The U.S. government’s first insider trading prosecution involving a prediction market has advanced after a Manhattan court scheduled a Dec. 7 trial for Army soldier Gannon Van Dyke.

According to courtroom reporting from Inner City Press, U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett scheduled the trial on Monday in Manhattan, where Van Dyke appeared in court after being released earlier this year on a $250,000 personal recognizance bond.

Judge: The US should reach out by July 31 to set up the Section 2 conference I’d want to have in August.
Intrater: We propose December 7 as a trial date… The Government think its case is going to be a week, we’d have two weeks before Christmas, a Friday

— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) June 8, 2026

Advertisement

Federal prosecutors have accused the 38-year-old active-duty service member of using classified military intelligence connected to the January operation involving Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to place profitable wagers on Polymarket.

Court filings cited by prosecutors allege that Van Dyke made 13 Venezuela-related bets over a seven-day period beginning in late December, turning an initial investment of about $33,000 into more than $410,000.

As described in the government’s case, Van Dyke faces three counts of violating the Commodity Exchange Act, along with wire fraud and engaging in an unlawful monetary transaction. He entered a not guilty plea during his April arraignment.

Defense prepares challenge to government case

Details from the latest hearing indicate that Van Dyke’s legal team is preparing to contest the prosecution before the case reaches trial. According to ABC News, defense attorneys told the court they expect to file a motion seeking dismissal of the charges by the end of next month.

Prosecutors have also alleged that Van Dyke attempted to conceal his activity after the wagers were settled. Court documents cited by the government claim he requested the deletion of his Polymarket account following the trades.

The case has drawn attention because federal authorities have described it as the first U.S. insider trading prosecution involving a prediction market platform.

As regulators continue examining how such markets operate, the outcome could provide one of the earliest judicial tests of how existing commodities and fraud laws apply to blockchain-based event betting platforms.

Polymarket faces scrutiny beyond the courtroom

Outside the criminal proceedings, Polymarket has become the subject of growing regulatory and political attention in multiple jurisdictions.

On Capitol Hill, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer requested documents and internal communications from Polymarket related to wagers connected to the U.S. operation targeting Maduro.

According to reports, lawmakers are examining activity surrounding the market and the information available to participants before the event’s outcome became public.

Regulatory pressure has also emerged overseas. As crypto.news previously reported, the Gangwon Provincial Police Agency in South Korea has opened what is believed to be the country’s first investigation into domestic Polymarket users.

South Korean authorities are examining whether participation on the platform violated South Korean gambling laws after a request from the national police headquarters.

Speaking to Chosun Biz, attorney Ahn Chang-bo, who represents some of the users under investigation, said the legal elements required for a gambling offense appear to be present. At the same time, he noted that South Korea has no established legal precedent involving punishment for Polymarket users, making the final outcome difficult to predict.

Separate from the criminal charges against Van Dyke, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has filed its own civil complaint.

CFTC Chair Mike Selig said anyone engaging in fraud, manipulation, or insider trading in regulated markets would face enforcement action regardless of ongoing debates surrounding prediction market regulation.

Blockchain researchers have raised concerns about the United Kingdom’s sanctions against crypto exchange HTX, arguing that the move may have created broad collateral damage across the industry’s compliance system.

In an X post, Galaxy Digital’s head of research, Alex Thorn, said the UK adding “all of HTX” to its sanctions was “problematic” because the exchange has many legitimate users. Thorn pointed to differences in how stablecoin issuers decide when to freeze tokens, saying there’s a big divergence in enforcement practices.

Security researcher Taylor Monahan said in an X post that the HTX sanctions undermined years of work to encourage decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols to screen and block stolen funds. She argued that most HTX users are legitimate.

Source: Taylor Monahan

Blockchain investigator ZachXBT also criticized the sanctions, calling them “a bit of an overreach.” He said HTX address tainting onchain has been “catastrophic.”

“Basically now I’ve had to ignore the sanctions category when tracing cases by exposure since ‘risk’ itself has become meaningless,” he said.

