TLDR:

• Anthropic plans court action after rejecting Pentagon requests tied to surveillance and autonomous weapons permissions.
• Contract proposals included access to geolocation, browsing data, and financial records from commercial brokers.
• Defense contractors now face compliance risks when using Claude across enterprise and cloud operations.
• The designation places Anthropic’s $380 billion IPO strategy under legal and regulatory uncertainty.

Anthropic is heading to federal court. The AI company confirmed it will challenge the Department of War’s move to designate it a supply chain risk. 

Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the designation on X after months of failed contract negotiations. The move threatens to ripple far beyond a single Pentagon deal.

Read also: Sam Altman’s OpenAI Moves Ahead With Pentagon AI Deal After Anthropic Says No

Anthropic’s Pentagon Deal Collapsed Over Surveillance Demands

The breakdown started with two narrow exceptions Anthropic refused to drop. 

The company would not allow Claude to be used for mass domestic surveillance of Americans. It also rejected fully autonomous weapons applications. Those were the only two lines Anthropic would not cross.

But details surfaced through Axios changed the story significantly, according to an X post by market observer Shanaka Anslem Perera. 

The Pentagon’s proposed compromise would have required access to Americans’ geolocation data. It also included web browsing history and personal financial records sourced from data brokers. 

Under Secretary Emil Michael was reportedly offering this deal by phone at the exact moment Hegseth posted the designation publicly.

Anthropic pushed back directly. In a published statement, the company called the designation legally unsound and historically unprecedented. No American company has ever been publicly hit with this classification before. It has typically been reserved for foreign adversaries.

The company also clarified what the designation actually covers under 10 USC 3252.

A supply chain risk designation can only restrict Claude’s use on Department of War contract work. It cannot reach commercial API access, claude.ai subscriptions, or enterprise licenses. Anthropic’s legal team is betting the court agrees.

Pentagon Accepted OpenAI’s Identical Safety Terms Hours Later

The business stakes are enormous. Eight of the ten largest US companies currently use Claude. That includes defense contractors, cloud providers, banks, and consulting firms. The $200 million Pentagon contract is not the core concern. The $14 billion enterprise ecosystem is.

Every general counsel at every Fortune 500 firm with Pentagon exposure now faces the same question. Is using Claude worth the legal uncertainty? That question alone slows procurement cycles and complicates renewals.

Anthropic’s expected IPO, reportedly targeting a $380 billion valuation with $30 billion in new capital, now sits on hold. No underwriter will price an offering while the company carries a designation alongside Huawei.

Hours after blacklisting Anthropic, the Pentagon accepted OpenAI’s proposed safety framework. That framework contained the same two red lines: no mass surveillance, no autonomous lethal weapons. Anthropic said no amount of pressure will shift its position on either point.

TLDR:

• Tether has frozen $4.2B in USDT since 2021, with most enforcement actions taking place after 2023.
• U.S. authorities linked nearly $61M in frozen USDT to pig-butchering scams and online fraud networks.
• USDT supply now exceeds $180B, making enforcement actions more impactful across global crypto markets.
• Wallet freezing tools now play a central role in tracking and blocking cross-border illicit crypto flows.

Tether has frozen billions of dollars in USDT connected to criminal activity as regulators escalate global crypto enforcement. The action reflects growing cooperation between stablecoin issuers and law enforcement agencies. 

Authorities now treat stablecoins as critical targets in fraud and sanctions investigations. The move places token controls at the center of crypto crime prevention.

Tether freezes USDT amid rising global enforcement actions

The stablecoin issuer said it has frozen about $4.2 billion in USDT tied to illicit activity. Most of the frozen amount occurred after 2023 as investigations intensified.

Data published by Reuters shows that more than $3.5 billion was restricted during the past three years. USDT supply has expanded rapidly during the same period.

The company confirmed it recently helped the U.S. Department of Justice freeze nearly $61 million linked to pig-butchering fraud schemes. These scams rely on long-term social manipulation to steal funds.

