Bitcoin’s (BTC) risk-adjusted return profile is approaching levels historically aligned with long-term accumulation zones. The Sharpe ratio, a metric that measures return relative to volatility, dropped to -20, a threshold that marked major Bitcoin bottoms in every bear market since 2015. 

At the same time, BTC exchange reserves have fallen by roughly 80,000 BTC since February, while demand from accumulator addresses more than doubled to 240,000 BTC from 115,000 BTC during the first two weeks of June. 

BTC’s Sharpe ratio revisits a historical bottom zone

Bitcoin’s Sharpe ratio reached -20 on June 11, a level that coincided with major cycle lows over the past decade. The metric first dropped below the threshold on Jan. 5, 2015, and remained there until June 12, when BTC established a durable bottom and entered a recovery phase.

A similar pattern emerged between Dec. 8, 2018, and March 7, 2019, when the Sharpe ratio spent most of the three months below -20 during Bitcoin’s bear market floor. The metric repeated the signal from Oct. 7, 2022, through January 7, 2023, shortly before BTC began its next sustained bullish period. 

Bitcoin Sharpe ratio. Source: CryptoQuant

While no single metric identifies market bottoms with precision, periods below -20 have typically coincided with extended accumulation phases for BTC.

Onchain data points in the same direction. Bitcoin held on exchanges has declined to 2.71 million on Monday from 2.79 million BTC in February. BTC exchange reserves briefly rebounded to 2.73 million BTC from a yearly low of 2.65 million BTC between late April and early June, though balances have since fallen by about 12,000 BTC over the past two weeks.

Demand from accumulator addresses has strengthened during the same period. The cohort absorbed 125,000 BTC between June 1 and June 14. This indicates growing interest among wallets that have a history of holding rather than distributing coins.

BTC demand from accumulator addresses. Source: CryptoQuant

Related: Bitcoin’s ‘calm top’ challenges most market bottom estimates: Research

Bitcoin’s consolidation below the key weekly trendline is still developing

Bitcoin has spent 133 consecutive days below its 100-week simple moving average (SMA), a long-term trend indicator currently located near $88,466.

Market cycle data show that Bitcoin often trades below the 100-week SMA for extended periods before reclaiming it. Following the 2013 market peak, BTC spent 378 days below the trendline while consolidating between $200 and $400. During the 2018-2019 bear market, BTC remained below the 100-week SMA for 175 days and traded between $3,000 and $6,000.

BTC price, and 100-period weekly SMA trend analysis. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

The longest stretch occurred after the 2022 market decline. Bitcoin remained below the 100-week SMA for 532 days while trading between $16,000 and $25,000.

Across those three cycles, Bitcoin spent an average of roughly 362 days under the indicator before reclaiming it and establishing a sustained uptrend. Each period was characterized by prolonged accumulation rather than an immediate recovery.

With 133 days already logged below the 100-week SMA, the current cycle is still well below the historical average. Previous examples indicate that consolidation phases beneath the trendline often persist for several more months before Bitcoin reclaims the level.

Related: Bitcoin analysis warns over BTC price rejection as $67K approaches

Defend American Jobs, a crypto-linked political action committee affiliated with Fairshake, has spent more than $4.7 million on media and advertising to back Republican Sen. candidate Barry Moore in Alabama’s Tuesday primary runoff, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings. The spending brings the PAC’s total investment in Moore’s campaign to more than $7.4 million when combined with earlier expenditures reported ahead of the May 20 primary.

Moore is competing in the Alabama runoff for one of the state’s U.S. Senate seats against fellow Republican Jared Hudson. Moore has also received an endorsement from U.S. President Donald Trump. Hudson, meanwhile, has been described by crypto-focused advocacy group Stand With Crypto as “neutral” on crypto policy, while Moore is characterized as “strongly supports crypto.”

Key takeaways

• Defend American Jobs spent over $4.7 million in Alabama runoff media and ads, per FEC filings reviewed as of Tuesday.
• Moore’s campaign support totals more than $7.4 million across the primary and runoff periods, according to the same FEC reporting.
• Stand With Crypto rates Hudson “neutral” on crypto policy and Moore “strongly supports crypto,” citing public statements and voting history.
• Fairshake-aligned PAC spending extends beyond Alabama: similar media buys are tied to Maryland and New York later this month.
• Control of Congress matters for crypto legislation, including the CLARITY Act, which has already passed the House but has faced Senate delays.