The criticism follows the UK’s May 26 sanctions against Huobi Global S.A., the Panamanian company behind HTX, over alleged support for Russia-linked financial networks.

HTX disputes UK sanctions

UK authorities said there were reasonable grounds to suspect HTX had supported Russia’s government through financial services and funds facilitated by A7 Limited Liability Company and Garantex, both sanctioned entities.

Related: UK regulator takes High Court action against HTX over crypto promotions

HTX has since denied the allegations, saying the sanctioned entity is separate from the online exchange.

Despite this, a Global Ledger report said that HTX processed about $21.06 billion in high-risk crypto flows between 2021 and May 2026. Of that total, at least $7.64 billion was linked to Russian high-risk entities and darknet markets, including Garantex, its successor Grinex, A7A5 and Hydra.

The sanctions appeared to have had effects downstream. Trump-linked DeFi project World Liberty Financial later froze HTX-linked addresses after what it described as sanctions compliance reviews. HTX responded by delisting the DeFi platform’s USD1 stablecoin and suspending several trading pairs. 

Magazine: Vietnam preps crypto pilot, HK pushes tokenization: Asia Express

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

A House tax package for digital assets has drawn questions from lawmakers during an early committee hearing. The Ways and Means Committee reviewed bills meant to reduce crypto tax filing burdens.

Democrats raised concerns about proposed treatment for mining, staking, and small digital asset transactions.

Lawmakers question crypto tax proposals

The hearing gave lawmakers an early look at proposed crypto tax changes. The bills would update tax rules for investors, users, miners, stakers, brokers, and digital asset businesses. Committee Chairman Jason Smith said the proposals address gaps in the tax code. He said the package covers parity, digital asset tax clarity, and paperwork reduction.

Ranking Democrat Richard Neal said lawmakers still need more work before agreement. “I’m aligned with that goal — eventually,” Neal said during the hearing. Neal also said lawmakers on both sides had concerns about the package. “There’s healthy skepticism on both sides,” he said. The hearing represented an opening step before any possible revisions or markup. The full House would only consider the bills after committee action.

Small transactions and staking rules draw focus

One proposal would exempt small crypto transactions with minimal gains from tax reporting. Supporters say the change could reduce accounting burdens for routine digital asset payments. “If Americans want to pay with a stablecoin instead of a credit card or cash, they should be able to,” Smith said. He added that users should not face “a pile of tax paperwork.”

Another proposal would address mining and staking rewards. Current rules can tax rewards when users receive them and again when they sell them.

Mike Kaercher, deputy director of the Tax Law Center at NYU Law, questioned that provision. He said the bill could allow some miners and stakers to defer income until disposition. Kaercher said that approach could create a new tax subsidy. He argued that income should face tax when taxpayers receive it.

Mining deferral concerns slow momentum

Kaercher also warned that some taxpayers could use business structures to avoid tax. He said the bill includes guardrails, but abuse may still remain possible. His comments drew attention from Democrats during the hearing. Several lawmakers focused on whether the mining and staking provision could create loopholes.

The crypto industry has long pushed for clearer tax rules. Current rules can create complex filing duties for high-volume traders, miners, and stakers. Coinbase Vice President of Tax Lawrence Zlatkin said current rules create confusion for taxpayers. 

He also said they create compliance challenges for businesses and burdens for the IRS. The IRS already faces new crypto reporting demands this year. The agency also cut staff under President Donald Trump’s administration.

Senate path remains uncertain

The crypto tax bills face an uncertain timeline before the current Congress ends in 2026. Lawmakers also continue work on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. Anchorage Digital policy head Kevin Wysocki said tax clarity should move with regulatory clarity. He said clear and workable rules could support investment and jobs in America.

Senator Cynthia Lummis has sought similar crypto tax legislation in the Senate. However, the Senate has not advanced a major crypto tax package. Both the House and Senate must approve any bill before it can become law. For now, the House package remains at the committee hearing stage.

