Kalshi’s valuation has hit $22bn after a $1bn Series F led by Coatue, doubling its worth in just five months.

Kalshi’s valuation has hit $22bn after a $1bn Series F led by Coatue, doubling its worth in just five months. The New York-based prediction market platform confirmed the round on May 7, formalizing a Bloomberg report from March. Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, IVP, Paradigm, Morgan Stanley, and ARK Invest all participated in the raise.

The round is Kalshi’s third in seven months, with each successive raise roughly doubling its valuation. The company was valued at $5bn in a $300m round less than two months before the $11bn Series E, making its current $22bn valuation roughly quadruple what it was under a year ago.

Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour said in a statement: “There are few categories in recent history that have scaled this quickly outside of AI. Event contracts could become a trillion-dollar market, and we’re still in the early stages of that transition.”

What the growth numbers show

Annualized trading volume on the platform has more than tripled in six months, growing from $52bn to $178bn. Institutional trading volume specifically surged 800% over the same period.

Kalshi says it accounts for more than 90% of US prediction market activity and generates $1.5bn in annualized revenue from two million monthly users.

Kalshi will use the new capital to scale adoption across hedge funds, asset managers, proprietary trading firms, and insurance companies, and will expand its product suite including recently launched block trading capabilities and deeper broker integrations.

As crypto.news reported, Kalshi’s first bespoke institutional block trade, brokered by Greenlight with Jump Trading providing liquidity on a carbon allowance contract, marked a signal shift toward direct event-risk exposure for large institutional players.

Regulatory headwinds persist

The growth sits against a clouded regulatory backdrop. Nevada, New Jersey, Illinois, and several other states have issued cease-and-desist orders or launched legal challenges against Kalshi, arguing some event contracts resemble unlicensed sports betting.

Kalshi has pushed back, saying its exchange falls under CFTC oversight and that state-level challenges are jurisdictionally misplaced.

The SEC also delayed more than two dozen proposed prediction market ETFs this week, asking issuers for more information on mechanics and investor disclosures.

As crypto.news tracked, Kalshi is also exploring crypto perpetual futures as its next expansion move, a product that would place it in direct competition with Binance, Coinbase, and Kraken in derivatives trading.

Kraken’s Etana fraud case alleges a Ponzi-like scheme diverted more than $25m in client funds.

Kraken’s Etana fraud case alleges a Ponzi-like scheme diverted more than $25m in client funds. Kraken’s parent company Payward filed a second amended complaint on May 4 in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, accusing Etana Custody and its CEO Dion Brandon Russell of commingling custodial assets with operating funds, financing risky bets, and sending falsified account reports that showed balances as fully intact while a funding gap widened.

Payward says Etana operated a “Ponzi-like enterprise” that recycled incoming client deposits to cover prior shortfalls. When Kraken attempted to withdraw roughly $25m in reserve funds in April 2025, Etana stalled with what the complaint calls fabricated reconciliation issues. At least $16m of the shortfall is tied to promissory notes issued by Seabury Trade Capital, which later defaulted.

What the court records show

Etana entered statutory liquidation in November 2025 after Colorado regulators issued a cease-and-desist order and increased capital requirements. Court filings show roughly $6.83m in cash against liabilities exceeding $26m, most of which represents the Kraken claim.

The federal case against Etana entities is currently stayed, with proceedings continuing against Russell personally.

Kraken is seeking at least $25m in compensatory damages, potential treble damages under civil theft claims, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. The complaint also names Russell personally, alleging he exercised near-total control over Etana’s operations and personally directed the misuse and concealment of funds.

As crypto.news reported, Kraken has faced a wave of security and custody-related incidents in 2026, including a separate extortion attempt involving internal system access.

Industry context

The collapse follows a pattern of crypto custody failures. Institutional lender Blockfills filed for bankruptcy in March 2026 after halting withdrawals and reporting roughly $75m in losses.

