Fortune’s investigation into SpaceX and Antonio Gracias’s Valor Equity Partners reveals more than $20 billion in related party GPU leasing deals reclassified as debt, a governance tangle that could reverberate through Musk linked AI and potentially crypto risk capital.

According to Fortune, Valor entities controlled by Antonio Gracias collectively own more than 500 million Class A shares of SpaceX, about 7.3 percent of the company, making him the second largest individual shareholder after Elon Musk.

At the $1.75 trillion valuation SpaceX is targeting in its IPO, that stake would be worth roughly $90 billion, and if the company lists closer to $2 trillion, the value jumps past $140 billion, instantly placing Gracias in the global wealth elite.

Two more GPU leases followed in January and April, and together the three Valor agreements obligate the xAI unit to pay close to $20 billion over their terms, with SpaceX itself guaranteeing the payments if the subsidiary cannot cover them.

Fortune notes that Valor entities have already collected about $885 million from the leases in 2025 and another $857 million in the first two months of 2026, turning the structure into a substantial income stream for Musk’s long time ally ahead of the IPO.

Auditors at PwC concluded that the transactions “were loans in substance, not leases,” forcing SpaceX to record around $9 billion of the arrangement as related party debt owed to Valor on its balance sheet.

That reclassification lands on top of an already heavy debt load, after earlier reporting showed SpaceX’s total debt climbing to roughly $23 billion in 2025, much of it tied to lease style financing for xAI’s GPU buildout.

In one such structure described by Bloomberg and summarized by CryptoRank, roughly $7.5 billion of equity and up to $12.5 billion of debt would be used to buy GPUs, with xAI leasing them for five years and Nvidia itself contributing as much as $2 billion of equity.

If regulators, ratings agencies, or public market investors decide that these arrangements are too close to self dealing or that the leverage profile is under disclosed, the immediate impact would be a higher cost of capital or tighter covenants for Musk linked AI and infra vehicles.

That in turn filters into the broader risk complex where Musk names occupy outsize mindshare, from xAI tokens and AI infrastructure plays on public markets to private rounds for data center projects that often overlap with crypto, edge computing and decentralized infrastructure pitches.

Any serious hit to the perceived integrity or solvency of the SpaceX xAI Valor triangle would likely compress valuations and risk appetite across adjacent narratives, reducing the marginal dollar available for speculative bets, including Musk inspired AI and crypto crossovers.

/Given how quickly capital rotates between AI, meme driven crypto and high beta tech, a governance scandal around these leases might not be a chain level shock, but it would be a liquidity and trust event for one of the main narrative engines driving flows into the riskiest parts of the market.

Squid has moved quickly to stress that a recent $3 million exploit targeted a third party Gnosis Safe module called SquidRouterModule, not its core cross chain routing contracts, after 86 wallets on Ethereum and Base were drained in under two hours.

According to on chain security firm Blockaid, the attack centered on a Gnosis Safe module named SquidRouterModule deployed on Ethereum and Base, which was used by some multisig owners to route cross chain transactions involving Squid and other protocols.

Blockaid reported that over roughly two hours the attacker siphoned funds from 86 Gnosis Safe wallets, with total losses of about $3 million to $3.2 million, before consolidating the proceeds into a single address holding just over 3.07 million DAI.

In a detailed summary, KuCoin’s news desk cites Blockaid and Squid as saying the stolen tokens were swapped into DAI via a custom Uniswap V3 pool set up by the attacker, who then aggregated the drained funds into one wallet to simplify laundering.

The core bug sat inside the SquidRouterModule’s “message security” logic: Binance Square coverage explains that the module simply accepted a constant string provided by the caller as proof that a message was valid, which meant anyone who could see the contract code could copy the string and pass arbitrary call data.

CoinNess reports that the attacker exploited this public fixed string verification to execute arbitrary calls from the affected Safes, effectively granting themselves permission to move assets out of the multisigs without owner confirmation.

How did the SquidRouterModule exploit drain 86 Gnosis Safes?

Binance’s incident note describes it bluntly, saying the design “accepted a fixed string provided by the caller for message security,” a pattern that eliminated any real authentication and opened a direct path for draining funds from integrated wallets.

This is a known class of risk for Gnosis Safe modules, as earlier research by OpenZeppelin showed that any attached module can execute transactions from a wallet without owner approval if its internal checks are weak or misconfigured.