The US policy debate over crypto market structure is intensifying as lawmakers weigh landmark legislation that could redefine how developers and infrastructure providers fit into the regulatory landscape. Kristin Smith, CEO of the Solana Institute, urged the Senate to pass the CLARITY crypto market structure bill with robust protections for developers intact, arguing open-source software maintainers and blockchain infrastructure providers should not be treated as financial intermediaries.

In a thread on X, Smith said the measure “has a real shot at passing the Senate,” underscoring the importance of preserving protections for software developers as the bill advances. More than 60 crypto CEOs and founders signed an open letter backing the protections, including Solana’s co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko, signaling broad industry concern about how the bill would classify noncustodial participants in the ecosystem.

Smith emphasized that open-source developers, validators and non-custodial wallet providers do not custody user funds or execute transactions, and therefore should not be deemed brokers or custodians. To this end, she highlighted the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), a bipartisan proposal designed to provide legal clarity for noncontrolling software developers and blockchain infrastructure providers who do not custody assets or control transactions.

The BRCA was introduced in January by Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden. The legislation would prevent open-source developers from being labeled money transmitters solely for publishing software code, a core point of contention for the crypto community seeking safe harbor from asset custody requirements. See the January filing from Senator Lummis’s office for context on the BRCA’s aims.

Meanwhile, the CLARITY Act — a separate package aimed at clarifying crypto market structure — cleared the Senate Banking Committee in May and has since been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar, setting the stage for a potential floor vote later this summer. For industry observers, the advancement of CLARITY marks an important moment in the ongoing effort to reduce regulatory ambiguity for developers and infrastructure providers. CLARITY Act will help reshore US crypto industry, attorney says has been cited in coverage as a related development.

Echoes from the SEC’s broader debate on open-source protections

The push for developer protections resonates with remarks made by US Securities and Exchange Commission Commissioner Hester Peirce, who argued that publishing open-source blockchain code is a protected First Amendment activity and should not automatically render developers money transmitters or securities intermediaries. Speaking at the IC3 Blockchain Camp at Princeton University, Peirce emphasized that many blockchain projects involve releasing open-source software, a practice she characterized as protected speech rather than an admission of custody or control.

That framing comes as the SEC’s approach to digital assets continues to evolve. The article notes that the agency’s trajectory under its leadership has shifted away from a “regulation through enforcement” posture, signaling potential alignment with the broader CLARITY/BRCA framework that seeks to grant clearer boundaries for developers and on-chain infrastructure. This context helps explain why the industry is rallying around protections for developers as part of a broader regulatory settlement.

The policy narrative around these bills has also been connected to broader discussions about US competitiveness in crypto and blockchain innovation. Earlier coverage highlighted debates over whether the United States can maintain leadership in onshore crypto infrastructure if developers face uncertain regulatory status, and whether new rules would encourage investment and job creation in the sector. For observers tracking these tensions, the current push to codify protections for open-source developers is a focal point of the effort to balance innovation with consumer protection.

What the next steps could mean for the crypto ecosystem

If the CLARITY Act ultimately passes the floor, developers and builders could see a clearer legal perimeter that distinguishes software publication from asset custody and transaction execution. The BRCA’s bipartisan framing would further reduce the risk that essential open-source code and non-custodial infrastructure are swept into money transmitter requirements simply because others use the software. Taken together, the measures aim to reduce regulatory fear that has challenged open-source development and on-chain infrastructure work in the US.

Investors and builders will be watching how the Senate handles floor votes and any potential amendments that could refine the balance between enforcement and clear, workable rules. While a summer vote remains uncertain, the current cadence suggests a meaningful chance for a legislative milestone that could shape the speed and direction of US crypto development for years to come. Market participants should monitor any additional endorsements from industry coalitions and whether lawmakers couple these protections with broader consumer safeguards or financial stability provisions.

Beyond the legislative arena, observers will also gauge how public comment and regulatory signaling evolve in the wake of Peirce’s remarks. If open-source publishing continues to be framed as protected speech, the industry could gain greater confidence to publish, refine, and deploy new protocols with less fear of automatic categorization as money transmitters. That could influence everything from open-source library development to validator operation models and non-custodial wallet design.

