White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt will remain in his post after his scheduled military training was deferred, keeping the administration’s lead CLARITY Act negotiator in Washington during the final weeks before the Senate’s summer break. 

Witt had planned to begin Judge Advocate General training with the Georgia Army National Guard on July 27.

Witt confirmed the change in a July 20 post on X. He said he remained committed to his military service but added that “my training has been deferred, and that I will be able to see this effort through to the end.” The decision reverses a plan that would have shifted many of his responsibilities to White House Crypto Council deputy director Harry Jung.

Witt stays as the Senate calendar narrows

Witt serves as executive director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets and has played a central role in talks involving the White House, lawmakers, banks and crypto companies. As previously reported by crypto.news, he had already postponed the same training in April while CLARITY Act negotiations continued.

The Senate now has little room left on its calendar. Aug. 7 is the final scheduled session day before a state work period begins on Aug. 10. Supporters have treated that window as an important target because election-year politics could make a later vote harder to arrange.

The CLARITY Act would create federal rules for digital asset markets and divide oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Senate staff still need to resolve differences before leaders can bring a final version to the floor, where the bill would likely need Democratic support.

Ethics dispute still blocks a final Senate agreement

Witt’s decision to stay does not resolve the policy disputes holding up the bill. Senate negotiators still lack a final agreement over ethics rules that would restrict elected officials from profiting from crypto-related businesses. The White House had not accepted the proposed language as of that report.

Democrats have pushed for tighter limits covering government officials with digital asset interests, while the White House has argued that ethics standards should apply evenly. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has also acknowledged that Republicans still need a bipartisan agreement to move the measure forward.

The uncertainty has affected market expectations. A related crypto.news report said Polymarket traders placed the CLARITY Act’s chance of becoming law in 2026 at 31% on July 20. The figure can change quickly, but it reflected doubts about whether lawmakers could settle the dispute before the August recess.

Consumer protections and stablecoin yield remain in focus

The latest negotiations have also produced changes on customer protections. Coinbase vice chair Ryan VanGrack said Senate Democrats secured stronger safeguards in the revised bill and described the changes as giving the legislation “more teeth.” He did not provide full details, and lawmakers had not released the final Senate text as of July 20.

Other disagreements have centered on stablecoin rewards, decentralized software developers and law enforcement powers. The stablecoin yield debate has drawn strong lobbying from banks and crypto companies. Banking groups have argued that rewards paid on stablecoin balances could pull deposits from traditional banks, while crypto firms have pushed to preserve room for activity-based rewards under a regulated framework.

As previously reported, the Senate Banking Committee cleared a version of the CLARITY Act in May. Witt has worked on several of the unresolved issues, keeping him involved in the administration’s effort to reach a deal with lawmakers from both parties.

Harry Jung’s exit changes the White House staffing plan

Witt’s revised plans come as Harry Jung prepares to leave government service. Jung, the deputy director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, said on July 21 that he would leave his post in two weeks. He had been expected to assume many of Witt’s responsibilities during the planned military leave.

Jung said he was proud of the council’s work and described the past two years as transformative for U.S. crypto policy. His departure means the White House will avoid an immediate leadership gap because Witt is staying. The council is also working on GENIUS Act implementation, the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and crypto tax policy.

Witt’s continued presence removes one staffing uncertainty, but the legislation still depends on lawmakers resolving ethics provisions, consumer rules and other contested sections. The Senate has not announced a final floor vote, leaving the bill’s path tied to negotiations before lawmakers leave Washington in August.

Celsius’ former co-founders are now facing additional financial consequences tied to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s case over what the regulator said were misleading assurances about the safety of customer assets before the crypto lender’s 2022 collapse.

The FTC has secured settlements in which Shlomi Daniel Leon and Hanoch “Nuke” Goldstein were ordered to pay a combined over $6 million to resolve FTC allegations that they misrepresented the security of the Celsius platform ahead of its bankruptcy filing. The latest orders follow the broader ripple effects of Celsius’ failure, which left users seeking recovery of funds after the firm, once valued on the promise of managed custody and lending, unraveled during a market downturn.

