Michelle Bond, the wife of former FTX Digital Markets co-CEO Ryan Salame, who is serving a 7.5-year prison sentence after reaching a plea agreement with prosecutors, is scheduled to stand trial in November following delays stemming from motions related to her husband’s plea deal.

On Wednesday, Judge George Daniels in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered a trial start date of Nov. 9 for Bond, who faces four charges related to campaign finance law violations. The proceedings came a week after the judge denied Bond’s motion to dismiss the indictment, based on claims that prosecutors had promised Salame she would not be charged if she pleaded guilty.

Bond’s case is one of the final criminal proceedings related to the collapse of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which filed for bankruptcy in 2022. The event led to criminal charges for Salame and other executives, including former CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried and former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison.

In an August 2024 indictment, prosecutors alleged that Bond and Salame “illegally funded” the former’s 2022 campaign for the US House of Representatives. Salame allegedly used $400,000 of FTX funds as part of a “sham” payment in violation of campaign finance laws. Bond ran as a Republican in New York’s 1st congressional district but lost in the primary to Nicholas LaLota.

2022 campaign post on X (then Twitter) Source: Michelle Bond

Salame, charged in 2022 along with Bankman-Fried and others, was sentenced to 90 months in prison in 2024 after pleading guilty to conspiracy to make unlawful political contributions. He initially attempted to vacate his plea after claiming that prosecutors misled him over charging Bond, but ultimately reported to prison in October 2024 and left the matter to his wife’s case.

Bankman-Fried, angling for a presidential pardon, loses appeal

Salame, Bankman-Fried and Ellison were the only three people tied to FTX to receive prison time. Two other executives, Nishad Singh and Gary Wang, were given time served after testifying against SBF at trial. Ellison, meanwhile, was released early in January after serving less than her two-year sentence.

Related: US lawmakers warn against presidential pardon for Sam Bankman-Fried

Aside from Bond’s expected trial, Bankman-Fried was the only one connected to the crypto exchange to have his day in court. He was found guilty on seven felony charges and sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2024.

Although Bankman-Fried filed to appeal his conviction and sentence, he also recently applied for a presidential pardon from Donald Trump. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected SBF’s appeal earlier this month, leaving the US Supreme Court or a presidential pardon as his only likely path to freedom over the next 20 years.

Magazine: AI is banking the unbanked in Africa… faster than crypto

TLDR:

• Binance’s Greek license bid collapsed, leaving the exchange one week to secure an alternative EU authorization.
• Regulators in Greece, Ireland, and Latvia all pushed back against Binance’s MiCA license application.
• Binance Head of Europe Gillian Lynch confirmed the firm is actively seeking a new EU licensing jurisdiction.
• Officials cited past money laundering penalties and Binance’s complex structure as key concerns during review.

Binance Europe operations remain intact for now, but the world’s largest crypto exchange faces a critical deadline after its bid to secure a regulatory license in Greece collapsed. Gillian Lynch, Binance’s Head of Europe and the UK, confirmed the company is not withdrawing from the region.

She said the exchange is actively exploring alternative authorization pathways. The development puts Binance in a tense position with European regulators as its current operating permission nears expiry.

Binance Faces Regulatory Resistance Across Multiple EU Countries

Binance approached regulators in Greece, Ireland, and Latvia in search of a MiCA-compliant license. According to sources familiar with the process, all three countries pushed back against the application.

Officials raised concerns about the exchange’s prior money laundering penalties and its complex international structure. Regulators also pointed to what they described as a risk-taking internal culture.

Lynch stated that Binance had contacted four or five regulators in total but submitted only one formal application, to Greece.

She told Reuters, “Binance is not leaving Europe,” and added, “We may just have a different pathway to being authorised.”

The company was previously under the impression that Greece would approve the license. However, the bid collapsed without a clear explanation from the Greek regulator.

The exchange has roughly one week to obtain a new license before its current EU operating permission expires. If no authorization is granted in time, Binance would be required to wind down its European operations.

That outcome would affect millions of users across the bloc. Lynch made clear the company intends to find another route to compliance before the deadline.

Binance is pushing back against the narrative that it is a non-compliant operator. Lynch noted the exchange employs approximately 1,500 compliance staff and has invested heavily in internal controls.

She said Binance has no outstanding issues related to the application. The company maintains it has fully addressed the concerns tied to its past regulatory penalties.

Binance Europe Strategy Shifts Toward Alternative Authorization Path

With Greece off the table, Binance is reassessing which EU member state could serve as its licensing jurisdiction. Lynch said, “If it is not Greece, I’m looking at other alternatives,” signaling the search is already underway.

No specific country has been named as the next target. The timeline, however, remains extremely tight given the approaching deadline.

The situation reflects the broader difficulty major crypto firms face in navigating MiCA’s compliance requirements. Binance’s international structure and past legal history have complicated its regulatory standing across Europe.