In sum, the current moment in Washington foregrounds a central question: can policymakers craft a regime that protects developers and infrastructure providers without compromising shoppers and users? The near-term horizon will reveal whether CLARITY and BRCA can deliver the regulatory clarity the ecosystem has long sought, while preserving the on-the-ground realities of open-source software, validators and non-custodial actors who underpin much of the industry’s daily activity.

Readers should watch for updates on whether the CLARITY Act moves to a floor vote this summer, alongside continued industry sign-on campaigns and new regulatory briefs from lawmakers and advocates. The outcomes will help determine the pace at which the US can maintain a vibrant, onshore crypto ecosystem while ensuring appropriate guardrails for investors and users alike.

The crypto community is getting antsy over today’s public release of Anthropic’s Claude Fable 5 artificial intelligence (AI) software, claiming that it could herald a “doomsday for the internet.”

The large language model (LLM) is an offshoot of Claude, the AI model owned by Dario Amodei’s $965 billion AI firm Anthropic, and costs twice as much as the firm’s Claude Opus model.

According to reports, Claude Fable 5 has “substantial guardrails and is not as cyber permissive” when compared to the partially released version that was showcased last April. 

Reports also claim that it “will be dramatically better at long-horizon, multi-turn tasks.”

Sources: Anthropic is planning to release a public version of Mythos tomorrow
– Will have substantial guardrails and not be as cyber permissive as what Project Glasswing partners can access
– Will be dramatically better at long-horizon, multi-turn tasks https://t.co/cqq3Y5CVb0

— Alex Heath (@alexeheath) June 9, 2026

Read more: Secret Claude model ‘better than all but the most skilled humans’ at hacking

During the April release, dubbed Project Glasswing, the LLM was given to 50-60 companies to test in case it was too dangerous to release to the public so soon.

The AI will supposedly “find software vulnerabilities better than all but the most skilled humans,” and possesses exceptional reasoning and coding capabilities that could make it useful for both security developers and hackers. 

Release has crypto users quaking in their boots

Ahead of the release, crypto started to panic. 

CEO of Floors Finance, Omer Demirel, said the public release will result in “doomsday for the internet,” while Intuition CEO Billy Luedtke said it will “make interacting with pretty much anything online quite dangerous and scary for a bit…”

Despite this, Luedtke added that after this scary period, “the internet + crypto will enter a golden age of security.”

Read more: One laptop: How poor security ruined Humanity Protocol

Advertisement

Claude Cowork Lead Engineer Felix Rieseberg has confirmed that Claude Fable 5 is releasing longside Mythos 5.

Claude Fable 5 will be available to the public, and Mythos 5 will be available to firms within Project Glasswing.

Rieseberg said, “I believe we’re about to see a major shift, moving from giving AI tasks to giving it responsibilities.”

He described the capabilities of the new models as a shift from users asking questions and allocating tasks to an AI, and instead an AI that keeps itself in the loop and perform tasks on its own.

Advertisement

“Its job is no longer to help me fix a crash, it’s to keep our apps from crashing,” Rieseberg said.

Crypto analyst The DeFi Investor advised users to revoke all token approvals, only use heavily audited dApps, and “spread your funds across multiple wallets to reduce single points of failure.”

Curve Finance founder Michael Egorov claimed that Claude Fable 5’s ability to detect bugs in browsers isn’t directly translatable to smart contracts. 

He suspects that instead of it opening up “DeFi code hacks,” OpSec vulnerabilities are more likely to be targeted.

Advertisement

He said it will likely cover “multisig keys compromises,” and “supply chain attacks on frontend dependencies, and those are way less dangerous in true DeFi.”

Claude Fable 5 might advance N-day exploits 

Anthropic researchers Frontier Red Team released a report yesterday on so-called N-days, exploits that involve publicly disclosed vulnerabilities that aren’t completely patched across devices.

It said that hackers are increasingly reverse-engineering hacks by taking advantage of these “patch gaps” and figuring out how to carry out an exploit by comparing the patched and unpatched code. 

