The House Agriculture Committee urged President Donald Trump to nominate four new commissioners to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), warning that the agency is not well-equipped to execute its expanded mandate with a single member. In a joint letter, Committee Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson and Ranking Member Angie Craig pressed for a full bipartisan five-member panel to join CFTC Chair Michael Selig, who has served as the agency’s sole commissioner since December after a wave of departures. The letter argues that a complete five-member commission would better serve the public and markets by delivering more durable regulations and by reflecting the divergent views of key derivatives market stakeholders.

The CFTC operates with roughly 543 full-time employees, a staffing level dwarfed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which employs about 4,200. This disparity underscores the challenge of enforcing a broader mandate in a resource-constrained agency, even as congressional timelines push for greater regulatory reach in crypto markets.

Related: Ethics remain sticking point as crypto market structure bill goes to markup

Key takeaways

• The Agriculture Committee calls for filling four vacancies to create a five-member, bipartisan CFTC alongside Chair Selig, arguing that a fuller board would lead to more balanced regulation and increased regulatory durability.
• Legislative momentum around the CLARITY Act continues, with the Senate Banking Committee voting 15–9 to advance the bill. The measure would grant the CFTC sweeping new authority over spot digital commodity trading, complementing the House’s prior passage of a companion bill with broad support (294–135).
• The push for expanded CFTC powers comes amid ongoing legal disputes and questions about how a potentially larger mandate would be implemented, including regulatory actions in the area of prediction markets and non-custodial software development.
• Staffing constraints at the CFTC heighten the significance of any expansion, given the agency’s current headcount versus the size of the agencies it may regulate, and the need for robust rulemaking processes.

Bipartisan push for a full CFTC slate amid expanding duties

In the opening salvo of a renewed push for stronger governance, the committee emphasized that a five-member commission would better serve the public, the markets, and the agency itself. The letter contends that a complete panel would produce better regulations, more durable rules, and greater sensitivity to the diverse viewpoints of derivatives market participants. The appeal comes as the agency contends with an expanded remit that could reshape how spot digital commodities are overseen, a scope previously reserved for broader legislative action.

The five-member configuration is not merely a formal prorogation of authority; it represents a recalibration of how regulatory priorities are set and how nonpartisan checks and balances are applied to the CFTC’s rulemaking, enforcement, and market-supervision roles. With Selig serving as the agency’s lone commissioner since December, the committee argued that the public, markets, and the agency would benefit from a collegial, bipartisan board capable of sustaining durable, well-vetted rules through shifting market dynamics.

According to Cointelegraph, the letter frames the request within a broader context of regulatory readiness, warning that critical rulemaking—especially under an expanded federal mandate—requires a full commission to ensure robust deliberation and cross-cutting oversight across market segments. The administration’s response to this request could influence the tempo of regulatory reform across the U.S. derivatives landscape.

Legislative momentum: CLARITY Act and its regulatory implications

The day after the Agriculture Committee’s letter, the Senate Banking Committee advanced the CLARITY Act by a 15–9 vote. The bill would assign the CFTC sweeping authority over spot digital commodity trading, a major shift in federal oversight for crypto markets. The House had already passed its own version of the bill last July with broad bipartisan support (294 votes in favor).

As outlined by supporters, the CLARITY Act would significantly expand the Commission’s jurisdiction and would necessitate an extensive rulemaking process to implement new requirements across a rapidly evolving market structure. The administration has signaled an openness to a bipartisan slate of nominees to accompany any legislative expansion, though formal nominations beyond Chair Selig had not yet been made at the time of reporting. Bloomberg reported in January that the White House was weighing a bipartisan slate of nominees for the CFTC, signaling an intention to balance regulatory agility with governance standards.

The combination of a larger statutory mandate and a five-member CFTC could accelerate rulemaking cycles and create new compliance benchmarks for market participants, including exchanges, banks, and crypto firms. For policymakers and compliance professionals, the alignment of executive nominations with legislative action will be a key determinant of how quickly, and how robustly, such reforms are implemented.

Under this evolving framework, the CFTC’s approach to market structure, transparency in trading venues, and the treatment of spot digital assets would come under intensified scrutiny. The push is not only about extending authority but ensuring that rulemaking keeps pace with technological innovation and the practical realities faced by regulated entities and their counterparties.