The Etana case is being watched as a test of how courts treat custodians that commingle client funds, especially once those custodians are already under state liquidation orders.

As crypto.news documented, custody, payments, and financing contributed 53% of Kraken’s $2.2b adjusted revenue in 2025, making the integrity of its custody partnerships a core business question.

The case also arrives as the industry pushes for the CLARITY Act to create clearer custody frameworks, with crypto.news reporting that a Senate Banking Committee markup is targeted for the week of May 11.

Earlier in 2026, as a digital asset market structure bill was under consideration in the US Senate, cryptocurrency exchanges Coinbase, Kraken and Gemini reportedly pressed to remove language in the legislation that could have affected their token listings.

According to a Friday Politico report, the three exchanges asked US lawmakers to scrap a provision in the market structure bill that would have required platforms to only offer trading on digital assets “not readily susceptible to manipulation.” The companies reportedly pressed senators to remove the language as it could have made it difficult for exchanges to list smaller tokens.

The edit, which the news outlet reported occurred after the US Senate Agriculture Committee voted to advance its version of the bill in January, signaled the influence crypto companies in communication with the Trump administration and lawmakers could have in legislation affecting the industry. The US Senate Banking Committee postponed its markup on the bill hours after Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said that the exchange could not support the legislation “as written,” citing concerns with tokenized equities.

Under the market structure bill, called the CLARITY Act when it passed the US House of Representatives in July 2025, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) would be given more authority in overseeing and regulating digital assets. Both US financial regulators, the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), announced their intention to coordinate oversight of the crypto industry in March, even in the absence of action from Congress.

Related: US Senator questions Mark Zuckerberg on Meta’s stablecoin plans

Coinbase chief policy officer Faryar Shirzad responded to the report on social media, calling it “old news” and an issue that was included in the markup by the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Source: Faryar Shirzad

Industry leaders, lawmakers speculate on timeline for market structure bill

Last week, two US senators announced a compromise deal on stablecoin yield between representatives of the crypto and banking industries that could allow the CLARITY Act to advance in the banking committee. Although some lawmakers said they intended to push for ethics language on potential conflicts of interest to be included in the bill, many are speculating that passage could be in a matter of weeks.

Coinbase‘s US policy vice president, Kara Calvert, said on Thursday that the exchange expected a markup in the banking committee by next week. Other lawmakers predicted that the bill would become law before the Senate broke for August recess, while White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt said that the administration was aiming for a July 4 deadline for the bill to pass the House after a June Senate vote.

Magazine: XRP ‘probably going to $12,’ Bitcoin ETFs add $1B: Market Moves

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

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren used a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to press for answers on the social media giant’s planned stablecoin integration, signaling ongoing regulatory scrutiny over guardrails, transparency, and consumer protections. The request comes as Congress weighs a broader digital asset framework that could shape stablecoin issuers and on-platform payments for years to come.

In the letter dated midweek, Warren described Meta’s stablecoin plans as “deeply troubling” given the company’s prior attempt to launch a global private currency and the ongoing challenge of offering safe, compliant products. She urged Meta to be more transparent with Congress and the public, arguing that any new payments-related offerings should be treated with heightened skepticism until robust safeguards are in place. The letter emphasizes that Congress is actively considering a comprehensive rule set for digital assets, including stablecoins, under the CLARITY Act and related regulatory initiatives.

According to Cointelegraph, Meta previously rolled out stablecoin payouts in USDC for select creators in the Philippines and Colombia in April, illustrating a tangible deployment of crypto-based payments on the platform. Warren’s correspondence signals that lawmakers will seek further detail on Meta’s strategic roadmap, clouding any perception of a straightforward, low-risk rollout.

The senator sits on the Senate Banking Committee as ranking member, overseeing agencies including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Her inquiry aligns with the committee’s ongoing effort to understand how digital assets should be regulated and how oversight should be structured as the U.S. contemplates a formal framework for stablecoins and related payment services. The CLARITY Act has been stalled in the Senate for months, but recent discussions about stabilizing the regulatory environment signal a potential path forward for a broader market structure bill.