In this case, the unsafe module was branded with the Squid name but was developed and deployed by a third party integrator, not by the Squid team or its core protocol maintainers.

Why is Squid distancing its core router from the hack?

In an official X post, Squid stated that “this incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts,” and emphasized that its main routing contract, identified on chain but “was not involved in any of the malicious transactions.”

KuCoin’s write up notes that Squid clarified the SquidRouterModule “was neither developed, deployed, nor operated by them; the name was independently chosen by a third party when integrating with Squid,” and that it sits completely outside the architecture of the core router.

A credible Iran–US peace memorandum that ends the current war and reopens the Strait of Hormuz would likely bleed some “war hedge” premium out of Bitcoin in the short term, while strengthening the longer term case for BTC as states quietly diversify away from the dollar in a more multipolar Gulf.

Axios reports that US and Iranian negotiators are closing in on a one page memorandum that would end the current war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz to normal shipping, set to launch thirty to sixty days of talks on nuclear limits and phased sanctions relief.

Reuters is adding that Tehran is reviewing a US proposal under which it would cap uranium enrichment at lower levels and accept tighter inspections, while Washington would gradually ease oil and banking sanctions and allow access to parts of roughly $10 billion to $20 billion of frozen assets.

What does Hormuz opening mean for crypto?

How could an Iran peace MOU move Bitcoin in the near term?

Reporting on the economic fallout of the war notes that fears of a prolonged Hormuz disruption had added a double digit percentage “war premium” to Brent, pushing prices well above $100 and stoking stagflation worries before headlines about talks pulled crude back toward double digits.

When tail risk in energy and shipping recedes, traditional “fear hedges” like gold and, to a lesser degree, Bitcoin tend to give back some gains as capital rotates into high beta equities and credit, especially if lower oil also takes pressure off bond yields and central bank tightening.

Crypto media has already framed the Iran peace trade as a volatility catalyst: one widely circulated analysis notes that a failed April ceasefire attempt contributed to sharp swings across BTC and altcoins, and that a durable deal would likely compress implied volatility as traders unwind wartime hedges.

If Donald Trump then signs and sells the MOU as proof that “peace through strength” worked, the first order move is classic relief rally behavior where Bitcoin trades more like a high beta risk asset than a pure geopolitical hedge, meaning it may underperform the parts of the market that benefited directly from lower oil and credit spreads.

How does sanctions relief and a new Gulf order change Bitcoin’s longer term bid?

The more interesting impact is structural rather than tactical.

Investigations into Iran’s war economy have highlighted the regime’s use of crypto rails for sanctions evasion, with reports of state linked networks using Bitcoin and other coins to facilitate oil sales and move value outside the US controlled banking system.

A peace framework that unfreezes assets and relaxes oil sanctions, as described by Axios, Iran International and Arab News, reduces the immediate need for those shadow channels, which is superficially bearish for “Iran demand” but misses the bigger point about sovereign hedging behavior.

Once Iran is partially readmitted to the formal system, its leadership will be intensely aware that sanctions could snap back in any future confrontation, and that awareness usually drives diversification of reserves away from pure dollar exposure into gold, other currencies and increasingly digital assets such as Bitcoin and dollar stablecoins.

At the same time, any deal that reopens Hormuz while cementing a more multipolar Gulf order accelerates quiet experiments in non dollar oil settlement between Iran, China, Russia and their partners, and that dynamic is exactly where neutral settlement rails and crypto based instruments start to look attractive at the margins.

Analysts tracking the economic impact of the war already emphasize that the core shift is from a unipolar US security umbrella to a contested regional architecture, and in that world demand for censorship resistant, seizure resistant assets and rails tends to rise over five to ten year horizons even if near term war premia fade.

So a signed Iran peace MOU probably takes some air out of Bitcoin’s crisis hedge trade in the weeks after the announcement, but it also nudges the system toward a more fragmented, sanctions weaponized order in which states are more likely to hold, use and build around Bitcoin and crypto infrastructure as part of their long term insurance portfolio.

The ICON Network will be permanently shut down on December 31, 2026, with ICX holders given until that date to migrate at a 1:1 ratio into SODA on SODAX, after which the legacy chain will exist only as a read only archive.

In a series of blog posts, the ICON Foundation outlined a phased wind down of the ICON Layer 1 that ends with a full shutdown of the network at the close of 2026 and a transition of the ecosystem to the SODAX stack, where SODA becomes the primary token.