Prediction markets, interstate jurisdiction, and legal risk

The committee’s concerns extend to the CFTC’s ongoing involvement in prediction markets and the challenges posed by intergovernmental jurisdictional questions. The agency has pursued litigation aimed at asserting its jurisdiction over prediction-market activities, leading to a series of state-level lawsuits as it sought to formalize its stance on non-custodial software developers and related platforms. In this space, the CFTC’s single-commissioner posture has drawn particular attention, given the heightened risk of legal challenges to regulatory actions when institutional checks and balances are limited.

According to Cointelegraph, the CFTC has initiated litigation against five states—Wisconsin, New York, Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois—to assert federal oversight over certain prediction-market activities. The legal limelight on these cases underscores the unsettled regulatory terrain in which the agency operates and the potential for cross-border or cross-state friction as the agency expands its reach. These disputes illustrate the practical implications of policy choices, especially as lawmakers weigh centralized federal supervision against state-level experimentation in financial innovation and online commerce.

Beyond prediction markets, the broader question remains: how will a larger CFTC with more personnel and broader authority navigate the interplay between federal rules, state enforcement, and the evolving landscape of non-custodial technologies and digital asset services? The answers will bear on how exchanges, market-makers, and technology providers structure their compliance programs and how they engage with regulators across jurisdictions.

As the regulatory environment evolves, industry participants should monitor not only nomination developments for the five-seat CFTC but also the progress of the CLARITY Act through Congress and the administration’s engagement with nominees and rulemaking timelines. The convergence of legislative momentum and executive governance will shape the pace and direction of federal oversight in cryptocurrency markets and related derivatives.

Closing perspective: The coming months will reveal whether the administration can assemble a bipartisan CFTC slate and how quickly Congress can translate expanded authority into concrete rules. For institutions navigating the crypto regulatory landscape, the priority is to track nominations, legislative milestones, and the evolving posture of prediction-market enforcement across states, as these factors will influence compliance planning, licensing considerations, and cross-border regulatory alignment.

As investors worry about all of the companies that AI will wipe out, they are rotating into the ones that AI will have a harder time disrupting. And the HALO trade, as it is called, is working.

HALO, which stands for “heavy assets, low obsolescence,” was coined by Josh Brown, co-founder and CEO of Ritholtz Wealth Management, in February, premised on the idea that an era of rapid AI disruption requires a search by investors for companies that are immune to it. In Brown’s view, it is one of the most important investment trends of the year.

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have both incorporated HALO into their investment research in 2026 as HALO stocks are doing well across the board. Some of the stocks cited by Brown are examples: FedEx and ExxonMobil are both up close to 30% since the beginning of the year, while Coca-Cola is up close to 17%.

HALO companies share two traits, according to Dave Mazza, CEO of Roundhill Investments, whose firm launched an ET based on the HALO theme last week. These stocks require meaningful hard physical assets in order to generate revenue, and they are durable. While AI may change how work gets done at low obsolescence companies, it does not eliminate the need for work at them, according an article he wrote on the topic. For example, electricity has to flow and goods have to get produced.

The Roundhill Halo ETF (LOHA) launched on Thursday. The fund tracks an index that screens the largest listed U.S. companies for businesses whose value is focused in physical assets and infrastructure AI can not replace, from sectors including industrials to transportation and mining.

“There’s nothing you could type into an LLM, that’s going to change what they do, at least not in a negative way. They’re probably all beneficiaries of AI,” said Brown on CNBC’s “Halftime Report” on Thursday to discuss the new ETF.

He joined Roundhill on a limited advisory basis after learning the firm was building the product. “I spoke to these guys shortly after they filed. And I said we could do a deal together, or maybe a lawsuit. I don’t know, what do you want to do?” Brown said. He added that he has known the firm’s founders for many years.

Some of the top holdings in the LOHA ETF include Cummins, AutoZone, TFI International, CSX, JB Hunt, and Lennox. “Some of them are 100-years-old,” Brown said, adding that represents a notable flip side to the increasingly visible part of the market where names like Adobe, ServiceNow, and Salesforce have drifted to 52-week lows while investors reassess software companies’ exposure to AI disruption.