Alabama runoff becomes another test for crypto political influence

The Alabama runoff is shaping up as a high-profile benchmark for how aggressively crypto-aligned political groups are willing to deploy capital in closely watched races. In Tuesday’s contest, Defend American Jobs is backing Barry Moore with large-scale media spending, a continuation of the broader strategy Fairshake and its affiliates have used across multiple states.

FEC filings show the PAC’s runoff spending—more than $4.7 million—was aimed at supporting Moore’s Senate bid in Alabama. The same reporting framework indicates the PAC previously spent $7.4 million ahead of the May 20 primary, underscoring that the effort did not slow after the first election round.

Moore’s matchup against Jared Hudson is also notable for the difference in how crypto policy positions are being characterized publicly. Stand With Crypto, a Coinbase-affiliated advocacy organization, rated Hudson “neutral” compared with Moore’s “strongly supports crypto” stance. Those assessments are said to be based on public statements and Moore’s voting record while representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional district.

How each candidate is positioned on crypto policy

Stand With Crypto’s comparison suggests the race is being framed as more than a general party primary—at least in the eyes of crypto political advocates. The group’s assessment points to Moore’s track record as more supportive of crypto than Hudson’s approach.

The article also notes that Hudson publicly acknowledged that “Big Crypto” did not back his candidacy. Still, he has supported a crypto market structure bill being considered in the U.S. Senate, which helps explain why advocacy groups may describe his stance as neutral rather than outright hostile.

For voters and market participants, these distinctions matter because crypto legislation in Washington often turns on committee timelines and floor votes. Even without a candidate being the top “pro-crypto” cheerleader, support for specific bills can influence how legislation advances once Congress moves toward final consideration.

Fairshake-aligned spending schedule: from Alabama to later races

Alabama is not the endpoint for this political spending push. After Tuesday’s vote, Fairshake-aligned PACs are reported to have stakes in Maryland and New York later this month, backing Democrats Adrian Boafo and Ritchie Torres. The reported media buys include about $5 million for the Maryland House race and roughly $500,000 for New York’s House contest.

This broader pattern echoes earlier media buys in other primary states—particularly investments made ahead of Texas and California primaries—suggesting a deliberate cycle of spending that follows sequential election dates.

Other crypto-related political groups are also part of the ecosystem. The Blockchain Leadership Fund, described as a hybrid PAC backed by Anchorage Digital and Chainlink, announced support for Moore in May; however, the reporting indicates that FEC filings showed no related expenditures as of Tuesday. Meanwhile, another PAC, the Fellowship PAC—backed by $11 million from Cantor Fitzgerald and Anchorage—disclosed $350,000 in spending to support Moore’s run.

Taken together, the filings and reported allocations reflect how multiple entities with overlapping objectives can operate in parallel: some groups spend immediately and at scale, while others may announce support without showing expenditures by a specific reporting date.

Why Senate control remains a central issue for crypto markets

Beyond individual races, the stakes highlighted in the report connect directly to the legislative environment in Washington. The article notes that Democrats have been in the minority in both the House and Senate during the current Congress session, while Republicans currently hold a slim majority in both chambers, giving them agenda-setting power.

In this context, the report points to the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act. The bill passed the House in July 2025 but has faced delays in the Senate, with debate reportedly touching on issues such as stablecoin rewards, ethics, and tokenized equities.

The underlying implication is straightforward: if control of Congress shifts—particularly in 2027—crypto-related bills could move faster or face new scrutiny depending on the composition and priorities of committees and leadership.

According to the article, Fairshake had reported holding a $193 million war chest as of January, aligning with the group’s public position that it intends to “oppose anti-crypto politicians and support pro-crypto leaders” through media and advertising. While a war chest does not guarantee legislative outcomes, it often correlates with sustained political engagement during periods when election results can reshape how quickly bills progress.

With Alabama’s runoff decided Tuesday and additional media buys scheduled in Maryland and New York later this month, the next thing investors and election watchers should track is whether these PAC strategies translate into measurable changes in candidate momentum—and, more importantly, how the election outcomes affect the Senate path for crypto legislation like the CLARITY Act. The timing of Senate action remains uncertain, but the political groundwork being laid through these campaigns could determine how soon unresolved issues reach final votes.

