MAPO, the native token of the Map Protocol, fell 96% on Wednesday after an exploit of the Butter Network cross-chain bridge, which allowed an attacker to mint a quadrillion MAPO tokens.

The malicious mint was tens of thousands of times larger than the legitimate supply of tokens, sending the value of MAPO from around $0.003 to $0.0001 in a matter of hours, according to CoinGecko. 

The attacker used a new externally-owned account (EOA) to dump around a billion MAPO tokens, draining about 52 ETH, worth about $180,000, from Uniswap liquidity pools while retaining nearly a trillion tokens that continue to threaten other pools and potential exchange listings, reported Blockaid on Wednesday.

This latest exploit comes during a month in which at least 18 DeFi and blockchain protocols have been compromised, including THORChain, Verus Protocol’s Ethereum bridge, Transit Finance, TrustedVolumes, Ekubo, Echo Protocol and RetoSwap. 

Map Protocol said the bug was in the Solidity contract layer, and it has paused the mainnet and has begun migration while the investigation continues. The Butter Network said it has paused ButterSwap, adding that user funds were not at risk. 

In its latest post, the Map Protocol project said it would announce a new contract address and select an appropriate time to conduct an asset snapshot. “Any remaining tokens held by attacker-controlled addresses will be fully invalidated and will not be included in any future snapshot or conversion process,” it said. 

A billion MAPO tokens were sent to Uniswap after a quadrillion tokens were minted. Source: Etherscan

The MAPO attacker first sent a legitimate oracle multisig-signed message before deploying a malicious contract at a specific address. The attacker then resent a modified “retry” message that appeared identical in hash but was actually fake. The cross-chain bridge verified it as valid and executed the massive token mint.

No private keys were stolen, and no light clients were broken; it was a classic Solidity vulnerability involving multiple dynamic fields, Blockaid explained. 

Related: GitHub investigates unauthorized access to internal repositories

Map Protocol is an omnichain network for swapping Bitcoin, stablecoins and tokenized assets across blockchains, connecting the Bitcoin mainnet with ecosystems such as Ethereum, BNB Chain, Tron and Solana.

TON-TAC issues a post-mortem for $2.7 million exploit 

Meanwhile, the TON-TAC asset bridge, a cross-chain bridge designed as a network extension for The Open Network, issued a post-mortem on Thursday detailing its $2.68 million exploit that occurred on May 11.

It adds to a wave of cross-chain bridge exploits over the past few weeks, including the Verus-Ethereum Bridge, Echo Bridge, and Butter Network’s cross-chain bridge. 

The “security incident” stemmed from missing validation in the sequencer software, which accepted a counterfeit wallet on TON that lacked proper code-hash and minter checks, leading to another unauthorized token mint. 

Recovery efforts secured about 80% of the affected assets, but the bridge remains paused for an independent audit of the patched sequencer and liquidity restoration, it added.

Magazine: DeFi’s billion-dollar secret: The insiders responsible for hacks

US-based exchange-traded funds tied to HYPE recorded a 50% trading volume jump on Wednesday, in a rare move for newly debuted ETFs, according to analysts. 

Two Hyperliquid (HYPE) ETFs from issuers Bitwise and 21Shares have recorded nearly $41 million in total value traded since their launches earlier this month, with trading volumes increasing since their debuts, according to SoSoValue.

Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas said in an X post Wednesday that such trading increases for ETFs are “very rare,” and many normally record a “big splash [on] day one then drop off OR oblivion for months until [people] notice it. Rare to build in first week like this.”

Balchunas pinned the ETFs’ growth on a “perfectly timed launch as EVERYTHING (stocks, bonds, gold, btc [Bitcoin], cryptos) is down lately except the HYPE.”

Source: Eric Balchunas

The Hyperliquid token has gained 120% so far this year and is up 18.5% in the past day to $56, according to CoinGecko. Traders have flocked to the token and the platform, with some analysts viewing it as the next trendy crypto play because it has captured a large portion of the crypto perpetual futures market.