Tether also blocked wallets connected to human trafficking and conflict-related activity in Israel and Ukraine. Sanctioned Russian exchange Garantex reported that its USDT balances were frozen last year.

Figures shared by Wu Blockchain show USDT circulation now exceeds $180 billion. That level stands far above the $70 billion recorded three years ago.

The company can remotely freeze tokens held in user wallets upon receipt of formal requests from authorities. This mechanism allows direct intervention without blockchain reorganization.

Tether freezes USDT as supply tops $180 billion worldwide

USDT remains the world’s largest dollar-backed stablecoin by market value. Market data confirms the token’s dominance in daily trading volume.

Law enforcement agencies increasingly view stablecoins as key channels for moving illicit funds. Officials now track wallet activity across borders with greater coordination.

Tether said its compliance tools support global investigations into fraud, trafficking, and sanctions violations. The company has expanded wallet monitoring and blacklist functions over time.

Authorities credit the freezing capability with preventing rapid movement of stolen crypto. Funds can be locked before they reach exchanges or conversion services.

The scale of frozen assets shows how deeply stablecoins intersect with financial crime probes. It also signals tighter oversight of centralized issuers within the crypto market.

USDT’s growth continues alongside rising scrutiny from regulators and prosecutors. The stablecoin now operates under closer observation than at any point in its history.

TLDR:

• Morgan Stanley manages ~$9.3T in assets and filed for a national trust bank charter to custody crypto.
• The charter could allow staking services alongside direct custody for its 18 million clients.
• Morgan Stanley previously described Ripple as a leading SWIFT alternative for international payments.
• Citi is also building crypto infrastructure as institutional adoption accelerates across Wall Street.

Morgan Stanley is making a direct push into digital asset infrastructure. The firm, managing roughly $9.3 trillion in client assets, has reportedly filed for a national trust bank charter. 

The move would allow it to custody Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies at a bank-grade level. It could also open the door for client staking services.

Morgan Stanley Moves Toward Direct Crypto Custody With Trust Bank Filing

The filing marks a clear step beyond simple crypto access. Most Wall Street firms have previously relied on third-party custodians. This charter would let Morgan Stanley hold digital assets directly on behalf of clients.

That distinction matters. Custody is the foundation of institutional crypto infrastructure. Control over custody means control over client assets and the yield those assets can generate.

The firm serves approximately 18 million clients. Even a modest allocation shift across that base could move significant capital into crypto markets, according to commentary shared by crypto analyst account CryptosRus on X.

Morgan Stanley has followed a visible pattern. Access came first, then custody infrastructure, and now potentially staking yield. The progression mirrors how traditional financial services firms have historically absorbed new asset classes.

XRP and Bitcoin Both Surface as Morgan Stanley Builds Crypto Rails

Morgan Stanley’s prior statements have drawn attention alongside the charter news. The firm previously described Ripple as a leading alternative to SWIFT for international payments, according to @markchadwickx on X.

Internal documentation, as cited in the same post, reportedly noted XRP’s efficiency compared to Bitcoin and its closer alignment with how traditional banks currently operate. Morgan Stanley has not publicly confirmed those specific internal assessments.

Bitcoin remains central to the custody application. The charter, if approved, would position the firm to facilitate client purchases and swaps across multiple digital assets.

The filing comes as Washington edges closer to potential regulatory clarity. The Clarity Act has been referenced in financial circles as a framework that could formalize how institutions handle digital assets.

Other major players are also moving. Citi has been building out its own crypto infrastructure in parallel, adding further weight to the broader institutional trend.

Mark Karpelès, the former CEO of Mt. Gox, has revived a controversial bid to claw back billions stolen from the once-dominant Bitcoin exchange. In a Friday GitHub submission, Karpelès proposed a consensus-rule change that would enable the transfer of 79,956 BTC—currently held in a single recovery address without the original private key—to a dedicated recovery wallet. The move targets more than $5.2 billion in assets based on recent price levels and comes as the Mt. Gox trustee Nobuaki Kobayashi continues creditor distributions. The proposal unfolds against a backdrop of ongoing debates about Bitcoin’s immutability and the governance process that underpins the network.