Coinbase has launched 1:1-backed tokenized shares of SpaceX, Nvidia, Google, Strategy, and Bitmine, entering the market days after rival exchanges abandoned SpaceX-related token offerings.

According to Coinbase, the new product allows users to buy, hold, trade, and redeem tokenized equity on-chain while receiving dividends linked to the underlying shares.

The exchange said that the assets represent actual ownership interests rather than derivatives or IOUs, describing them as tokenized shares backed one-for-one by real stock.

The launch comes less than a week after several crypto trading platforms encountered problems during the highly anticipated SpaceX IPO. Binance and Bybit had promoted SpaceX-related tokenized offerings, but both campaigns were later canceled after tokenization provider xStocks failed to deliver the underlying SPCX shares required to support the products.

Positioning its own offering as a direct alternative, Coinbase said users would have access to tokenized equity tied to major U.S. companies through infrastructure designed to support ownership rights and dividend payments.

Commenting on Coinbase’s tokenized stock offering, CEO Brian Armstrong said:

“For the first time, these are real 1:1 backed tokenized stocks you can trust. You own an actual chunk of the company onchain.”

Armstrong added that existing tokenized stock products available in the market are generally structured as derivatives or IOUs rather than direct ownership interests. He said Coinbase’s model combines traditional shareholder benefits with blockchain-based transfer and settlement capabilities.

Tokenized stocks extend Coinbase expansion plans

The stock launch forms part of Coinbase’s effort to expand beyond cryptocurrency trading and build what the company has described as an “Everything Exchange.”

Last week, Coinbase outlined plans to integrate trading, lending, payments, derivatives, artificial intelligence tools, commodities, and tokenized securities within a single account structure. The company said users would eventually be able to access multiple financial products from one platform operating around the clock.

Additional announcements are expected as part of that strategy. Coinbase indicated that more product updates would be unveiled during a presentation scheduled for 3 p.m. Eastern Time.

Recent moves suggest the exchange is already extending into traditional financial markets. On June 13, Coinbase announced that its derivatives platform has begun offering 24/7 trading for U.S.-regulated gold and silver futures, allowing eligible traders to access precious metals markets during weekends and holidays.

Competition for tokenized assets intensifies

Across the crypto sector, exchanges and infrastructure providers have accelerated efforts to bring traditional financial assets on-chain.

Growing interest in tokenized stocks has followed increasing demand for round-the-clock access to markets that are normally limited by exchange trading hours. Companies have also sought to capitalize on investor interest in high-profile private firms such as SpaceX, whose IPO generated strong demand across both traditional and crypto markets.

While Coinbase presented its tokenized shares as fully backed equity products, the company did not disclose launch volumes or provide details on how many shares of each company would initially be available.

Despite the recent launch, Coinbase shares were largely unchanged. According to Yahoo Finance data, COIN traded near $170, though the stock remained up more than 8% over the previous five trading sessions.

Key Takeaways

• Shares of Moderna rallied up to 9.1% following FDA briefing documents that revealed no “major deficiencies” in the mFlusiva mRNA influenza vaccine application
• The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will convene June 18 to assess whether mFlusiva’s benefits justify its risks for individuals aged 50 and above
• Upon approval, mFlusiva would represent the United States’ inaugural mRNA-based seasonal influenza vaccine, with final FDA authorization anticipated by August 5
• The biotech company pursues standard approval for the 50–64 age bracket and accelerated approval for those 65 and older
• Concurrently, Moderna revealed organizational changes, appointing Ester Banque as Chief Commercial Officer in preparation for three potential product launches between 2027–2028

Shares of Moderna (MRNA) experienced a significant uptick Tuesday, climbing as high as 9.1% after FDA staff reviewers released briefing materials indicating that data supporting mFlusiva’s effectiveness in adults 65 and older appears adequate. The stock reached $56.12, approaching its 52-week peak of $57.80.

Moderna, Inc., MRNA

These documents surfaced in advance of Thursday’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) session, during which members will determine whether mFlusiva’s advantages outweigh potential risks for adults 50 years of age and older.

Most importantly, FDA staff identified no “major deficiencies” in the submission—the positive signal market participants had been anticipating.