Key takeaways

• Deadline for detailed disclosure: Warren requests a written update from Zuckerberg by May 20 detailing Meta’s “small and focused trial” for stablecoin integration, including launch timing, third-party stablecoins involved, and privacy guardrails.
• Transparency and guardrails in focus: The letter emphasizes the need for clear governance, safety measures, and privacy protections before any expanded payments functionality is deployed.
• Historical context underlines caution: Warren references Meta’s past attempt to issue a global private currency (Libra, later rebranded as Diem) to frame the current inquiry within a pattern of regulatory concerns surrounding large tech platforms’ forays into payments.
• Regulatory momentum around digital assets: The CLARITY Act and related yield-compromise discussions reflect a broader push to finalize a U.S. regulatory framework, including how stablecoins interact with banking, securities, and consumer protection regimes.
• Practical deployment vs. policy risk: Meta’s live use of USDC payouts for creators demonstrates real-world use cases, yet regulators will assess whether similar programs meet legal standards and risk controls across jurisdictions.

Meta’s stablecoin plans under regulatory scrutiny

The central issue in Warren’s letter is governance and transparency. While Meta’s public-facing messaging has stressed the potential for enhanced payments and financial-service capabilities on its platforms, the policymaker argues that meaningful checks and balances must accompany any movement toward on-platform stablecoins. The request for information by May 20 covers several core questions: the scope and design of a “small and focused trial,” anticipated launch dates, the specific stablecoins involved (including whether third-party stablecoins will be integrated), and the privacy safeguards planned to protect user data.

The broader regulatory backdrop is evolving. In the United States, lawmakers are pursuing a structured approach to digital assets that could determine how stablecoins are issued, how reserves are managed, how customer funds are safeguarded, and how on-ramp and off-ramp functionality interacts with traditional banking systems. The CLARITY Act remains a focal point in negotiations, with lawmakers examining a comprehensive framework that could shape licensing, enforcement, and consumer protections across financial services and digital assets. Meanwhile, industry participants have signaled cautious optimism that a yield-focused compromise on stablecoins could unlock progress toward a markup in the banking committee, potentially paving the way for floor action. Yet critics warn that ethics concerns and conflicts of interest must be resolved before broader policy moves are approved.

From a compliance perspective, the questions Warren raises touch on several persistent issues: how platform operators balance customer privacy with Know-Your-Customer (KYC) and anti-money-laundering (AML) obligations; how stablecoins issued by or integrated with large tech companies would be regulated under existing securities or payments laws; and how cross-border operations are treated in a patchwork of U.S. and international rules. As regulators weigh these questions, the risk calculus for technology platforms expanding into payment services will increasingly hinge on demonstrable risk management, independent third-party assurances, and transparent governance structures.

Regulatory and policy implications for institutions

The potential regulatory consequences extend beyond Meta itself. If a global platform of Meta’s scale becomes a de facto gateway for stablecoins and digital payments, banks, payment processors, and crypto firms may face heightened compliance requirements, particularly around customer due diligence, data protection, and reserve adequacy. The interaction between stablecoins on major social platforms and traditional banking rails could have far-reaching implications for licensing regimes, settlement finality, and cross-border payment flows. In parallel, the EU’s MiCA framework has already established a structured regime for crypto-asset issuers and stablecoins, providing a contrasting regulatory approach that could influence U.S. policy debate and international best practices. Institutions operating across multiple jurisdictions will need to map these frameworks and adapt their AML/KYC controls, data governance, and risk management programs accordingly.