Over the past year, the S&P 500 has gained 8.6%, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 has gained 16%, while Bitcoin has fallen 11%. 

It comes a day after Bitwise, one of two issuers of a US-based HYPE ETF, said traders had mispriced HYPE, arguing the platform is more than just a crypto exchange, but a “super-app” encompassing multiple asset classes.

Related: Hyperliquid eyes 55% price rise after Silicon Valley investor’s ‘massive HYPE buy’

21Shares was the first to launch a HYPE fund in the US, launching its 21Shares Hyperliquid ETF (THYP) on May 12 and drawing $1.2 million in net inflows, far below other altcoin ETF launches such as those for Solana staking. 

The Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF (BHYP) debuted later that week on May 14 to $750,000 in net inflows, 

The two ETFs recorded their highest day of net inflows Wednesday, with a combined $25.5 million in net inflows. The 21Shares ETF recorded $16.6 million, while Bitwise’s ETF recorded $8.8 million. 

Crypto asset manager Grayscale also filed for a Hyperliquid ETF in March, with the planned fund currently being processed by US regulators.

The X account Lookonchain said on Wednesday that two wallets linked to Grayscale had purchased $25 million worth of HYPE over the past week and staked it, but it is not known if the move is tied to the company’s planned ETF.

Magazine: Metric signals $250K Bitcoin is ‘best case,’ SOL, HYPE tipped for gains: Trade Secrets

The US securities regulator is delaying the launch of a recent wave of “novel ETFs,” including those that allow investors to bet on the outcome of events, to consider the implications of introducing the new products. 

In a statement on Wednesday, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said that “novel products raise novel questions” and instructed his staff to seek public feedback on how the regulator should respond to these applications. 

Bitwise filed in February for a series of prediction market ETFs under the PredictionShares brand to track US election results, while Roundhill Investments and GraniteShares also filed for prediction market ETFs that month. 

Prediction markets have become one of crypto’s hottest use cases over the past 18 months and now consistently record more than $15 billion in monthly trading volume across markets spanning from sports and elections to financial results and cultural events. 

A prediction market ETF would give investors a way to gain exposure to these binary event contracts directly through a traditional brokerage account. The journey mimics the institutionalization of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH), which have seen billions in inflows into their respective crypto ETFs. 

Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas said the SEC is “clearly wrestling” with how to handle the new asset class, similar to how it navigated issues with spot crypto ETFs before approving them in January 2024. 

The SEC wants to feel comfortable with prediction market ETFs before they “open the barn door,” Balchunas said.

Source: Eric Balchunas

The decision to delay the applications also comes as prediction market platforms like Kalshi continue to face court challenges in several US state courts. 

SEC has been more open to innovative ideas

Atkins said ETFs have been a “major driver” of innovation in the securities markets, boosting capital and broadening investor choice while noting that ETF assets have tripled since 2019.

Related: Trump-backed Truth Social pulls bids for crypto ETFs 

The SEC has shown more flexibility in approving innovative products in recent years, particularly after introducing the generic listing standard model in September and replacing the process of reviewing applications on a case-by-case basis.

Meanwhile, the SEC is reportedly considering creating an “innovation exemption” to allow tokenized stock trading, which would put versions of Apple (AAPL), Nvidia (NVDA), Tesla (TSLA) and other stocks on crypto rails.

Magazine: 5 tech predictions the mainstream media got horribly wrong

Prop trading firms weigh building custom technology versus licensing ready-made infrastructure in 2026.

The proprietary trading industry has gone from a niche segment to a multibillion-dollar industry in a few years. With that growth comes a question every new operator faces early: Should they build a prop firm technology from scratch, or license a proven system and go live faster?

The answer depends on where the user wants to spend their time and capital. Getting it wrong is one of the most expensive mistakes an operator can make.

The case for building from scratch

Building a prop technology stack gives full control over every part of the business. Operators can design custom risk engines, shape the trader experience from onboarding to payout, and own the underlying code exclusively. For firms with deep technical talent and a genuine technology edge, this path can set a firm apart over time.