Other exchanges with cleaner compliance records have moved through the process with fewer obstacles. For Binance, the path forward requires rebuilding trust with skeptical national regulators.

A resolution before the deadline would require a regulator to move quickly on a new application. That is considered unlikely given the resistance Binance has encountered so far.

The exchange may face a temporary operational gap in Europe while it pursues authorization. Lynch has not ruled out any specific country as a potential licensing jurisdiction.

Binance’s continued presence in Europe matters to a large retail and institutional user base. The exchange offers crypto trading and related services to users across the EU.

Any forced wind-down, even temporary, would disrupt access for those customers. The company is clearly treating this as a solvable problem rather than a permanent setback.

TLDR:

• Over $2.2 trillion has been wiped from the crypto market in eight months since the October 2025 peak.
• Bitcoin dropped 53% from its $126,200 all-time high, hitting a new cycle low of $59,000 in June 2026.
• Ethereum fell 67% from its October top, while altcoins excluding both assets lost $538 billion in value.
• The four-year crypto cycle model places Bitcoin’s expected market bottom around October 2026.

Over $2.2 trillion has been wiped from the cryptocurrency market in the last eight months, with the total market cap falling from $4.27 trillion in October 2025 to $2.02 trillion in June 2026.

Bitcoin dropped 53% from its all-time high of $126,200 to a new cycle low of $59,000. Ethereum fell even harder, losing 67% over the same period. The altcoin market, excluding both assets, shed $538 billion alone.

Eight Months of Cascading Losses Across the Crypto Market

The wipeout traces back to October 6, 2025, when crypto hit its all-time high, and Bitcoin neared $126,000. Four days later, Trump announced new China tariffs, sparking what markets now call the “10/10 crash.” Within hours, $19 billion was liquidated, marking the largest single-day wipeout in crypto history.

Pressure continued building into the new year. On January 30, Trump nominated Kevin Warsh to replace Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

That single move shifted rate expectations and added a new layer of macro uncertainty to an already fragile market.

On February 23, the administration raised the global tariff rate to 15%, pushing Bitcoin below $65,000. Five days later, on February 28, the US and Israel launched military operations against Iran. Risk appetite across financial markets deteriorated further as a result.

As Bull Theory noted on X, the total market excluding Bitcoin and Ethereum is down 45%, wiping out $538 billion on its own. That figure illustrates how broad the damage has been, well beyond the two largest digital assets.

Corporate and Policy Shocks Deepen the Drawdown

In late May, Strategy sold 32 Bitcoin, marking the firm’s first-ever sale of its holdings. Though the transaction was small relative to the company’s total treasury, it broke a narrative that had held for years.

Strategy had been widely viewed as an unconditional Bitcoin accumulator, and the sale rattled investor confidence across the market.

June brought another blow. Kevin Warsh presided over his first FOMC meeting as Fed Chair, and the dot plot turned hawkish.

Rate cuts were effectively taken off the table, reinforcing a macro environment that continues to weigh on risk assets, including crypto.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs reflected the shift in sentiment. Consecutive sessions of net outflows stretched across weeks, with redemptions running into the billions. Institutional demand, which had been a pillar of the 2024 to 2025 rally, was now visibly reversing.

According to the four-year crypto cycle model, Bitcoin is expected to bottom around October 2026. As of June 24, the total market cap sits near yearly lows, still down more than 50% from the October 2025 peak, with $2.2 trillion yet to return.

Yakovenko’s comments stood out because they came from one of Ethereum’s most prominent competitors. While debates between Ethereum and Solana supporters have often been contentious, Yakovenko’s reaction reflected a view shared by many currently at the top of the industry: that leaner organizations can sometimes make better decisions than larger, more bureaucratic ones.

The emergence of EthLabs is particularly significant because it arrived the day before the foundation’s layoffs and budget cuts, underscoring what supporters see as a broader trend: Ethereum’s research and development ecosystem increasingly extending beyond the foundation itself.

“I feel that the job cuts at the EF were necessary for their budget, longevity, and CROPs alignment,” said Hudson Jameson, head of ecosystems at CertiK and a former employee at the Ethereum Foundation. “As sad as the layoffs are, it was an inevitability to keep the EF lean long term.”

Jameson described EthLabs’ launch as exciting, noting that its founding team includes respected veterans of Ethereum’s research and development community. “The founding team at EthLabs are long-time, well-respected members of the Eth R&D community,” he said. “I can’t wait to see what they will accomplish.”

For years, critics and supporters alike have debated whether Ethereum relies too heavily on the Ethereum Foundation. As the ecosystem has grown into a global network of developers, infrastructure providers, layer-2 networks, institutions and companies, some leaders have argued that the foundation should become less central rather than more influential.

Prediction markets firm Kalshi has filed a lawsuit against Illinois state officials, arguing that newly enacted legislation in the state “expressly bans sports event contracts” on its platform unless Kalshi complies with a licensing regime. The company says the law conflicts with federal oversight of prediction markets and could force it to make operational changes that would be costly and ultimately unrecoverable.