An earlier update confirmed that as of March 26, 2026, the ICON Network has entered “economic shutdown,” with all ICX emissions and staking rewards halted and the chain kept alive only to support migration to SODA on the Sonic network.

Coinhouse has secured Crypto Asset Service Provider accreditation from the French AMF under MiCA, giving the Paris based firm an EU wide passport for brokerage, custody, transfers and advisory on digital assets as France’s national PSAN regime sunsets.

In a press release dated May 21, 2026, De Gaulle Fleurance said it advised Coinhouse “on obtaining its Crypto Asset Service Provider (PSCA) accreditation from the French Financial Markets Authority (AMF),” framing the approval as the culmination of a multi year compliance process that began with Coinhouse’s registration as a Digital Asset Service Provider (PSAN) in 2020.

The firm notes that the authorization was granted under the Markets in Crypto Assets regulation and that, as a result, “Coinhouse is now fully compliant with European regulatory requirements and can offer its crypto asset services across all Member States of the European Union.”

How did Coinhouse obtain PSCA status under MiCA?

Finyear reports that Coinhouse, founded in 2014 as “La Maison du Bitcoin,” received MiCA accreditation under AMF reference A2026 013, with the license allowing it to operate as a PSCA for a broad scope of activities including buying and selling crypto assets, exchanging them for funds or other crypto assets, custody and administration, and the transfer of crypto assets on behalf of clients.

On LinkedIn, Coinhouse chief executive Nicolas Louvet highlighted that the company has been granted MiCA authorization “for 7 different services, including investment advice and crypto portfolio management,” confirming that the mandate goes beyond basic brokerage and custody into higher value advisory and discretionary management.

The AMF’s public white list shows COINHOUSE SAS as an authorized crypto asset service provider in France, confirming that the firm is now one of the relatively small group of entities that have completed the MiCA licensing process ahead of the July 2026 cutoff.

De Gaulle Fleurance partner Anne Maréchal is quoted in the release as saying that obtaining PSCA accreditation “marks a crucial step for Coinhouse, which can now operate within a robust and harmonized regulatory framework across Europe” and that the case illustrates “the importance of an approach based on regulatory foresight, compliance and strategic support for players in the crypto asset sector.”

Why does this MiCA license matter in the EU timeline?

Coinhouse’s upgrade from PSAN registration to full PSCA status comes against the backdrop of a hard regulatory deadline.

The AMF reiterated in February that Digital Asset Service Providers which operated under the French national regime before MiCA must obtain PSCA authorization by July 1, 2026 if they want to keep serving clients in France; beyond that date, only MiCA authorized Crypto Asset Service Providers can legally operate.

A Cointribune analysis of the French transposition notes that “from July 1, 2026, providers not authorized as PSCAs must cease their activity in France while awaiting their authorization,” and that firms which continue to offer services without the license face up to two years in prison and a €30,000 fine under the Monetary and Financial Code.

Compliance vendor Unit21 similarly describes July 1, 2026 as “the hard cutoff that every crypto asset service provider operating in the EU needs to take seriously,” emphasizing that after that date, operating without MiCA authorization is simply illegal and that national authorities can impose fines of up to 12.5 percent of a firm’s global annual turnover for serious violations.

By securing its license more than a year ahead of that deadline, Coinhouse gains two advantages.

First, it can continue serving French clients without interruption while competitors that have not yet applied will either have to rush their files or plan an exit.

High-leverage trader James Wynn has declared that the “lottery ticket” phase of memecoins is finished, arguing the sector is now saturated and structurally tilted toward insiders at the top.

James Wynn, the hyper-leveraged crypto trader who turned a roughly $7,000 bet on Pepe (PEPE) into about $25 million before later losing close to $100 million on Bitcoin and meme coin positions, now says the memecoin dream is effectively over. In a post on X to his more than 36,000 followers, Wynn wrote, “I’m pretty sure meme coins are dead, I’m pretty confident they’ll never really come back,” arguing that what “was once a niche of a lifetime if you lived through it from 2017-2024” has been saturated by supply and financialized extraction.