The approval journey hasn’t been smooth. Last February, the FDA delivered a “refuse-to-file” notice, expressing concerns regarding trial methodology, particularly that the control group for seniors 65 and up received standard-dose flu vaccines instead of the higher-dose formulation recommended by the CDC for this demographic. The agency reversed its position shortly after Moderna consented to modify its submission.

This regulatory uncertainty created market volatility. Tuesday’s briefing materials signaled a distinctly more optimistic outlook.

Jefferies analyst Andrew Tsai characterized the evaluation as positive, forecasting $750 million in combined U.S. influenza and COVID-flu combination vaccine revenue by 2030.

FDA Staff Review: Key Findings

FDA evaluators observed that mFlusiva demonstrated superior relative vaccine efficacy compared to standard-dose flu vaccines in the 50 to 64 age demographic. For individuals 65 and older, the submission relies on immunogenicity metrics rather than direct efficacy comparisons against high-dose alternatives.

Reviewers identified certain constraints. The vaccine has undergone testing during only a single flu season, and immunocompromised individuals along with extremely frail elderly participants were not included in trials, creating uncertainty regarding effectiveness in these vulnerable populations.

Moderna has committed to conducting supplementary research and providing additional data for the 65-plus demographic should it obtain accelerated approval for that population segment.

The pharmaceutical company seeks standard approval for individuals aged 50 to 64 and accelerated approval for those 65 and above. Final FDA determination is scheduled for August 5.

If authorized, mFlusiva would become the first mRNA-technology seasonal influenza vaccine available in America.

Leadership Transformation Precedes Product Pipeline Expansion

Simultaneously, Moderna unveiled an internal restructuring initiative. The company designated Ester Banque as Chief Commercial Officer, a strategic appointment designed to position the organization for up to three product introductions—including a flu/COVID combination vaccine and a norovirus vaccine—slated for 2027 and 2028.

The confluence of improved regulatory prospects and a defined commercial strategy provided sufficient momentum to drive shares upward.

Moderna has gained 81.8% year-to-date. Nevertheless, despite this impressive run, investors who allocated $1,000 to MRNA five years ago would currently hold just $283.65.

The VRBPAC voting session is set for June 18.

VanEck’s Matthew Sigel has disputed claims that MARA Holdings purchased 1,000 Bitcoin, saying the transaction likely involved returned collateral from a BTC-backed loan rather than a new market acquisition.

According to a June 16 X post by VanEck Head of Digital Assets Research Matthew Sigel, the recent speculation surrounding Bitcoin mining firm MARA having purchased an additional 1,000 BTC is incorrect.

Sigel made the comment in response to on-chain analytics platform Lookonchain, which had highlighted a 1,000 BTC transfer involving FalconX and suggested it appeared to be a purchase by the miner.

Lookonchain noted that the transaction followed MARA’s first-quarter sale of 20,880 BTC for roughly $1.5 billion at an average price of $70,137 per coin.

As crypto.news previously reported, that sale came as the company increasingly directed attention toward artificial intelligence and high-performance computing infrastructure.

Providing additional context, Sigel said the transferred coins were returned-lent assets rather than Bitcoin acquired on the open market.

“MARA will be monetizing its DC portfolio: Starwood in the US, Exaion in the EU. Bitcoin accumulation is the last thing on their mind.”

Historical wallet activity also appears to support that interpretation. MARA has typically moved Bitcoin purchases into newly created wallets, while the latest transaction did not follow that pattern. Based on that behavior, market participants suggested the company may have closed a BTC-backed loan and received collateral back instead of adding to its treasury through direct purchases.

MARA continues prioritizing AI infrastructure

Attention has increasingly turned to MARA’s infrastructure strategy as the company expands beyond traditional Bitcoin mining operations.

Commenting on the latest speculation, market analyst Matt Allen said the company is no longer accumulating Bitcoin in the manner many investors assume. Allen stated that MARA is focused on developing its AI data center business, reinforcing a direction that has become more visible throughout the year.

Earlier this year, MARA announced its $1.5 billion acquisition of Long Bridge, a transaction that significantly expanded the company’s AI and data center footprint. Even with that strategic repositioning, the miner remains one of the largest corporate Bitcoin holders. Data from Bitcoin Treasuries shows MARA holds more than 36,000 BTC, placing it behind only Strategy, Twenty One Capital, and Metaplanet among public Bitcoin treasury firms.