The trade-offs are significant. A custom build typically requires 6 to 12 months of development before a single trader logs in. The upfront investment frequently exceeds $500,000 when factoring in engineering, QA, platform integrations, payment gateway development, and risk detection systems. Ongoing maintenance, security patches, and other updates add recurring costs that add up as the firm scales.

The real risk is much subtler than the price tag. Custom builds carry delivery risk. Timelines can slip, and features tend to go live unfinished. Every week spent debugging a checkout flow or reconciling a payout ledger is a week the firm is not getting traders or generating revenue.

The case for licensing

White-label solutions have matured exponentially in recent years. A modern licensed stack typically includes: trader dashboards, CRM, challenge management, risk monitoring, KYC workflows, payment processing, and capital backing. Meanwhile, operators retain full control of their brand and customer relationships while the tech provider handles the backend.

The primary advantage is speed. Firms using a licensed approach can go live in as little as one week, compared to months spent on a custom build. That speed translates directly into earlier revenue, faster market validation, and lower capital burn during the critical launch window.

Licensing also shifts capital exposure. Because most turnkey providers handle funded account backing, the operator does not need to personally underwrite trader payouts. This changes the risk profile of the business entirely, particularly for first-time operators who may underestimate how quickly payout liability can grow during a strong trading month.

The crypto factor

The rise of crypto trading has accelerated this decision. Operators need systems that handle crypto payments, high-volume onboarding, and risk monitoring across asset classes. Building that from scratch adds months. Licensing it removes the complexity without limiting the offer.

Where operators get it wrong

The most common mistake is treating the tech decision as a permanent one. Firms often start licensed, validate their model, and only build custom once they know which components justify the investment. Building everything from day one, before there is real traction, has ended more prop firms than bad marketing.

A second common failure point is payment processing. Firms that build their own payment layer without expertise in chargeback management and multi-rail redundancy often find this part more costly than the rest of the stack combined.

According to Grand View Research, the global algorithmic trading market was valued at $21.06 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $42.99 billion by 2030, growing at a 12.9% compound annual growth rate. More entrepreneurs are entering the prop firm space as a result. The firms that scale will spend capital on what sets them apart, not replicating what already exists.

Choosing the right path

Operators entering the industry in 2026 should evaluate their launch path against three criteria: time to revenue, total cost of ownership, and the operational burden each option places on a team.

Licensing the backend and focusing on brand, community, and trader experience is typically the most efficient strategy for new firms entering the market. Some providers, including PropAccount.com, offer turnkey prop firm solutions with integrated payment processing and capital support, enabling faster market entry and eliminating the need for complex in-house development. 

The strategic question is not whether a firm can build the technology. It is whether building is the strongest use of that capital.

AI Financial, formerly known as Alt5 Sigma, wants the market to know that it’s more than just its WLFI$0.06205 token holdings, and calling it a WLFI treasury company isn’t the right way to describe it.

“AiFi continues to operate an active fintech and digital payments business while executing on a broader long-term strategy across digital assets, settlement infrastructure, tokenization, and next-generation financial technologies,” a company spokesperson told CoinDesk in an email. “Characterizing the company solely as a ‘treasury company’ does not accurately reflect the breadth of AiFi’s operating business.”

AI Financial operates ALT5 Pay, its crypto payments platform, and ALT5 Prime, its over-the-counter digital asset trading business. Since quarter-end, it has also announced the acquisition of tokenization and ICO infrastructure firm Block Street, signed a commercial agreement with SuperQ Quantum, and outlined broader expansion into digital financial infrastructure.

The response from the spokesperson comes after AI Financial’s latest SEC filing painted a starkly different picture of its current financial profile.

The Nasdaq-listed company disclosed in this filing that it held 7.28 billion WLFI tokens, worth $706.4 million at the end of March, down from an acquisition cost of roughly $1.46 billion. By comparison, its operating fintech business generated just $4.7 million in quarterly revenue.

AI Financial also warned in this filing that recurring losses and a $5.5 million working capital deficit raise “substantial doubt” about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the financial statements were issued.