He claimed that going from “a few K into a million dollars is like winning the lottery now. Borderline impossible,” framing today’s memecoin landscape as a system where “they’ll all supply controlled (yes needed), but ultimately just profit making machines for people at the top.” Wynn’s pivot comes less than a year after he allegedly amassed between $80 million and $87 million through aggressive, 20x–40x leveraged trades on Hyperliquid, at one point running a 40x Bitcoin long worth roughly $1.25 billion that briefly showed around $100 million in unrealized profit before cascading liquidations erased nearly the entire haul.

Wynn’s rise, crash, and backlash

Wynn first rose to prominence in 2023 as a “high-risk leverage trader and memecoin maxi,” after parlaying a small PEPE position into tens of millions of dollars and then recycling those gains into even larger directional bets. According to reporting on his trades, he built his fortune on the very dynamics he now criticizes: thin-liquidity tokens, community-driven hype, and reflexive leverage that could push valuations from under $10 billion toward the $100 billion range for the wider memecoin sector in a single cycle.

In May 2025, Wynn’s luck turned violently. After opening a massive 40x Bitcoin long with an entry near $107,993, his position was progressively liquidated as BTC slid below $106,330 and then toward $104,150, crystallizing losses that reports put at nearly $100 million in less than a week and marking one of the largest documented on-chain trading wipeouts. Crypto.news later detailed how, despite losing almost $100 million, Wynn quickly returned to Hyperliquid, selling about $4.12 million in Hyperliquid (HYPE) tokens and re-entering with a new 945 BTC long using 40x leverage, a position sized around $99.7 million at the time.

Community reaction to his latest comments has been sharply divided. One X user, posting under the handle @0xVengeanceArab, dismissed Wynn’s comments by referencing alleged $25 million liquidations and multiple rug-like meme launches, telling him to “just shut fuck up,” while another, @wocknottriss, wrote that the trader has “been wrong about everything in the past 11 months,” calling his bearishness on memes a contrarian bullish signal.

Traders and builders active in the space argue that what has died is not memecoins themselves, but the uniquely forgiving market structure that allowed near-random tickets to 100x with minimal diligence. An account named Pump Research wrote in reply that “Memecoins aren’t dead, the easy money phase is,” adding that “what’s dying is low-quality launches with no community” while “projects with real holders who actually believe and stick around” are the ones surviving as capital gets choosier.

Analysts tracking the sector describe exactly that polarization. Research highlighted by 0x资讯 suggests that while total meme coin market capitalization climbed from around $20 billion in 2024 to as high as a projected $140 billion, the spoils have concentrated into a handful of blue-chip names like Dogecoin (DOGE), Shiba Inu (SHIB), and PEPE, with large numbers of low-quality tokens effectively zeroed out. Crypto.news has likewise chronicled how Dogecoin’s market cap alone punched through $60 billion during the last cycle as it rallied to roughly $0.428, cementing DOGE as a structural large-cap asset even as smaller memes came and went.

Even within PEPE, where Wynn first achieved notoriety, recent coverage shows a more mature, range-bound market rather than a casino where any wallet can spin a $7,000 ticket into life-changing wealth. As of early 2026, PEPE has traded near $0.0000043, down roughly 64% over the year but still supported by around $600 million in 24-hour volume, with technical setups focused on incremental mean reversion instead of parabolic blow-offs.

Other commentators see structural changes in token design as the final blow to the old memecoin fantasy. As one account, @yourr_finans, put it, going from “2,000 to 1 million tokens did more damage than any bear market,” with “lottery odds” moving from improbable to “actual lottery odds” as supply structures and launch mechanics were optimized to extract value for insiders while stapling tokens to nominal “utility.”

For Wynn, the conclusion is that the sector “needs to evolve into something else,” even if he admits he doesn’t yet know what form that next speculative meta will take. Whether that future belongs to DOGE-scale brands, utility-wrapped memes, or entirely new cultural formats, the one constant is that the free lunch he and others feasted on from 2017 to 2024 is gone—and that the people now calling memecoins “dead” are often the same ones who helped build, and then break, the game.

In previous crypto.news coverage, the site profiled Wynn as “crypto’s boldest whale,” detailing his $1.1 billion Bitcoin perp bet on Hyperliquid and Moonpig (MOONPIG) punts that pushed the token’s market cap to about $80 million during one of its spikes. Another crypto.news report documented how Wynn’s side wallet later dumped roughly 10.9 million MOONPIG tokens worth about $120,000, underscoring the reflexive, whale-driven flows that have come to define the memecoin economy he now declares finished.