Investor enthusiasm around that strategy has helped support the stock. According to data from Yahoo Finance, MARA shares have gained more than 63% year-to-date and have risen over 10% during the last five trading sessions.

Bitcoin miners increasingly pursue AI revenue

MARA’s approach comes as a growing number of mining companies seek opportunities in AI infrastructure and high-performance computing.

Recent industry developments suggest that access to power and data center capacity is becoming as valuable as cryptocurrency production itself. As reported by crypto.news, IREN recently completed its acquisition of Spain-based Nostrum Group, adding around 490 megawatts of secured grid-connected power and establishing its first operating base in Europe for AI cloud services.

At the same time, capital continues flowing into AI infrastructure. Nvidia is preparing a bond offering worth at least $20 billion to finance AI-related investments and refinance existing debt. 

The chipmaker plans to issue notes across seven maturities ranging from two to 30 years, underscoring the scale of spending taking place across the sector.

Against that backdrop, companies including HIVE Digital, TeraWulf, Hut 8, and CleanSpark have increasingly promoted AI and high-performance computing services alongside mining. By repurposing facilities originally built for Bitcoin operations, these firms are pursuing revenue streams that are less dependent on cryptocurrency market conditions while making use of existing power agreements and data center assets.

Binance is pressing forward with its licensing process under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regime, after reporting that the Greek regulator overseeing its application has completed an initial compliance review. The move comes amid reports that EU authorities may be preparing to reject the exchange’s bid for authorisation, which would materially affect its ability to provide services to customers in the bloc.

In a blog post published on Tuesday, Binance stated that Greece’s Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC) has reviewed the application and “considered it compliant with MiCA requirements,” while noting that the authorisation outcome remains subject to further review by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). The company’s comments followed a Reuters report that EU regulators were preparing to reject Binance’s licensing request, potentially limiting the exchange’s access to the EU market.

Key takeaways

• Binance says HCMC has completed its review of its MiCA application and found it compliant, subject to ESMA-level scrutiny.
• EU licensing deadlines under MiCA mean that a rejection could restrict Binance’s ability to operate legally for EU residents from July 1.
• Reuters reported that some EU regulators are preparing to reject the application, highlighting uncertainty around the authorisation timeline.
• Binance indicated it would update users by June 30, the MiCA application deadline.
• The development intersects with broader regulatory expectations for exchange compliance, including alignment with EU consumer and market integrity standards.

MiCA licensing timeline and the implications of a decision

MiCA establishes a harmonised licensing framework for crypto-asset service providers operating in the EU. For exchanges, the regulatory transition period has created tight execution deadlines. As Binance approaches the end of June, authorisation decisions tied to MiCA compliance determine whether firms can continue serving EU customers without falling out of the legal perimeter.

Binance’s situation is particularly sensitive because MiCA expects approved status for ongoing EU operations beginning on July 1. If an application is denied, the practical outcome is not simply administrative—firms may have to restrict or cease services for EU residents to remain compliant, affecting customer access, onboarding, and potentially the continuity of regulated products and services.

In its blog post, Binance argued that any delay or distortion in its MiCA pathway would have downstream impacts beyond the company itself, including effects on liquidity and competition within the EU market structure. While those arguments are commercial in tone, the underlying compliance issue remains regulatory: the authorisation process defines whether an exchange is permitted to operate under the EU’s market-wide conduct and prudential expectations.

What Binance says HCMC concluded, and what ESMA still controls

According to Binance, HCMC—an EU authority tasked with initial regulatory review under MiCA—has completed its assessment of Binance’s application submitted under the Greek framework. The exchange said HCMC “considered it compliant with MiCA requirements,” while emphasising that the assessment is still subject to review by ESMA, the EU’s securities oversight body.

This sequencing matters for institutional and compliance monitoring. Even where a national regulator indicates that an application is compliant, final authorisation decisions in MiCA involve EU-level scrutiny, reflecting the regime’s objective of consistent cross-border oversight. In the current case, Binance’s stated position suggests the file has progressed past initial national review, but the outcome is not insulated from ESMA’s assessment.