Complicating the picture further, the company’s WLFI holdings remain contractually locked, limiting its ability to convert its largest asset into cash. AI Financial ended the quarter with just $10.5 million in cash.

AI Financial’s relationship with WLFI goes far beyond ownership. World Liberty CEO Zach Witkoff serves as the company’s chairman. Co-founder Zachary Folkman sits on its board; WLFI has lent it $15 million, secured by WLFI tokens, and WLFI holds rights equivalent to roughly 46% of its fully diluted equity.

But the question is, can investors see past WLFI when looking at AI Financial as a whole?

AI Financial may be building a broader fintech and digital infrastructure platform, but its SEC filing suggests WLFI remains the asset defining its financial story.

Unlike a typical digital asset treasury company holding bitcoin or another liquid asset, AI Financial’s relationship with WLFI is more complex: the issuer of its core treasury asset also has deep governance, lending and equity ties to the company itself.

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act just cleared its hardest committee test. If it becomes law, it ends the single most damaging fact of life for American crypto: not knowing who is in charge. But the version that reaches President Trump’s desk will be shaped by three fights still being waged in the Senate, and the outcome of those fights decides who wins and who loses.

The restaurant with two inspectors

Imagine running a restaurant where the health inspector and the fire marshal both insist your kitchen is theirs to police. Neither will put their rules in writing. And if you guess wrong about whose instructions to follow, the penalty is that they shut you down and sue you.

That, more or less, has been the experience of building a crypto company in the United States since around 2017. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have spent the better part of a decade in an unresolved turf war over digital assets, and the industry has lived in the gap between them. Tens of billions of dollars in fines have been paid. Founders have spent years in litigation just to extract an answer that regulators could have written down in advance. Most builders simply gave up and left, for Dubai, Singapore, Switzerland, anywhere a straight answer arrived in less than three years.

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, universally shortened to the CLARITY Act, is Washington’s most serious attempt to end that era. And after months of stalemate, it just took its biggest step forward yet. On May 14, 2026, the Senate Banking Committee voted 15-9 to advance the bill to the Senate floor, with two Democrats crossing party lines to join every Republican on the panel.

That vote was not the finish line. It was the moment the bill stopped being a wishlist and became real legislation with a credible path to law. For anyone who trades, builds, invests in, or simply holds digital assets, the question is no longer whether to pay attention. It’s what, concretely, changes if this thing passes, and what the unresolved fights still being waged in the Senate will mean for the version that actually becomes law.

This is a long answer to that question.

What the bill actually does: three boxes, two regulators

Strip away the acronyms and the 270-plus pages, and the CLARITY Act does one structurally simple thing. It sorts every digital asset into one of three categories and assigns each category to a regulator.

Digital commodities. A token whose value comes from a functioning, sufficiently decentralized blockchain, where the network does something real and the token is the fuel that powers it. Bitcoin and Ether are the obvious cases, and both are widely expected to land here, formalizing what has been their de facto treatment for years. Digital commodities fall under the CFTC.

Investment contract assets. A token is sold the way startup equity is sold, where a centralized team raises money from the public and promises to build something with it. These stay with the SEC, which is where that agency has always had its firmest legal footing.

Permitted payment stablecoins. Dollar-pegged tokens designed to actually move money. These get a separate category with joint SEC and CFTC oversight, building on the GENIUS Act stablecoin framework that passed earlier.

Three boxes. Two regulators. The biggest reduction in legal fog the American crypto industry has ever been offered.

The mechanics behind that simple structure are what make the bill consequential. The CLARITY Act gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over the spot and cash markets for digital commodities, which is a dramatic expansion for an agency that has historically referred to derivatives rather than the underlying assets themselves. Exchanges, brokers, and dealers handling digital commodities would register with the CFTC through a new, purpose-built pathway, instead of trying to force themselves into securities rules written in 1933 and 1934 for a very different kind of asset.