In a Tuesday filing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kalshi named Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Attorney General Kwame Raoul, and other officials connected to the state’s gaming board. The complaint asserts that the measure signed last week—Illinois Senate Bill 3019—improperly intrudes on authority Kalshi says belongs to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under federal law. Kalshi is seeking to block the statute from taking effect on July 1.

Key takeaways

• Kalshi alleges Illinois Senate Bill 3019 conflicts with federal CFTC authority over prediction markets, including event contracts.
• The company argues compliance would force it to stop offering sports event contracts in Illinois or face potentially unlawful enforcement.
• Kalshi claims the July 1 start date could cause “irreparable harm,” including non-recoverable technical and compliance costs.
• The case adds to an ongoing federal-versus-state jurisdiction dispute over prediction markets and whether they fall under commodities rules.
• Legal experts cited in earlier coverage say these fights may ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Illinois law brings prediction markets under sports betting rules

Illinois’ SB 3019 was signed as part of the state budget package for fiscal year 2027, according to earlier reporting by Cointelegraph. Among other provisions, the package included a 0.2% tax on crypto transactions, which drew significant criticism from parts of the industry.

The central issue for Kalshi is how SB 3019 changes the state’s definition of an “exchange wager.” The bill amends that definition to include “an agreement, contract, transaction, or swap” that is offered, traded, or executed on a prediction market tied to a sporting contest or event. Kalshi argues this effectively subjects prediction market companies to the same kind of regulatory framework applied to sports betting operators.

In its complaint, Kalshi contends that the state legislation violates federal requirements and infringes on the CFTC’s claimed role in regulating event contracts on prediction platforms. The company’s filing describes a scenario in which following the new Illinois rules could place Kalshi in conflict with what it characterizes as the CFTC’s “uniformity requirements.”

Kalshi warns of costly compliance hurdles and enforcement risk

Kalshi’s lawsuit frames the timing and practical implications as urgent. The company says it would be “irreparably harmed” when SB 3019 takes effect on July 1 if it is required to comply.

According to the complaint, Kalshi would face a difficult choice: either stop offering its sports event contracts in Illinois to meet the new state licensing and regulatory requirements, or attempt to continue but implement complex systems to restrict access to Illinois. Kalshi argues that building and operating such technology would be expensive, and it asserts that those costs would not be recoverable even if it ultimately prevails in the lawsuit.

The filing also highlights enforcement risk. Kalshi states it cannot simply ignore the state law because an Illinois enforcement action could expose the company to criminal penalties. “Irreparable harm” in this context is tied not just to immediate business restrictions, but also to compliance engineering, operational complexity, and the legal peril of being out of step with either federal or state frameworks.

A continuing jurisdiction fight: CFTC vs. state gaming regulators

This lawsuit is part of a broader dispute that has repeatedly surfaced across U.S. jurisdictions: whether prediction markets that trade on sports outcomes are primarily regulated as commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act—or instead should be governed through state-by-state sports betting rules.

Kalshi’s complaint centers on the CFTC’s position. The filing notes the regulator’s claim that it has exclusive authority over the relevant companies because Kalshi’s “event contracts” are “swaps” within the CFTC’s jurisdiction. The CFTC has pursued legal action against state authorities that, in its view, have moved beyond their role by restricting prediction market offerings.

Earlier coverage by Cointelegraph described CFTC lawsuits aimed at state governments following prediction market laws in places such as Kentucky. In those cases, the pattern has been consistent: state gaming officials assert that prediction market contracts tied to sports outcomes should be treated like sports betting products under state frameworks, while the CFTC argues that federal commodities rules control the market structure and offerings.

Illinois’ new approach, by tying prediction market activity tied to sports events to the definition of an “exchange wager,” is expected to intensify the same federal-state tension. Kalshi’s filing suggests that the state’s method of regulation—licensing and restrictions aligned with sports wagering—collides with federal claims of uniformity and CFTC jurisdiction.

What happens next, and why the outcome matters

Experts have previously suggested that the recurring jurisdictional battles could eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, given the opposing legal theories coming from federal regulators and state gaming officials. Earlier Cointelegraph reporting on the legal trajectory of Kalshi’s dispute highlighted that possibility, particularly as courts grapple with how prediction markets should be classified.

For investors, traders, and the companies building prediction market infrastructure, the stakes are practical and immediate. If more states follow Illinois’ model, platforms could face a patchwork of licensing requirements and access restrictions—while the CFTC continues to argue for a federal, uniform regulatory approach. The legal outcome will likely influence whether the U.S. prediction market landscape can scale with consistent rules or remains fragmented by state-by-state compliance burdens.

Readers should watch SB 3019’s implementation status alongside court responses to Kalshi’s claims of “irreparable harm,” because early rulings on whether the statute can be enforced—or must be paused—could set an important precedent for other jurisdictions preparing to regulate sports-linked prediction markets.