Binance also told Cointelegraph that it expected ESMA “intended to progress the licence and move to authorise at an upcoming board meeting.” The exchange did not provide immediate additional comment on the Reuters report indicating potential rejection, but it stated it would update users by June 30. That commitment aligns with MiCA’s application deadline, underscoring that the operational question for firms and customers is whether authorisation will be granted in time to avoid legal disruption.

Broader regulatory context: other MiCA approvals and the risk of fragmentation

Binance previously applied for MiCA licensing in Greece under HCMC in January. The exchange’s progress should be viewed against a wider backdrop in which multiple EU regulators have already approved licences for crypto firms seeking MiCA compliance, particularly as the regime’s deadlines tightened.

From a policy and enforcement standpoint, the degree of regulatory consistency across member states is a key concern. MiCA is intended to reduce fragmentation by creating a unified rulebook and coordinated oversight, but licensing outcomes can still differ depending on the regulator’s assessment, the completeness and sufficiency of documentation, and the handling of issues identified during review.

For regulated entities—such as banks, custody providers, brokers, and payment firms integrating crypto services—uncertainty in licensing outcomes can become a compliance risk in its own right. It affects due diligence processes, vendor onboarding criteria, and ongoing monitoring obligations under AML/KYC expectations. If a major exchange faces authorisation setbacks, counterparties may need to reassess exposure to the regulated services they rely on, including contingency planning for service continuity.

Although Binance’s blog post frames the potential consequences as market-wide, the compliance angle is more precise: authorisation status is often a gating factor for whether EU-facing services can be offered lawfully, and the transition period can force operational changes on short timelines.

US enforcement history and the compliance expectations facing Binance

Outside the EU, Binance remains subject to scrutiny by US authorities. In 2023, Binance reached an agreement with US regulators in which then-CEO Changpeng Zhao stepped down and pleaded guilty to a felony charge. The company also agreed to a $4.3 billion settlement with the US Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, and to follow a monitoring program.

More recently, US lawmakers have pressed for further information related to Binance’s compliance amid broader geopolitical and sanctions-related concerns. Cointelegraph previously reported that US legislators sought answers regarding Binance’s handling of sanctioned entities, including claims that the exchange facilitated activity involving parties subject to sanctions.

While US enforcement and EU authorisation are separate legal processes, the combined scrutiny increases the importance of compliance evidence that can satisfy multiple regulators. Under MiCA, authorisation and ongoing supervisory expectations are structured around governance, consumer protection, market integrity, and robust controls relevant to crypto-asset service provision. For compliance teams, enforcement history tends to elevate the evidentiary bar for internal controls and transparency, especially where licensing decisions can influence whether the firm is permitted to provide services in regulated jurisdictions.

Closing perspective

With MiCA’s June 30 deadline approaching and ESMA-level review still pending, the key question for the EU-facing operation is whether Binance receives authorisation in time to continue services to EU residents on July 1. The next developments—especially ESMA’s actions and any official regulatory communications—will determine not only Binance’s legal posture in the EU, but also how regulated counterparties manage compliance uncertainty during the transition.

In the most shocking result of the 2026 FIFA World Cup so far, Cabo Verde held reigning European Champions Spain to a goalless draw on Monday.

The unexpected result has led to vast sums of money being lost on prediction market/de-facto sports betting platform Polymarket.

Indeed, the market’s biggest loser, a Polymarket veteran, lost $1.6 million banking on a Spain victory.

Read more: Memecoin ‘cult’ offered $50K to anyone willing to skydive into World Cup match

An hour before kickoff, the Polymarket Sports X account highlighted another million-dollar bettor, who stood to win just $87,000 on a $1 million dollar wager that Spain would win.

The account turned out to be the second biggest loser, followed by another mammoth $720,000 loss.

On the other side of the coin, one freshly-created account hit the jackpot. The account, named “fishalive,” placed two bets, against Spain winning and the match’s spread, netting over $8.5 million in total.

However, with such large sums placed on such low odds, these bets are likely hedging exposure elsewhere, via another profile or on another platform.

In all, Monday’s match in Atlanta saw a total of $64 million worth of Polymarket positions traded, just over half of which was placed on the overall ‘moneyline’ result.

As the game kicked off, the market put Spain’s odds of winning at 90%, and a draw at 7%.

By half time, the European champions’ odds were still around 80% but they plummeted as the second half wore on and Spain repeatedly failed to score despite a seemingly endless barrage of attacks.