The SEC, in turn, keeps authority over genuine securities offerings. The bill draws a line, in federal statute, between the moment a token is being sold as a fundraising instrument by a centralized team and the moment the underlying network has matured enough that the token trades as a commodity. That maturation test, the question of when a project becomes “decentralized” enough to graduate from SEC to CFTC oversight, is one of the most legally intricate parts of the bill, and one of the most important.

For developers, there’s a provision that may matter more than the jurisdictional sorting itself: protection for people who write open-source code but never have custody of user funds. Under the CLARITY Act, publishing a smart contract would stop being treated as the legal equivalent of running an unlicensed money-transmitting business. For a corner of the industry that has watched developers face personal legal exposure simply for shipping code, this is foundational.

What approval would mean, by who you are

A regulatory framework is not an abstraction. It lands differently depending on where you sit in the ecosystem. Here is the concrete picture.

If you are a developer or founder

The immediate change is the disappearance of a specific, paralyzing fear: that building in the open is itself a legal risk. A clear registration pathway means a US-based project can launch knowing which agency it answers to and what compliance looks like, rather than discovering the answer through an enforcement action two years later.

The decentralization maturity test gives projects something they have never had, which is a roadmap. A token can begin its life under SEC oversight as an investment contract asset and, as its network decentralizes, move into the digital commodity category. That transition used to be a matter of speeches, blog posts, and hope. Putting it into statute means a founder can plan around it.

The likely practical effect is repatriation. A meaningful share of the talent and capital that decamped to friendlier jurisdictions did so for one reason: those places offered a straight answer. Remove that disadvantage, and the math on building in the US changes.

If you are an exchange, broker, or custodian

For the largest US platforms, the bill turns an existential ambiguity into an operational task. Instead of litigating whether the assets they list are securities, exchanges would register with the CFTC and operate under a defined rulebook. The bill includes an expedited registration process and provisional status, so platforms are not frozen out while the CFTC builds its full framework.

This is a double-edged outcome. Clarity is not the same as leniency. A registered exchange will face real, enumerated obligations: custody standards, disclosure requirements, conduct rules, and capital expectations. The era of regulatory vapor ends, but so does the era of regulatory absence. Compliance will have a cost. The industry’s bet is that a known, payable cost beats an unknowable, unbounded legal risk. For most serious operators, that bet is obviously correct.

If you are a retail investor or token holder

The benefits here are real but slower and less glamorous. Defined disclosure requirements for token issuers mean better information before you buy. Custody and conduct rules for registered intermediaries mean more protection for assets you hold on a platform. The legal status of the assets in your wallet becomes a settled question rather than an open one.

There’s also a subtler consequence. A credible US framework is the precondition for the next wave of institutional products, and for traditional financial institutions to offer crypto services to ordinary customers without regulatory peril. Approval doesn’t put crypto in your bank tomorrow. It removes the biggest single obstacle standing between today and that future.

If you hold or use stablecoins

This is where the bill’s politics get sharp, and the detail matters. The compromise negotiated by Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks draws a careful line. Intermediaries, exchanges, for instance, would be prohibited from paying yield on a customer’s idle, passive stablecoin holdings. The intent is explicit: a passive stablecoin balance must not be allowed to function like an interest-bearing bank deposit. But the same provision permits rewards tied to activity, meaning incentives connected to actually spending or using a stablecoin, as long as they don’t resemble passive interest.

If that distinction sounds narrow, it is. It’s also the fault line over which this entire bill nearly collapsed, and it explains a fight covered in the next section.

The three fights that will shape the final bill

The version of the CLARITY Act that passed committee is not the version that will become law. Three contested issues remain open, and each one will shape who benefits and by how much. Anyone trying to understand what approval “means” has to watch these, because the answer is still being written.

Fight one: ethics, and the shadow of the Trump family

This is the single biggest political wedge between the bill and final passage. Many Senate Democrats are demanding an ethics provision barring senior government officials from holding business ties to the crypto industry, a demand driven, unambiguously, by President Trump’s family’s extensive crypto ventures, including the World Liberty Financial project.

