencing and needs. It allows the market to learn, adapt and scale responsibly rather than forcing adoption before the infrastructure is ready.

Choice in how investors want to hold real-world assets

Digital transformation does not mean abandoning established investing principles and processes.

For many institutional investors, tokenized assets will coexist with traditional holdings for many years to come. Some will prefer onchain representations for their operational efficiency or programmability. Others will continue to rely on established custody models, particularly as compliance and risk frameworks evolve.

A successful digital asset ecosystem can support both. Investors should be able to hold assets in tokenized form alongside traditional securities – and even switch back and forth between them – without sacrificing legal certainty, operational continuity or even the feeling of being in control. Flexibility ensures participation is driven by value, not obligation, and that trust is earned, not assumed.

Choice in wallets: empowering the client

Perhaps the most tangible expression of choice is the wallet.

As digital assets enter mainstream financial markets, participants will bring different preferences, risk tolerances and operational requirements. Some will prioritize self-custody. Others will rely on institutional-grade solutions. Many will want the freedom to change over time.

Wallet selection should belong to clients (market participant firms). No prescribed wallet. No mandated standard. This model empowers market participants to choose based on their own security needs, regulatory considerations, geographic requirements or internal controls.

This flexibility is essential for adoption at scale. Markets will thrive when financial institutions have the opportunity to engage on their own terms and can make decisions based on their clients’ and investors’ strategies, needs and preferences.

The path forward

The success of the digital assets ecosystem will not be built on constraints and limitations. Instead, it will be built on options: choice in blockchain, in assets, in custody and in wallets. These are practical requirements for facilitating growth.

If the industry gets this right, digital assets can deliver on their promise: more inclusive, efficient and resilient markets. If it gets it wrong, it risks recreating the limitations of the past on faster rails.

Choice is the key to making digital assets work for everyone.

The White House warned staff against improperly using confidential information to place bets in futures markets after suspicious oil trades ahead of President Donald Trump’s March 23 Iran announcement drew scrutiny, according to Reuters.

Reuters reported on Thursday that the White House sent the internal email on March 24, a day after Trump ordered a five-day delay in attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure.

The warning followed a roughly $500 million bet on Brent and West Texas Intermediate crude futures placed in a one-minute burst shortly before Trump’s March 23 announcement, according to Reuters calculations based on exchange data. Oil prices fell about 15% after the policy shift.

The episode has intensified scrutiny of whether officials or politically connected traders could profit from nonpublic information tied to military or policy decisions. It has also added momentum to a broader push in Washington to tighten rules around prediction-market trading.

The STOCK Act amendment in the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) prohibits federal officials, congress members, executive staff and judicial officers from using non-public information derived from their positions to trade commodity, futures or options markets. The amendment was signed into law on April 4, 2012.

Cointelegraph has approached the White House for a copy of the internal email.

Related: US Senate bill targets prediction markets on war and assassinations

Lawmakers respond to prediction market insider trading concerns

Lawmakers have also stepped up scrutiny of prediction markets, where well-timed bets tied to military and political events have raised similar concerns about the misuse of privileged information. Polymarket traders netted around $1 million by accurately betting when the US would strike Iran.

In response to the concerns, Congressman Adrian Smith and Congresswoman Nikki Budzinski introduced the Preventing Real-time Exploitation and Deceptive Insider Congressional Trading Act (PREDICT Act) on March 25, a bipartisan bill seeking to ban members of Congress and federal officials from prediction market trading.

On March 26, US lawmakers Todd Young, Elissa Slotkin, John Curtis and Adam Schiff unveiled the bipartisan Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026, a bill aimed at curbing prediction market insider trading by government officials.

The same day, Senator Jeff Merkley introduced the End Prediction Market Corruption Act, seeking to ban event contract trading by government officials with “material non-public information,” including the president, vice president and members of Congress.

Magazine: Crypto traders ‘fool themselves’ with price predictions — Peter Brandt