As part of this report, Anthropic concluded that one person using an LLM can “turn a month’s worth of patches into working exploits in a single afternoon — for a few thousand dollars and with no specialized expertise.”

Advertisement

“This means that the typical patching playbook that software developers use today — with monthly release cadences, multi-week staged rollouts, and a lag between pre-release and stable channels — no longer holds,” Anthropic said. 

It claims N-day is now dangerously misleading, and that “N-hour is closer to the reality we now operate in.”

When Anthropic initially discussed the model in April, it stressed that in order to scale this product up for the public, it would “need to make progress in developing cybersecurity (and other) safeguards that detect and block the model’s most dangerous outputs.”

mythos is such a funny way for anthropic to show how they are not serious: first they say it’s too dangerous, then they give it to some companies, now it’s just gonna be available as b2b saas as any other model

what are we doing here

Advertisement

— terminally onλine εngineer (@tekbog) June 9, 2026

Read more: DeFi, meet Claude: Moonwell’s ‘vibe-coded’ oracle in $1.8M blowup

Because Anthropic has recognised the dangers Claude Fable 5 poses, it’s led some to point out how Anthropic’s release plan is at odds with its own messaging.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Advertisement

Solana Institute CEO Kristin Smith is urging the US Senate to advance the CLARITY crypto market structure bill while preserving protections for developers. The core argument is that open-source software developers and blockchain infrastructure providers should not be regulated as financial intermediaries merely for publishing or maintaining software that others use. According to Cointelegraph, Smith emphasized that maintaining these protections is critical as the legislation gains momentum in the upper chamber.

In a thread on X, Smith noted that the bill “has a real shot at passing the Senate,” underscoring the importance of lawmakers safeguarding robust protections for software developers. The push reflects a broader policy debate about how to regulate the ecosystem without stifling innovation or imposing onerous requirements on non-custodial actors within decentralized networks.

Smith highlighted that more than 60 crypto executives and founders have signed an open letter urging the Senate to keep strong developer protections in the CLARITY Act. Among the signatories is Anatoly Yakovenko, co-founder of Solana, underscoring industry-wide concern that open-source developers, validators and non-custodial wallet providers do not control user funds or execute transactions and therefore should not be treated as brokers or custodians.

She pointed to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) as a framework that would provide legal clarity for noncontrolling software developers and blockchain infrastructure providers that do not custody customer assets or control transactions. BRCA was introduced in January by Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden, with the aim of preventing open-source developers from being classified as “money transmitters” solely for publishing software code.

The CLARITY Act has already moved through the legislative process, clearing the Senate Banking Committee in May and being placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. This positioning sets the stage for a potential floor vote later this summer, heightening the relevance of developer protections in ongoing regulatory debates.

Key takeaways

• The BRCA seeks to shield noncontrolling software developers and blockchain infrastructure providers from money transmitter requirements solely for publishing or operating code that does not custody assets or control transactions.
• The CLARITY Act has advanced in the Senate Banking Committee and is on the Senate Legislative Calendar, signaling possible floor consideration in the near term.
• Industry signatories, including Anatoly Yakovenko, have urged lawmakers to preserve robust protections for developers as part of any final package.
• SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce has framed open-source blockchain code as protected speech and argued that developers should not be treated as financial intermediaries simply because their software is used by others.
• Together, these developments reflect a broader effort to craft regulatory certainty that supports innovation while addressing compliance, licensing and enforcement considerations for U.S. crypto firms, banks and institutions.

Policy trajectory: CLARITY and BRCA in focus

The central policy question is how to maintain a favorable environment for innovation in the United States without extending gatekeeping or supervisory burdens to core software contributors. BRCA, introduced by Senators Lummis and Wyden, explicitly targets the risk of misclassifying noncontrolling developers and infrastructure providers as money transmitters simply for publishing code or maintaining open networks. By providing a statutory safe harbor of sorts, BRCA aims to reduce regulatory uncertainty and enable continued development of open-source tooling that underpins many blockchain ecosystems. The proposed measure aligns with a push across parts of the industry to delineate between custodial actors and software publishers, a distinction viewed by supporters as essential to healthy ecosystem growth.