Republicans on the Banking Committee declined to include such language in the committee bill, arguing that ethics sits outside the committee’s remit and can be added later by floor amendment. The committee specifically voted down a Democratic ethics amendment. That rejection is the most direct explanation for why most Democrats voted no.

The arithmetic makes this unavoidable. On the Senate floor, the bill needs 60 votes. Assuming every Republican supports it, that means roughly seven Democrats have to come along. Crypto-friendly Democrats, including Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Ruben Gallego, have stated plainly that they won’t provide those votes without an ethics provision. Industry advocates now describe some form of ethics language as “almost all but guaranteed” to be added before a floor vote.

But there’s a counter-pressure pulling the other way. Senator Cynthia Lummis, a key negotiator, warned that the President himself has to sign off, and that if the bill becomes, in her words, a cudgel aimed specifically at him, he’ll veto it without hesitation. The realistic landing zone is therefore an ethics provision strong enough to win seven Democratic votes but weak enough to survive a presidential signature. That’s a narrow target, and where exactly the language lands will tell you a great deal about how seriously the final law treats conflicts of interest.

Fight two: illicit finance and law enforcement

A coalition of law enforcement groups argues the bill doesn’t do enough to stop digital assets from being used in financial crime, and would make catching bad actors harder. The concern gained urgency from a Treasury FinCEN advisory flagging crypto platforms and stablecoins as a channel for sanctioned actors to launder illicit proceeds.

Senators have filed amendments to strengthen anti-money-laundering and sanctions provisions. Backers of the bill counter that it actually strengthens AML and sanctions rules and gives law enforcement better tools. How this gets resolved affects the compliance burden on every registered intermediary, and the bill’s credibility with the national-security-minded senators whose votes are in play.

Fight three: the banks

America’s banking industry is the bill’s most powerful organized opponent, and its objection is

fundamentally about deposits. If stablecoins can pay anything resembling yield, banks fear money will drain out of deposit accounts, the same deposits that fund lending. In the days before the committee vote, bank trade groups reportedly sent more than 8,000 letters to senators demanding revisions. Even after the Tillis-Alsobrooks compromise, banking groups complain the activity-rewards language leaves room for workarounds.

This is not a sideshow. It’s a genuine clash between two financial industries over the future shape of money, and the banks have decades of lobbying infrastructure behind them. The final stablecoin language will be one of the most negotiated paragraphs in the entire bill.

The road from here

Even on an optimistic reading, the CLARITY Act has several gates left to clear.

First, the Senate Banking Committee bill has to be merged with a parallel version produced by the Senate Agriculture Committee, since the two panels share jurisdiction over digital assets, into a single unified text. Industry insiders expect intense negotiation over the next several weeks, and this is the most likely vehicle for inserting the ethics compromise.

Second, the merged bill faces a full Senate floor vote requiring 60 senators.

Third, because the House passed its own version of the CLARITY Act back in July 2025, any Senate- passed bill containing new components, such as the stablecoin yield language, the DeFi provisions, or ethics rules, has to be reconciled with, or accepted by, the House before it can go to the President.

The timeline is genuinely tight. White House officials have floated a target of a signing on or around July 4, 2026. Industry advocates describe an effective “drop-dead deadline” before the August recess, after which the midterm elections and a potentially less crypto-friendly Congress raise the degree of difficulty considerably. Prediction markets have put the odds of passage in 2026 in the rough vicinity of two-in- three, while at least one Wall Street analyst has been more cautious, calling a successful floor vote “in play but not the expected outcome.”

In other words: reachable, not guaranteed.

What it means, in the end

It’s worth being precise about the nature of what is on offer here, because both boosters and skeptics tend to overstate it.

The CLARITY Act is not a gift to the crypto industry. It’s a rulebook. It hands the industry the thing it has asked for over and over, a definitive answer to “who regulates this?”, and the price of that answer is a genuine, enforceable obligation. Exchanges will register. Issuers will disclose. Intermediaries will be examined. For an industry that has at times romanticized its own lawlessness, the deepest meaning of approval is that the era of operating in the absence of rules ends, and the era of operating under them begins.