Roundhill recently had a huge hit with the launch of its Memory ETF (DRAM) on April 2, which according to VettaFi, hit $9.8 billion in assets in 43 days, the fastest-ever for an ETF. The fund is up 85% since its launch, but Mazza pushed back against the idea that the launch of an ETF was in some way the sign of a top in a thematic trade. “I think it’s a little bit easy just to say that because you’re launching an ETF, it means a trade’s over,” Mazza said on “Halftime Report.”

“In fact, I think it’s actually unlocking the potential for investors to access stocks that they haven’t had before,” he said.

Brown said Roundhill’s new ETF based on the HALO theme isn’t a bet against AI, but a way to stay invested in a world that is being changed by it. “Let’s not be invested in the most disruptible companies. Let’s look for the companies that are AI resistant,” he said.

Disclaimer

Warsh takes the helm as market and policy questions mount

Kevin Warsh was confirmed this week as the 11th chair of the Federal Reserve in a 54-45 Senate vote, ending a contentious transition and setting the stage for a potentially different policy posture at the central bank. The confirmation was unusually partisan, and comes after a delay that followed an inquiry into his predecessor. Jerome Powell will remain on the Board of Governors, marking the first time in roughly 75 years that a former chair has continued as a voting governor.

What it means for crypto: Warsh has previously described bitcoin as a form of digital gold for younger investors and has signaled skepticism toward central bank digital currencies while voicing support for private stablecoin frameworks. Those views offer a degree of structural validation for the industry. At the same time, several committee members have signaled that rate hikes remain on the table, and Warsh inherits an environment where cuts are not yet priced in by markets. Less accommodative monetary policy tends to compress liquidity across risk assets, and bitcoin, which has recently traded like a risk asset, may be vulnerable to those dynamics in the near term.

Markets will be watching Warsh’s first Federal Open Market Committee meeting, scheduled for June 16-17, for early clues about the new chair’s approach to inflation, employment, and market liquidity.

Senate committee advances Clarity Act, but path to passage remains uncertain

The Senate Banking Committee voted 15-9 to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a comprehensive market-structure bill that would reshape how US authorities regulate crypto trading venues and stablecoins. The measure proposes several notable changes: it seeks a jurisdictional split between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, mandates 1:1 stablecoin backing in high-quality, short-duration Treasury instruments, and creates a registration pathway for digital commodity exchanges.

Legislative hurdles: The bill still must be reconciled with a parallel text in the Senate Agriculture Committee, and significant points of contention remain—most prominently an ethics provision that would restrict public officials from profiting from crypto holdings. The White House has signaled it favors broad ethics rules but objects to provisions that single out the president. Final passage would also require overcoming the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, meaning bipartisan support will be essential.

If enacted, the Clarity Act would reduce regulatory uncertainty around market infrastructure and stablecoins, potentially easing compliance pathways for exchanges and issuers. However, the bill faces opposition from institutions worried about stablecoin yield provisions and from law enforcement and labor groups concerned about illicit finance and financial stability risks. Those debates will shape the bill’s final form.

THORChain suspends operations after suspected $10M exploit

THORChain halted trading on Friday after detecting a suspected exploit that the protocol estimates at about $10 million, affecting assets across Bitcoin, Ethereum, BNB Smart Chain and Base. Two addresses linked to the theft were identified and the native token RUNE declined roughly 15% on the news.

This is the latest incident in a history of security and solvency challenges for the cross-chain protocol: THORChain suspended its ThorFi lending operations earlier this year amid significant defaulted obligations, and last fall the protocol’s founder reported funds drained from a personal wallet. On-chain analysis cited by the protocol indicates unusually high weekly volume—approximately $394 million in daily throughput—driven in part by activity tied to laundering from a prior breach.

Broader implications: Cross-chain bridges and swap mechanisms remain prime attack surfaces in decentralized finance. The very mechanisms that enable seamless asset flows between chains also expand the avenues for exploitation and money movement following thefts. THORChain’s recurring incidents highlight the trade-offs between permissionless interoperability and operational resilience, and they are likely to attract heightened scrutiny from users, counterparties and regulators until technical details are disclosed and remediation steps are completed.