Key takeaways

• The proposal seeks a hard fork to retroactively validate a previously invalid on-chain transaction, enabling the movement of Mt. Gox’s recovered BTC to a recovery address.
• Activation would require a broad network upgrade, as every node would need to adopt the change for the recovery operation to occur.
• The Mt. Gox trustee remains focused on creditor distributions, and on-chain recovery has not been pursued by him—creating a potential procedural deadlock that Karpelès aims to address with a concrete proposal.
• Critics argue that authorizing a recovery via a hard fork could undermine Bitcoin’s core principle of immutability, while supporters say the move could deliver restitution to affected creditors and bring clarity to an unresolved chapter in the exchange’s history.
• The discussion is publicly visible on forums and social media, with a mix of skepticism, caution, and some creditors expressing interest in recovering funds if feasible.
• Regardless of outcome, the debate highlights the tension between restitution and the decentralized integrity of the Bitcoin protocol.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The episode sits at the intersection of governance debates in decentralized networks and the broader attention on restitution for legacy hacks, underscoring how on-chain recovery ideas can surface amid creditor proceedings and evolving regulatory scrutiny.

Why it matters

The Mt. Gox saga is embedded in Bitcoin’s history, and any attempt to move coins via a protocol change raises foundational questions about what Bitcoin is allowed to be in practice. The proposal, if discussed seriously and pursued, would test the boundary between protocol-level immutability and the legitimate pursuit of restitution for victims of one of the most infamous hacks in crypto history. Bitcoin’s developers, miners, and node operators would be convened to evaluate whether a consensus-rule upgrade could safely reconcile a dispute that sits outside the typical on-chain transaction flow. Critics argue that even discussing such a mechanism could erode confidence in a system built on a trustless, irreversible ledger. Proponents, however, point to the nearly two-decade-long wait for a definitive resolution and the ethical imperative to return assets to creditors when a solvency and theft case is clear in law and in fact.

The discussion also spotlights the role of the Mt. Gox trustee, Nobuaki Kobayashi, who has been tasked with distributing recoveries to creditors under a bankruptcy framework. His team has indicated that on-chain recovery would require a level of legal certainty and community consensus that may not exist, effectively stalling potential recovery pathways. Karpelès argues that the plan would not circumvent established processes but would catalyze a debate that could lead to a pragmatic resolution if there is broad agreement among stakeholders. The tension between procedural caution and the desire for restitution is a central theme, with the Bitcoin community weighing the long-term implications for the protocol’s governance and perceived neutrality.

The broader crypto environment is watching closely. While the specifics of the Mt. Gox funds are unique, the questions raised—whether a protocol-level change should ever unlock previously inaccessible assets, and under what circumstances—resonate with ongoing discussions about on-chain governance and the limits of what a decentralized network should decide collectively. The episode also intersects with regulatory conversations about how restitution cases should be handled in crypto, and how such moves could influence investor expectations in a space that continues to grapple with hacks, mismanagement, and the accountability of project teams.

What to watch next

• The Bitcoin community’s formal response to the GitHub proposal, including any follow-up discussions on Core developers’ channels.
• Whether the proposed activation height and upgrade path gain support from miners, node operators, and major ecosystems participants.
• Any concrete statements from Nobuaki Kobayashi or the Mt. Gox creditor committee about on-chain recovery viability under new consensus rules.
• New commentary from prominent developers or industry observers on the precedent such a change could set for future hacks or thefts.
• Updates from the Bitcointalk forum threads and social-media discussions that could influence perceptions of immutability and recovery ethics.