Cabo Verde’s 40-year-old goalkeeper Vozinha has become an overnight sensation, and was awarded player of the match. However, in a post-game interview, he explained through tears that his mother was unable to attend the match due to not being able to afford a US visa.

Another key player in keeping Spain’s superstar forwards at bay, defender Roberto Lopes was reportedly recruited via LinkedIn while playing club football in Ireland.

The island nation’s population is just over half a million people, around 1% of rival Spain.

Read more: Strategy’s BTC sale sends Polymarket into disarray

Prediction markets or just sports betting?

Staggering amounts are being wagered on prediction markets such as Polymarket during this World Cup.

The World Cup Winner market has already seen almost $2.5 billion in volume, with over a month to go before the final match.

Spain are currently second favourites with 14% chance, behind France at 17%, and have dropped two percentage points since yesterday’s Cabo Verde match.

The following match, between Belgium and Egypt saw one user, the aptly named “Leeeroyjenkins,” lose $8.7 million betting on Belgium. The match also resulted in a draw.

At the club level, La Liga club Osasuna was caught up in reports of hedging its relegation risk via Polymarket rival Kalshi. The club insisted that it had simply taken out an insurance policy and that the exact mechanics were down to the provider.

Spain temporarily banned prediction markets Polymarket and Kalshi last month.

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.

Senator Cynthia Lummis has pushed back against criticism of the Clarity Act as debate over crypto rules intensifies. She said the bill strengthens fraud enforcement and directs new money toward digital asset investigations. The defense comes as lawmakers weigh developer protections, crime risks, and wider market oversight.

Clarity Act Funding Takes Center Stage

Lummis framed the Clarity Act as a law enforcement tool, not a rollback of oversight. She said the bill provides $150 million to help agencies pursue crypto scams and bad actors. Therefore, her message directly answered claims that the measure could weaken compliance standards.

The funding provision has become a key argument for supporters of the crypto market structure bill. They say enforcement agencies need clearer authority and stronger resources to police digital asset activity. However, critics argue that some language may narrow the reach of financial crime rules.

The latest dispute followed White House discussions with law enforcement officials over the bill’s impact. Those talks focused on developer protections and their possible effect on illicit finance cases. As a result, the enforcement debate now sits at the center of the Senate process.

Developer Protections Remain a Major Flashpoint

Solana Institute President Kristin Smith urged lawmakers to preserve the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act language. She argued that developers, validators, and node operators should not face money transmitter rules. She said the protection should apply when those participants never control customer funds.

Supporters of that provision say it creates a clear line between software builders and financial intermediaries. They argue that open-source code writers and node operators do not hold user money. Therefore, they should not carry the same duties as custodial crypto platforms.

Opponents have raised concerns that broad exemptions could complicate enforcement against illicit finance networks. They worry that bad actors may hide behind technical roles or decentralized systems. Still, backers say the bill keeps fraud enforcement intact and targets real control over funds.

Senate Talks Add Pressure to Crypto Rulemaking

The Clarity Act has gained momentum as Senate talks move toward a possible floor vote. Lawmakers continue to shape the Senate version after the House advanced earlier market structure work. Meanwhile, policy groups and industry leaders are preparing for more discussions in Chicago.

Rep. Dusty Johnson remains one of the key figures tied to the earlier House Agriculture Committee version. His role matters because the bill divides oversight between market regulators and financial enforcement agencies. Therefore, House views may still influence the Senate draft.

Journalist Eleanor Terrett has said she wants to track how House Agriculture members view the Senate version. That question matters because both chambers must align before final passage. If major gaps remain, the bill could face new delays or revisions.

Industry Leaders Reject Weaker Oversight Claims

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon recently drew attention after criticizing the Clarity Act debate. His remarks triggered pushback from crypto executives who support clearer federal rules. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse then argued that the bill improves compliance oversight rather than reducing it.

Garlinghouse said claims about weaker oversight misrepresent the measure and its enforcement goals. His position aligned with Lummis, who pointed to dedicated funding for fraud probes. Together, their comments reflect a broader industry effort to defend the bill’s compliance structure.

The Clarity Act now sits at a decisive stage in Washington’s crypto policy fight. Supporters present it as a framework for rules, enforcement, and innovation. Critics continue to test whether its protections could limit action against digital asset crime.