AI-assisted research cracks Apple M5 protections, underscoring rising software risk

Security researchers at startup Calif reported using a preview of Anthropic’s Claude Mythos to accelerate development of a kernel exploit that bypassed Apple’s Memory Integrity Enforcement on M5 silicon, escalating from an unprivileged user to root on macOS 26 in under a week. The team delivered a 55-page technical report to Apple in person. According to the researchers, Mythos identified candidate kernel vulnerabilities quickly, while human engineers designed the bypass and exploit chain.

Project Glasswing, Anthropic’s program for enterprise partners, has placed Mythos with select organizations including Apple, major cloud providers and security firms. In controlled testing cited by Anthropic, Mythos identified hundreds of vulnerabilities in large software targets and completed simulated multi-stage cyberattacks.

Why crypto stakeholders should care: The incident illustrates how advanced generative AI tools can compress vulnerability discovery timelines. For crypto, that raises pressure on software wallet providers, custodial services and smart-contract audit practices. While hardware-level protections and transaction-signing isolation can limit exposure, the security community increasingly argues that defenses will need to shift toward hardware-backed and multi-layered approaches if AI continues to accelerate exploit development.

Takeaway: This week combined major policy developments with fresh reminders of operational risk. Warsh’s confirmation and the Clarity Act’s committee progress could reduce regulatory uncertainty over time, but monetary policy and the bill’s final form will materially affect market liquidity and institutional participation. At the same time, repeated DeFi exploits and the advent of AI-accelerated vulnerability research increase the imperative for robust security standards and for market infrastructure that can withstand faster, more automated threat actors. Investors and infrastructure providers should monitor the June FOMC meeting, the Senate’s legislative calendar, and ongoing technical disclosures from THORChain and the security research community for signals on risk and resilience.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin has gained 25% from recent lows despite rising yields and Middle East tensions signaling notable strength.
• Bitcoin ETFs reached a new all-time high in AUM and holders, reflecting sustained institutional accumulation over time.
• The Bitcoin-to-Gold RSI hit its lowest reading ever, with prior similar readings each preceding the start of a bull market.
• Analysts warn new lows would invalidate the 200-week MA, a level only breached in 2022 amid FTX and Luna collapses.

Bitcoin continues to hold above key support levels despite broader market volatility. As of writing, BTC trades at $78,235.79, reflecting a 0.47% gain in 24 hours.

Weekly performance shows a 3.20% decline, yet analysts argue the broader picture tells a different story. Crypto analyst Michaël van de Poppe notes that Bitcoin’s behavior since recent geopolitical tensions began points more toward underlying strength than weakness.

Bitcoin Holds Ground as Macro Pressures Mount

Bitcoin is up 25% from its recent lows, which formed when Middle East tensions escalated alongside rising bond yields.

That kind of recovery, under those conditions, is not typical of a weakening asset. Most risk assets struggled during that same period, making Bitcoin’s rebound stand out considerably.

Van de Poppe pointed out that Bitcoin losing the 21-day moving average does not confirm a downtrend toward new lows.

The asset is still trading above $76,000, which he considers a show of resilience. A CME gap sitting at $79,100 also remains a near-term reference point for traders.

The analyst further suggested the recent sell-off may stem from a concentrated correction tied to Strategy’s dividend data.

This would make it a technical event rather than a change in market direction. That distinction matters when assessing whether momentum has genuinely shifted.

Rising yields have historically triggered sharp Bitcoin corrections. However, this time, markets have not reacted with the same degree of panic. That measured response, according to van de Poppe, adds weight to the bullish case.

ETF Inflows and On-Chain Data Support a Longer-Term Outlook

Bitcoin ETFs have reached a new all-time high in both assets under management and total holders. This reflects sustained institutional participation rather than speculative retail activity.

Van de Poppe noted that so-called “smart money” continues to accumulate, while retail participants and early OGs are the ones reducing exposure.

The Bitcoin-to-Gold ratio recently recorded its lowest RSI reading in history. Looking back, the three closest comparable readings all preceded the start of bull markets, not bear markets. That data point alone carries weight for traders studying long-term cycles.

For Bitcoin to confirm a bear market, it would need to invalidate the 200-week moving average. That level has held through every major correction except 2022, when FTX and Luna collapsed and triggered a systemic CeFi crisis. No comparable structural failures are present in today’s market.