Sources & verification

• GitHub pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34695
• Bitcoin address cited for unmoved coins: https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF
• Jameson Lopp discussion post: https://x.com/lopp/status/2027482550415847770
• Luke Dashjr update: https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2027594666690912414
• Bitcointalk discussion thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5575915.new#new

Hard fork debate over Mt. Gox funds: Key figures and next steps

The core idea, as laid out by Karpelès, centers on a patch that would render a targeted, previously invalid transaction valid, thereby enabling a significant on-chain recovery. He emphasizes that this is a hard fork, not a stealth change: “This is a hard fork. It makes a previously invalid transaction valid. All nodes would need to upgrade before the activation height.” The explicit acknowledgment of a forked path helps separate the conversation from a passive suggestion and places it firmly in the realm of a concrete, testable proposal. He stresses that the intention is not to bypass Bitcoin’s normal development process but to invite structured debate among developers and the wider community.

On the other side, critics argue that creating a mechanism to recover stolen funds by altering the on-chain consensus could erode Bitcoin’s trustless design. The Bitcointalk thread contains strong cautions that such a change could set a troubling precedent, potentially inviting future appeals to “undo” losses through protocol changes rather than through traditional enforcement and restitution mechanisms. A recurring theme in the discussions is the risk of undermining irreversibility, which many proponents regard as a foundational feature of Bitcoin’s security model. Yet some creditors who persisted through the bankruptcy process indicate a personal incentive to see any possible recovery move forward if a legitimate avenue exists.

The tension between immutability and restitution is not unique to Mt. Gox, but the scale of the potential recovery—79,956 BTC—renders this debate unusually consequential. If the proposal gains momentum, it would require not only the cooperation of a critical mass of node operators but also a clear legal and regulatory framework that supports on-chain recovery in a way that remains coherent with global enforcement standards. For now, the proposal remains a discussion starter, with proponents hoping it could catalyze a path toward restitution and critics urging caution to protect Bitcoin’s core principles.

Why it matters for the crypto ecosystem

For investors and creditors, the Mt. Gox case is a reminder that legacy hacks can linger for years and that governance questions remain unsettled in decentralized networks. The possible on-chain recovery would be a precedent-setting event, raising questions about how restitution can be reconciled with the long-standing commitment to a permissionless, immutable ledger. For developers, the episode underscores the challenge of balancing innovation with the risk of unintended consequences to the network’s security and reliability. It also highlights the practical constraints of building consensus around controversial changes in a space where decisions are ultimately collective and technically demanding.

Beyond Mt. Gox, the discussion speaks to a broader market dynamic: asset recovery remains a persistent theme as regulators and market participants assess how to treat stolen or misappropriated funds within crypto ecosystems. While some stakeholders advocate for aggressive on-chain remedies, others insist that irreversibility is a non-negotiable attribute of Bitcoin’s value proposition. The ongoing dialogue could shape how future governance proposals are evaluated, how recovery pathways are designed, and how much weight the community assigns to restitution versus protocol integrity.

What to watch next

• Public consensus-building on GitHub PR 34695 and any formal follow-ups or discussions with Bitcoin Core maintainers.
• Updates from Nobuaki Kobayashi and the Mt. Gox creditor committee regarding whether on-chain recovery could be pursued under any future framework.
• New technical assessments of activation heights, potential vulnerabilities, and the overall risk-reward profile of a hard fork to recover funds.
• Reactions from major exchanges, miners, and node operators about the viability and acceptability of such a change.

Sources & verification

• GitHub pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34695
• Original recovery address for references: https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF
• Jameson Lopp discussion: https://x.com/lopp/status/2027482550415847770
• Luke Dashjr discussion: https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2027594666690912414
• Bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5575915.new#new

TLDR:

• Korean retail poured $40B into U.S. leveraged ETFs in 2025, with $7B flowing in December alone.
• South Korean regulators imposed training rules to limit retail access to 2x and 3x offshore ETFs.
• The KOSPI has rallied 177% over the past year, driven largely by semiconductor stocks.
• Volatility is rising at market highs, signaling stretched positioning through aggressive leverage.

South Korea’s stock market is sitting on a $40 billion leverage position in U.S. tech assets. The KOSPI has surged 177% over the past year. 