On the market-structure front, the CLARITY Act is designed to clarify how the sector should be regulated, with particular emphasis on safeguarding innovation while ensuring consumer and investor protections. Its advancement through the Senate Banking Committee and placement on the Legislative Calendar illustrate a notable convergence of industry lobbying with legislative processes. If enacted, the bill could influence licensing regimes, supervisory expectations, and compliance programs for a wide range of market participants, including exchanges, wallet providers, and non-custodial infrastructure services.

These dynamics occur within a broader U.S. regulatory landscape that seeks to balance enforcement with clarity. The BRCA and CLARITY proposals mirror ongoing debates about how to classify digital assets, how to treat open-source tooling, and how to regulate cross-border activities. The policy package also intersects with discussions on registration requirements, cross-border cooperation, and the steps necessary for U.S. firms to function competitively alongside international counterparts. The evolving framework is being watched closely by legal teams, compliance officers, and risk managers across financial institutions and crypto intermediaries alike.

Regulatory interpretations and industry impact

Regulatory interpretations surrounding open-source software and decentralization have gained renewed attention thanks to public comments from senior regulators. At a recent public forum, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce argued that publishing open-source blockchain code constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment, and that developers should not be treated as financial intermediaries solely because others use their software. Peirce’s remarks, delivered at the IC3 Blockchain Camp at Princeton University, emphasized the legal protection for open-source contributions and reinforced calls for clearer rules that distinguish software publishing from asset custody or transaction control.

The industry’s response to these interpretations centers on compliance practicality and risk management. If reforms succeed in preserving developer protections, firms building or operating non-custodial services — including validators, auditors, and wallet providers — could face a clearer threshold for regulatory classification. That clarity would support targeted licensing strategies, more predictable AML/KYC expectations, and more defined regulatory responsibilities for actors that are not custodians of user funds. In this context, policy certainty can reduce legal risk for developers and infrastructure providers while maintaining guardrails for consumer protection and financial stability.

From a regulatory enforcement perspective, the shift toward explicit protections for code publishers and infrastructure entities could influence how agencies calibrate their oversight posture. While enforcement will continue where appropriate, a framework that distinguishes software publication from asset custody may reduce ambiguous interpretations that currently create compliance friction for open-source projects. For market participants, the practical takeaway is an emphasis on robust governance, transparent software practices, and clearly documented asset custody arrangements when applicable. In the longer term, this alignment between developer protections and regulatory expectations could shape licensing strategies, custody models, and cross-border collaboration with other jurisdictions that pursue different regulatory approaches.

Broader policy landscape and cross-border considerations

The CLARITY and BRCA discussions occur within a wider global context of crypto regulation. Regulators in different jurisdictions have pursued varied approaches to market structure, asset classification, and tech-provider exemptions. The United States’ emphasis on maintaining a competitive, innovation-friendly environment while enforcing consumer protections sits alongside comparable EU developments, such as MiCA, which delineate responsibilities for market participants within a different regulatory regime. For market participants, this juxtaposition reinforces the importance of aligning internal governance, KYC/AML controls, licensing readiness, and cross-border compliance programs with evolving statutory expectations in multiple jurisdictions.

Analysts and compliance teams should monitor the legislative calendar for the CLARITY Act, BRCA, and related rulemaking activity. The outcome could influence how U.S.-based exchanges, wallet providers and infrastructure teams structure their operations, engage with regulators, and coordinate with international partners. As the legislative process unfolds, the industry’s ability to demonstrate robust developer governance and clear asset-handling practices will be central to achieving a stable regulatory environment that supports legitimate innovation while protecting investors and consumers.

Closing perspective: The convergence of developer protections with market-structure reform signals a pivotal moment for policy specificity in crypto regulation. Watch for floor votes, potential amendments, and how regulators translate these proposals into enforceable rules that affect licensing, custody, and the treatment of open-source code in practice.