Van de Poppe acknowledged that a test of the $70,000 level remains possible. Still, he maintains that new lows are unlikely given current conditions.

The combination of ETF growth, macro resilience, and historical RSI data all point toward continuation rather than capitulation.

TLDR:

• Justoken has tokenized over $2 billion in real electricity production as digital assets on the XRP Ledger.
• Every tokenized asset transaction on XRPL requires XRP for fees, generating constant and measurable network demand.
• New accounts and trust lines formed around tokenized energy assets lock XRP reserves, reducing circulating supply.
• XRP serves as a bridge asset on XRPL’s native DEX, routing liquidity for tokenized electricity trades and settlements.

XRP Ledger has reached a new milestone in real-world asset tokenization. Justoken has placed over $2 billion worth of electricity production onto the XRPL blockchain.

The tokenized assets represent physical energy flowing through power grids. This move turns real energy output into tradable digital financial instruments.

The development creates measurable, ongoing demand for XRP across multiple network functions.

Justoken Brings Physical Energy Assets to XRPL

Justoken has converted real electricity production into digital assets on the XRP Ledger. These are not synthetic instruments or yield-bearing DeFi products.

They represent actual energy generated and distributed through physical power infrastructure. Each tokenized unit carries genuine economic value tied to real-world commodity output.

As X Finance Bull noted in a recent post, “Over $2 billion in electricity is now tokenized on XRP Ledger. Not crypto. Not DeFi yield. Electricity.”

The statement draws attention to the nature of the asset class involved. Energy tokenization at this scale moves XRPL beyond speculative use cases. It positions the network as infrastructure for commodity markets.

Every transaction involving these tokenized assets requires XRP to cover network fees. Issuing, moving, trading, settling, and managing tokens each consume a fraction of XRP.

With $2 billion in tokenized electricity on the network, transactional activity generates constant fee-based demand. That demand is ongoing and tied directly to commodity market activity.

New accounts created to hold or manage these assets also require XRP reserves. More companies, brokers, and settlement wallets mean more accounts.

Each account locks a set amount of XRP just to exist on the ledger. This reserve mechanism removes XRP from circulation with every new market participant.

Trust Lines and Liquidity Routing Drive XRP Demand Further

XRPL tokens operate through a system called trust lines. Each trust line between two parties requires XRP to be held as a reserve.

Thousands of trust lines are expected to form around $2 billion in tokenized energy assets. Each one locks additional XRP in reserve, reducing the circulating supply.

Beyond reserves, the native decentralized exchange on XRPL creates further demand. XRP functions as a bridge asset within payment paths and exchange routes.

When tokenized electricity is traded or settled, liquidity often routes through XRP. This places XRP at the center of commodity-linked financial flows.

The bridge asset function becomes more active as tokenized asset volume grows. More trading pairs, more settlement routes, and more financing activity all pass through XRP.

This is a structural demand driver built into the protocol itself. It operates independently of market sentiment or speculative cycles.

X Finance Bull summarized it directly: “This is not a partnership announcement. This is $2 billion in real-world commodity value creating measurable, ongoing demand for XRP.”

The tokenization of physical energy on XRPL marks a shift in how blockchain infrastructure connects to traditional commodity markets.

USDC users are again asking whether Circle should offer a clearer recovery process for mistaken token transfers. 

The debate followed posts from users who said they sent USDC to addresses or contracts they could not access.

One user, Weilin Li, asked on X whether Circle provides a service similar to Tether’s token recovery process after sending USDC to a self-deployed contract. 

Blockchain investigator ZachXBT replied that recovery may be technically possible in some cases involving native USDC, but he also criticized Circle’s approach. His comment was an opinion posted on X, not an official finding.

Circle terms warn transfers can be final

Circle’s USDC terms state that once a transaction has been initiated, it cannot be reversed, except as set out in the terms. The company also says USDC transactions are generally nonrefundable. 

The same terms warn that sending USDC to a wallet or address that does not support USDC can lead to permanent loss. Circle also says it bears no responsibility for losses from sending USDC to unsupported addresses.