Key takeaways

• Goldstein, Celsius’ former chief technology officer, was ordered to pay $2.014 million under a court order signed Monday by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote.
• Leon, the former chief strategy officer, was ordered to pay $4.1 million under a separate stipulated order entered on June 29.
• The settlements extend FTC enforcement beyond CEO Alex Mashinsky, targeting additional executives’ alleged role in customer-facing representations.
• Both orders include restrictions barring the co-founders from marketing or selling products or services that could be used to deposit, exchange, invest, or withdraw crypto assets.
• The FTC previously alleged that Celsius misled customers about reserves, insurance coverage, and the nature of loans, and these settlements are credited toward related judgments.

Court-ordered payments and the scope of the bans

According to the FTC, the settlements with Goldstein and Leon are designed to address alleged consumer harm tied to the way Celsius presented its platform to retail customers. Judge Denise Cote’s order signed Monday requires Goldstein to pay $2.014 million. Leon’s stipulated order—entered on June 29—requires a larger payment of $4.1 million.

Beyond the monetary terms, the FTC’s statement notes that both co-founders agreed to restrictions aimed at reducing their ability to operate in ways connected to crypto custody and trading. In particular, the FTC said Leon is barred from marketing or selling products or services that could be used to deposit, exchange, invest, or withdraw assets. For Goldstein, the FTC describes a similar restriction covering retail products or services that could be used to buy, sell, deposit, withdraw, distribute, or trade cryptocurrency.

“Similarly, Goldstein has agreed to a ban on marketing or selling retail products or services that can be used to buy, sell, deposit, withdraw, distribute or trade cryptocurrency.”

FTC allegations: reserves, insurance, and loan practices

At the center of the FTC’s complaint was the claim that Celsius presented a picture of safety that, according to the regulator, did not match its actual conditions. The FTC alleged Celsius falsely told customers it maintained sufficient reserves to satisfy withdrawal demands.

The regulator also alleged Celsius promoted a $750 million insurance policy covering customer deposits, and represented that it did not issue unsecured loans.

The FTC further argued that these claims were made while Celsius’ executives continued to assure customers that deposits were safe in the final period before the platform collapsed. In the regulator’s framing, the alleged misrepresentations were not merely marketing mistakes; they were repeated assurances made during a period when the company’s financial situation was deteriorating.

How the settlements connect to the Mashinsky case

The settlements with Leon and Goldstein are part of an enforcement arc that began with the FTC’s action against Celsius founder and former CEO Alex Mashinsky, and then expanded to other executives. Earlier coverage of the Celsius fallout, including the trading restrictions placed on Mashinsky, underscored that regulatory scrutiny extended well beyond one individual once the company failed.

In April, Mashinsky agreed to an FTC settlement that included a permanent bar from promoting asset-related products and a $10 million payment. That settlement also involved a larger judgment framework described as $4.72 billion in a partially suspended structure, reflecting consumer harm allegations. Earlier reporting noted the settlement terms, including the $10 million payment and the partially suspended judgment.

The newly ordered payments from Goldstein and Leon—$2.014 million and $4.1 million, respectively—are stated to be credited against the $4.72 billion judgment. That matters because it shows how the FTC is coordinating multiple executive settlements into a single remedial accounting process, rather than treating each settlement as an isolated event.

Separately from the FTC track, the broader criminal fallout has also progressed. The U.S. Department of Justice previously reported that Mashinsky was sentenced to 12 years in prison in May 2025 after pleading guilty to commodities and securities fraud charges. Prosecutors said Mashinsky misled Celsius customers about the company’s profitability, investment risks, and the safety of customer funds.

Why these enforcement steps matter for Celsius customers and the industry

For Celsius users, the immediate takeaway is that the FTC’s case continues to identify and penalize senior figures beyond the most visible CEO at the time of collapse. The settlements do not reverse the bankruptcy outcome, but they do reinforce that the regulator intends to pursue accountability tied to marketing claims directed at retail customers.

For the broader crypto lending sector, these orders are another signal that “custody-and-lending” narratives—particularly those that reassure customers about reserves, insurance, and withdrawal readiness—are likely to remain under intense regulatory scrutiny. The bans also go beyond fines: they target future conduct by restricting marketing and sales roles connected to crypto deposit and trading functions.

What remains to be watched is how these settlements fit into the continued legal and enforcement landscape around Celsius and related claims. The crediting of co-founders’ payments against the $4.72 billion judgment suggests that additional financial outcomes may still surface as the FTC tallies and resolves separate executive-level actions tied to the same alleged consumer harm.