From a governance perspective, the ongoing discourse emphasizes the need for clear accountability mechanisms when technology platforms integrate financial services. If Meta proceeds with a stablecoin trial, banks and fintechs involved in settlement, custody, or wallet infrastructure will need to verify compatibility with regulatory expectations, consumer disclosures, and safeguarding standards. The potential introduction of on-platform stablecoins also raises questions about the lines between social media services and financial services, and whether such products should be subject to independent audits, reserve adequacy testing, or third-party risk assessments as part of ongoing regulatory oversight.

Closing perspective

As Warren’s letter articulates a measured demand for clarity, the coming weeks will reveal how Meta and other large platforms address regulatory guardrails around stablecoins. The May 20 deadline for information, the stalled CLARITY Act process, and evolving cross-border considerations together establish a critical inflection point for how digital assets are governed in 2026 and beyond. Analysts and compliance teams should monitor not only Meta’s disclosed plans but also the evolving policy landscape, including potential updates to privacy protections, licensing standards, and supervisory expectations for platform-based payments.

Estonia’s financial regulator has issued an investor warning against BB Trade Estonia OÜ, the operator of the Zondacrypto digital asset exchange, for listing the TeamPL token without a published white paper.

The Financial Supervisory and Resolution Authority (FSA) said the company did not have a white paper listed on its website for the TeamPL token, a requirement under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework. According to the FSA, this constitutes a breach of MiCA’s stipulations that crypto-asset white papers remain accessible on the website of the offeror or of those seeking admission to trading as long as the assets are held by the public.

“This action violates Article 9, Section 1 of [MiCA], according to which crypto-asset white papers shall remain available on the website of the offerors or persons seeking admission trading for as long as the crypto-assets are held by the public.”

The investor warning, issued against Zondacrypto and its parent company, was noted by the FSA in documents published this week. Cointelegraph reached out to Zondacrypto for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

The alert from Estonia arrives amid broader scrutiny of Zondacrypto, the platform at the center of withdrawal frictions reported by users and an ongoing Polish law-enforcement investigation. In April, Zonda’s chief executive, Przemysław Kral, publicly said the exchange did not have access to a cold wallet holding approximately 4,500 Bitcoin (BTC), which at that time valued the stash at about $360 million.

Kral contended that the wallet’s private keys had never been handed over by Sylwester Suszek, the founder and former chief executive who has been missing since 2022. He also rejected rumors of insolvency, insisting the company would meet all customer obligations.

Kral’s assertions followed a wave of withdrawal-related concerns that prompted Polish authorities to open a probe into the company in April. Since then, Kral has been largely silent on social media, with his last post on X dated April 16, 2026. Local media outlets have reported that he traveled to Israel, where he holds citizenship, amid the investigation.

In a February interview, Kral told Cointelegraph that Zondacrypto operates outside of Poland because, in his view, the country has not aligned its crypto regulations with the EU’s MiCA framework. He described the Polish roots of the business as “the largest player in the crypto industry on the Polish market,” but noted that the company had operated from abroad for years.

The regulatory action in Estonia and the unfolding investigations in Poland highlight the intensified regulatory environment that MiCA is introducing for smaller exchanges across Europe. While MiCA aims to standardize disclosure, governance, and consumer protections, its application to non-EU or cross-border operators remains a focal point of ongoing enforcement and policy discussions. For investors and users, the developments underscore the importance of verifying that token projects have credible, publicly accessible documentation and of remaining cautious in periods of operational uncertainty at exchanges.

Related reporting over the past months has shown that MiCA’s regime continues to place pressure on smaller crypto firms, prompting some operators to reassess structures, domicile choices, and disclosure practices as they navigate additional regulatory requirements across the EU.

Key takeaways

• The Estonian FSA issued an investor warning to BB Trade Estonia OÜ for listing the TeamPL token without a publicly available white paper, citing MiCA Article 9, Section 1.
• The move follows withdrawal problems at Zondacrypto and a Polish probe, with Zonda’s CEO signaling a significant loss of access to a multi-hundred-million-dollar BTC wallet tied to the exchange.
• CEO Przemysław Kral has claimed the wallet’s private keys were not handed over by the founder, Sylwester Suszek, who has been missing since 2022, and he denied insolvency concerns.
• Kral’s communications have halted since mid-April 2026, with reports that he traveled to Israel amid the investigation; the company says it remains committed to customer obligations.
• The episodes illustrate MiCA’s growing influence on smaller exchanges and the broader regulatory risk landscape facing EU crypto firms operating across borders.