Circle still has address control tools in some cases. Its terms say the company may block certain USDC addresses and freeze related USDC if it links the address to illegal activity or a breach of its rules. Circle also says USDC follows its blocklisting policy. 

Tether recovery policy draws comparison

Tether’s official recovery page says Tether token recovery is a process for returning mistakenly deposited Tether tokens. The page warns that sending tokens to the wrong destination can still cause a total loss.

Tether says it may try to help in specific cases at its sole discretion. Its examples include certain contracts that do not correctly support withdrawals, token operation contracts, or other destinations Tether decides may be recoverable.

That difference is central to the current debate. Users are not asking for normal blockchain transfers to be reversed. They are asking whether a stablecoin issuer can freeze trapped tokens and reissue new tokens after identity checks and proof of error.

Crypto.news data shows different issuer behavior

Crypto.news reported that Tether froze about $3.3 billion between 2023 and 2025, compared with about $109 million frozen by Circle. The report said Tether used a freeze, burn, and reissue model in some cases, while Circle mainly acted under court or regulatory orders. 

A later report said Tether froze over $514 million USDT across 370 addresses in 30 days, with its 2025 blacklist total reaching $1.26 billion.

Circle has also faced criticism from ZachXBT in other cases. Crypto.news reported in April that he accused Circle of failing to freeze stolen USDC during the Drift Protocol exploit.

TLDR:

• OpenAI raised $4B to launch a consulting firm competing directly with Deloitte, PwC, and Ernst & Young
• Anthropic countered with a $1.5B consulting venture backed by Blackstone and Goldman Sachs within weeks
• Goldman Sachs reports software P/E multiples fell to 20x, the lowest absolute reading recorded since 2014
• 88% of organizations running AI agents reported at least one security incident over the past twelve months

The enterprise software sector is undergoing a structural shift as artificial intelligence reshapes how businesses buy and deploy technology.

Valuations across public SaaS companies have declined sharply, with 90% of stocks trading 30–80% below their 52-week highs.

Meanwhile, leading AI labs are moving beyond model development into hands-on consulting. The combined moves signal a broader realignment of where value is created in the software industry.

Low-End SaaS Tools Are Being Replaced by AI Workflows

The first segment to feel the pressure has been lightweight, single-function software products. Tools priced around $49 per seat per month are losing ground to AI agents that replicate their functions automatically.

Businesses no longer purchase a dedicated tool for a narrow task — they describe what they need, and AI builds and executes it.

Milk Road AI noted on X that “the low end of the market is basically finished,” citing investor Chamath Palihapitiya’s recent diagnosis of the sector.

The seat-based pricing model that built the SaaS industry does not translate to this new transaction type. As a result, the economic foundation of many small business software products is eroding.

Goldman Sachs data reflects the broader damage. Software forward price-to-earnings multiples dropped from 35x to 20x — the lowest level since 2014.

That multiple is also the smallest premium to the S&P 500 since 2010, pointing to a sector-wide reassessment of growth prospects.

Mid-market point solutions without proprietary data assets face a similar trajectory. Products that lack defensible data flywheels or deep vertical integration are increasingly vulnerable to displacement by general-purpose AI systems.

AI Labs Are Now Competing Directly With Top Consulting Firms

At the high end of the market, the challenge is different — but no less serious. OpenAI recently raised $4 billion from investors including TPG, Brookfield, Bain, and McKinsey to launch a consulting division. The venture targets direct competition with firms like Deloitte, PwC, Ernst & Young, and Accenture.

The structure of the deal is notable. Investors were guaranteed a 17.5% annual return — roughly $700 million per year — from a company projected to lose $14 billion in 2026.

The move came after OpenAI’s enterprise LLM market share dropped from 50% to 25% between late 2023 and mid-2025, with Anthropic rising to 32%.

Anthropic responded almost immediately with a competing $1.5 billion consulting venture, backed by Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, and Hellman & Friedman.

Together, the two labs committed $5.5 billion to human-powered enterprise deployment within a single month. The scale of that spending reflects how difficult real-world AI implementation remains.

Data supports that difficulty. Some 88% of organizations running AI agents reported a security incident in the past year.

Additionally, 42% of C-suite executives said AI adoption is generating internal organizational conflict. Average year-one implementation costs through consulting run $228,000 — nearly three times the platform-based alternative.