Going forward, investors and customers should pay attention to two things: whether additional Celsius executives face similar settlement-driven restrictions, and how courts continue to reconcile multiple payments under the same FTC judgment framework—especially as regulators seek to close gaps between public assurances and the actual condition of crypto lending platforms before collapses.

Polymarket has referred nearly 100 suspicious crypto wallets to law enforcement as the prediction market platform expands its monitoring of possible insider trading.

The referrals come as a Bloomberg analysis of Polysights data found that about $200 million in Polymarket trades during the first half of 2026 showed characteristics associated with “potential insider activity.” 

Much of the flagged activity involved geopolitical markets tied to Iran and Venezuela. The data does not prove that every flagged trade involved illegal conduct, but it shows the volume of activity now facing closer review as prediction markets draw more regulatory attention.

Polymarket expands surveillance as suspicious trades rise

Polymarket Chief Legal Officer Neal Kumar said the company’s internal process had resulted in nearly 100 wallet referrals to authorities. The platform has also strengthened surveillance as regulators examine whether traders may have used confidential information to gain an advantage in event contracts. Because Polymarket records transactions on a public blockchain, investigators can trace wallet activity, funding flows and trading patterns even when users trade through pseudonymous addresses.

The Bloomberg review relied on Polysights data that identified trades with features associated with possible informed activity. Analysts can examine signals such as newly created wallets, unusually concentrated positions and trades placed shortly before major events. 

Those signals can direct attention toward accounts that deserve further review. However, a “suspicious” label does not establish insider trading, and a referral does not mean authorities will file charges.

In addition, the growing scrutiny follows a U.S. case involving Army Master Sergeant Gannon Ken Van Dyke. As previously reported by crypto.news, the Department of Justice accused Van Dyke of using classified information about a U.S. military operation targeting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to place Polymarket trades. Prosecutors said he made about $409,881 after placing more than $33,000 in bets linked to Maduro’s removal.

The CFTC filed a parallel case, while the Justice Department brought charges tied to the alleged use of classified information. The case provides one of the clearest examples of authorities treating prediction-market activity as part of a broader criminal investigation. It also shows why wallet referrals can matter: on-chain records can preserve a visible trading trail even when the public does not know the trader’s identity when the transactions occur.

Google-linked case adds to insider-trading concerns

A separate case involved a Google engineer accused of using unreleased company data to trade on Polymarket. As crypto.news reported in May, U.S. prosecutors and the CFTC charged Michele Spagnuolo over allegations that he used confidential Google search trend information to place about $2.7 million in prediction-market wagers. Authorities said the trades generated about $1.2 million in profit.

That case broadened the focus beyond military and government information. It showed that prediction markets can attract traders with access to private corporate data as well as sensitive state information. The allegations also raised questions about how platforms monitor markets whose outcomes depend on information controlled by a small group of employees, officials or contractors.

Iran markets bring geopolitical trading under closer review

Geopolitical markets have drawn some of the strongest scrutiny in 2026. More than $529 million traded on Polymarket markets tied to the timing of strikes on Iran, while several newly created wallets drew attention after making profitable positions before major events. Six Democratic senators later urged the CFTC to restrict contracts tied to death, citing national security and public safety concerns.

The Bloomberg analysis places those earlier cases within a wider pattern. According to the Polysights data, many flagged trades involved markets linked to Iran and Venezuela. Polymarket’s decision to refer nearly 100 wallets shows a more active surveillance approach, although the company has not said that every referred wallet broke the law or used nonpublic information.

Prediction markets also face wider regulatory pressure. As crypto.news reported on July 19, France ordered internet service providers to block Polymarket after regulators cited unauthorized gambling, weak identity checks and concerns about market integrity. The Czech Republic has also restricted access, while European regulators continue to examine whether some event contracts fall under existing financial rules.

Lawmakers designed most insider-trading rules around securities markets, while prediction contracts can cover politics, military operations, technology and corporate data. That makes enforcement more complex when traders use information that the public cannot access. 

Polymarket’s referrals give authorities wallet-level data to review, but investigators still need evidence connecting specific trades to unlawful use of confidential or classified information.