Regulatory pressure and cross-border implications

Estonia’s warning is part of a broader pattern as regulators begin to enforce MiCA’s disclosure standards more aggressively, particularly for assets that have been publicly traded on exchanges. The emphasis on keeping white papers accessible aligns with a wider push to improve transparency and investor protections in a market where tokenized offerings can outpace traditional disclosures. For investors and users, this means greater scrutiny of project documentation and the reputational risk that accompanies non-compliant listings.

Meanwhile, the Polish investigation into Zondacrypto adds a practical dimension to the regulatory framework. When authorities probe the flow of assets, access to private keys, and the movement of executives during periods of distress, it underscores the operational fragility that can accompany rapid growth in the crypto sector. As Zondacrypto navigates these tensions, observers will be watching to see how the company addresses customer obligations and whether any regulatory actions at the EU level translate into concrete safeguards for users.

For market participants, the episodes offer a reminder of the realities facing smaller exchanges as MiCA matures: compliance costs rise, disclosures must be robust, and cross-border enforcement becomes a daily consideration. The pressure is not only on liquidity and custody practices but also on corporate governance and the credibility of project documentation that underpins token offerings.

What remains unclear is how Zondacrypto will resolve the immediate investor concerns and whether the Estonian authorities will extend scrutiny to additional tokens or offerings listed on the platform. As regulators across Europe continue to map MiCA’s practical implications, observers will be eager to see whether other platforms facing similar warning signs take corrective steps or pause certain listings to align with longer-term regulatory expectations.

Advertisement

Readers should monitor forthcoming updates from the FSA and any official statements from Zondacrypto or its legal representatives. The evolving picture will help gauge not only the immediate risk to Zondacrypto customers but also the pace and direction of MiCA’s enforcement for smaller market participants.

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

TLDR:

• • Anodos uses Passkey authentication to eliminate seed phrases, making self-custody accessible without any technical knowledge.
  • The global fintech market hit $394.88B in 2025, yet users still manage up to five separate financial apps daily.
  • Traditional banks offer just 1–3% interest while DeFi protocols deliver 5–10%, a gap Anodos bridges automatically for users.
  • The tokenized assets market reached $30B in April 2026, and Anodos aims to give retail users direct access through one platform.

---

Anodos Finance has introduced a neobank designed to bridge the gap between traditional banking, crypto, payments, and investments.

The platform aims to replace the multiple apps consumers currently use. With the fintech market valued at $394.88 billion in 2025, fragmentation remains a core user pain point.

Anodos positions itself as the connective layer that unifies these separate financial systems into one seamless experience for everyday users.

The Problem With Five Apps Doing One Job

Most consumers today manage their financial lives across several disconnected platforms. There is a banking app, an investment platform, a crypto exchange, a budgeting tool, and a payments service.

Each performs its function well, but none communicates with the others. The result is a fragmented experience that wastes time and creates confusion.

The numbers reinforce this frustration. There are currently 7,570 fintech SaaS platforms operating globally as of early 2026.

Meanwhile, 80% of clients now expect a personalized digital experience as a baseline standard. More than half would consider switching providers if that expectation is not met.

Institutional investors are not immune to this issue either. According to available data, 69% of institutional investors prefer firms offering advanced digital investment platforms.

Yet the retail experience has not kept pace with those standards. The gap between what institutions access and what retail users get remains wide.

PwC’s Financial Services Survey found that 90% of respondents agreed financial firms need to become technology companies.

However, 40% are cutting investment in major technology projects. Integration issues and disappointing returns on investment are the primary reasons cited for those cuts.