On the surface, semiconductor giants Samsung and SK Hynix drove most of that momentum. But a deeper look reveals a retail-driven leverage story that regulators are already scrambling to address.

Korean Retail Floods U.S. Leveraged ETFs at Historic Pace

Korean retail investors allocated $40 billion into U.S. leveraged ETFs throughout 2025. Of that total, $7 billion entered in December alone. 

The pace alarmed South Korean financial regulators enough to intervene directly. Authorities imposed mandatory training and mock trading requirements to restrict retail access to these instruments.

The same investor class that fueled the crypto “Kimchi Premium” has rotated into equities. Their appetite for high-risk, high-return products has not cooled. They simply shifted the arena. The move has concentrated enormous exposure into 2x and 3x U.S. tech ETFs.

This is not a niche segment of the market. Korean retail is widely recognized as one of the most active investor bases globally. Their capital flows carry real weight in offshore markets. At $40 billion, their U.S. ETF positioning is now systemically relevant.

The regulatory response confirms the scale of concern. Training requirements and mock trading rules are unusual interventions. They signal that authorities view the current behavior as a structural risk, not just speculative excess.

Rising Volatility at Market Highs Signals Stretched Positioning

Volatility is climbing even as the KOSPI holds near euphoric highs. That combination is historically unusual. Volatility typically spikes during market bottoms, not tops. When it rises alongside highs, it often reflects aggressive call buying and overextended leverage.

According to data flagged by Bull Theory, the current setup involves three overlapping risk layers. A 177% domestic rally almost entirely dependent on semiconductors. 

Forty billion dollars parked in highly leveraged offshore tech products. And volatility expanding while prices stay elevated.

If U.S. tech corrects, Korean retail faces pressure on both fronts simultaneously. Their KOSPI holdings decline on weaker chip export expectations. Their leveraged U.S. ETF positions amplify losses in real time. The two portfolios move against them at once.

Seoul’s market is now directly tethered to Nasdaq price action, according to Bull Theory’s analysis. Korean retail has become a significant marginal buyer of high-beta U.S. tech. That linkage runs both ways.

Mark Karpelès, the former CEO of Mt. Gox, is calling on community support for a proposal to recover more than $5.2 billion stolen from his Bitcoin exchange more than a decade ago.

On Friday, Karpelès submitted a proposal on GitHub to add a consensus rule that would allow the 79,956 Bitcoin hacked from Mt. Gox (currently sitting in a single wallet) to be moved to a recovery address without the original private key. 

“These coins have not moved in over 15 years. They are among the most well-known and publicly tracked UTXOs in Bitcoin’s history,” he wrote. 

Karpelès said that with Mt. Gox trustee Nobuaki Kobayashi already overseeing distributions to creditors, if the coins were recoverable, the existing legal and logistical framework would distribute them to their rightful owners. 

“I want to be upfront: this is a hard fork. It makes a previously invalid transaction valid. All nodes would need to upgrade before the activation height. I’m not trying to disguise that fact or sneak it through as something else,” he added.

However, Karpelès said the proposal wasn’t intended to bypass the Bitcoin development process; instead, it was an attempt to start a discussion with the Bitcoin community. 

“The MtGox trustee has declined to pursue on-chain recovery, citing the uncertainty of whether such a consensus change would ever be adopted,” he said. 

“This creates a deadlock: the trustee won’t act without certainty, and the community can’t evaluate the idea without a concrete proposal. This patch breaks that deadlock by providing something concrete to discuss.”

Bitcoin immutability at risk, say critics 

Karpelès’ proposal saw strong opposition on the online forum Bitcointalk, with most arguing that it would set a bad precedent for Bitcoin, a decentralized cryptocurrency intended to be irreversible and immutable. 

“Each time a hack incident [happens], someone will call for another new consensus rule to recover stolen funds. This will destroy the bitcoin concept in full,” wrote “coupable,” who has been a member of the forum since 2015. 

“Bitcoin should be independent from what Law Enforcement decides in any [jurisdictions],” said another forum member known as “PrivacyG.”