What Anodos Is Building to Close the Gap

Anodos is constructing what it calls horizontal infrastructure, covering traditional banking, crypto, payments, and identity in one application.

The platform uses Passkey authentication, removing the need for seed phrases entirely. A user’s fingerprint serves as their financial authority, making self-custody accessible without technical barriers.

The platform also addresses specific market gaps that currently cost users money. Traditional banks offer 1–3% interest, while DeFi protocols deliver 5–10% or more.

Anodos routes funds automatically across options to optimize yield without requiring manual action from users.

On the payments side, the GENIUS Act passed in July 2025, and stablecoin transaction volumes reached $10 billion by August.

Despite that growth, converting digital assets back to traditional payment rails for everyday expenses remains difficult. Anodos builds on-and-off ramps directly into the platform to remove that friction.

The tokenized assets market reached $30 billion in April 2026, a 300x increase since 2020. Retail users have largely been excluded from those opportunities due to fragmented access points. Anodos aims to bring those investment options within reach of everyday users through one unified interface.

TLDR:

• Multiple AWS chiller failures caused a data center room to overheat, triggering the Coinbase exchange outage.
  
• Coinbase’s exchange architecture prioritizes low latency and client co-location over fault tolerance and redundancy.
  
• Most Coinbase systems survived the AWS Availability Zone failure, but the centralized exchange was not resilient.
  
• CEO Brian Armstrong confirmed a full infrastructure review to reduce outage duration and reassess exchange trade-offs.

---

Coinbase experienced a major exchange outage after an AWS data center room overheated due to multiple chiller failures.

The disruption exposed a structural tension in exchange architecture — the trade-off between low latency and fault tolerance.

CEO Brian Armstrong confirmed the incident publicly, noting that while most Coinbase systems recovered through built-in redundancy, the centralized exchange did not. The company has pledged to review its infrastructure approach.

AWS Chiller Failure Triggers Coinbase Exchange Collapse

The outage stemmed from a cooling failure inside an AWS data center. Multiple chillers failed simultaneously, causing a room to overheat and triggering a cascade of service disruptions.

Coinbase had designed most of its systems to withstand failures in a single AWS Availability Zone (AZ). That design held for the majority of services during the incident.

However, the centralized exchange was the exception. It failed to recover because of how it is architected. Armstrong addressed the situation directly on X, writing that the company’s exchange has a “unique architecture that optimizes for latency and co-location of clients.” This design prioritizes speed over resilience.

Co-location means client systems are placed physically close to the exchange’s matching engine. That proximity reduces trading delays to microseconds. For professional and institutional traders, such speed is a competitive requirement, not a preference.

The trade-off, as Armstrong acknowledged, is vulnerability. Making an exchange resilient to AZ failures is technically achievable.

However, doing so introduces latency and breaks co-location setups that clients depend on. That is why many exchanges accept this risk as a calculated decision.

Coinbase Commits to Infrastructure Review After Outage

Armstrong used the incident as an opening to reassess those trade-offs. He confirmed on X: “Given this incident, we’ll revisit these tradeoffs to ensure we’re giving you the best possible venue to trade.” A detailed technical post-mortem is expected once the internal review is complete.

He also noted that the duration of future outages could be reduced substantially. Even if AZ-level resilience remains too costly in latency terms, faster failover procedures could shorten downtime. That alone would be a meaningful upgrade for traders caught in the next disruption.

AWS and Coinbase teams worked through the night to resolve the issue. Armstrong expressed gratitude to both teams for their response.

The collaborative recovery effort points to the operational dependency crypto exchanges have built on major cloud providers.

The incident adds to a broader industry conversation about crypto infrastructure reliability. Centralized exchanges remain attractive targets for disruption, whether from hardware failures, cyberattacks, or traffic surges.

For Coinbase, the AWS chiller failure is now a documented case study in the real cost of optimizing for speed above all else.