Crypto World
CLARITY Act Talks Signal Possible White House and Lawmakers Accord
U.S. lawmakers and the White House appear to be edging toward a political agreement on how stablecoin yields fit into the forthcoming crypto market-structure framework, potentially reviving momentum for the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, commonly known as the CLARITY Act. Politico reported that an “agreement in principle” has been reached between Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Angela Alsobrooks, both members of the Senate Banking Committee, signaling a potential path forward for the stalled bill.
While specifics remain sparse, Alsobrooks said the arrangement would aim to protect financial innovation while curbing the risk of widespread deposit flight. In particular, she noted that the deal contemplates prohibiting stablecoin yield on “passive balances,” a key constraint designed to limit how much yield can be earned on funds that aren’t actively deployed in productive channels. This balance—fostering innovation while addressing stability concerns—is central to the ongoing negotiations, according to the report.
Details of the prospective agreement have not yet been disclosed publicly, and Tillis indicated that the crypto industry should vet the language before it is finalized. Cointelegraph reached out to the White House for comment on the prospective deal, but no response was provided by publication time.
As this week unfolded, broader momentum around crypto regulation also resurfaced in remarks from lawmakers sympathetic to a comprehensive framework. Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis, a veteran advocate for digital-asset policy, told attendees at the DC Blockchain Summit that lawmakers are “so close” to passing a comprehensive regulatory framework. A Lummis spokesperson later indicated that a deal could materialize in the near term and that ethics language within the bill remains a focus for refinement.
The CLARITY Act, which envisions a clearer set of rules for digital assets and market structure, has long been viewed as a critical piece of policy parity following the GENIUS stablecoin framework’s enactment. Initially expected to glide through Congress, the bill slowed in January after major industry players, including Coinbase, voiced concerns about whether stablecoin issuers could share yields with token holders. Those objections underscored ongoing tensions between innovation incentives and consumer protection in a rapidly evolving sector.
For context, the broader regulatory conversation around crypto in the United States is inseparable from evolving views on stablecoins and their economics. The GENIUS framework, signed into law earlier, signaled a shift toward formalizing oversight, yet it also raised questions about how yield-bearing instruments would operate within a regulated ecosystem. The CLARITY Act’s fate hinges on resolving those questions—especially around yield, custody, and who ultimately benefits from crypto’s growth.
Key takeaways
- Agreement in principle reportedly reached between White House-adjacent lawmakers on the CLARITY Act, suggesting renewed momentum for market-structure reform.
- Core sticking point under discussion: whether stablecoin yield may be allowed on passive balances, with a proposed prohibition designed to prevent deposit flight and systemic risk.
- Industry insiders stress the need for vetting the language, as details are not yet public and could shift before formal introduction.
- Senator Cynthia Lummis’s comments reinforce optimism for a comprehensive regulatory framework, with ethics language under active negotiation.
- Banks argue that yield-bearing stablecoins threaten their market share and deposit stability, while White House aides have argued that the concerns may be overstated and could unleash capital into a regulated environment.
The path forward: what changes could mean for markets and users
The potential revival of CLARITY Act discussions carries significant implications for investors, issuers, and users across the crypto ecosystem. If lawmakers settle on a framework that permits regulated stablecoins but confines yield on passive balances, the industry could gain clearer guardrails for product design and risk management. For issuers, a well-defined regime would reduce uncertainty around how they structure yields, custody, and on-chain mechanics, potentially accelerating product development and partnerships with compliant financial institutions.
From an investor perspective, clearer rules could translate into a more predictable regulatory backdrop, which historically has been a driver of institutional participation. Yet the tension between innovation and stability remains palpable. Bankers have argued that even well-regulated stablecoins could siphon deposits away from traditional banks, a concern echoed by industry observers who emphasize the necessity of preserving financial stability while enabling responsible crypto innovation.
Patrick Witt, executive director of the White House Council for Digital Asset Policy, has framed these concerns as manageable within a robust framework. He told reporters that stabilization of the regulatory environment could attract fresh capital into the banking system if dollar-denominated stablecoins are legalized and properly overseen. The argument underscores a broader point: crypto’s growth could be compatible with, rather than a substitute for, traditional finance—so long as the rules incentivize prudent risk management and guardrails against misalignment between yields and liquidity.
The evolving dialogue also reflects a larger strategic dynamic: policymakers are trying to strike a balance between attracting innovation to the United States and preventing misalignment that could destabilize financial markets. As the process unfolds, the next milestones will likely hinge on the release of formal draft language, the incorporation of ethics provisions, and a final industry vetting period. The absence of a public response from the White House in this round reinforces how fluid the situation remains, with lawmakers and regulators aiming to map a path that satisfies both innovation advocates and traditional financial incumbents.
For readers tracking the regulatory arc, the CLARITY Act sits at the intersection of policy clarity and practical product design. It is not just about whether stablecoins can yield returns, but about who controls those returns, how they are distributed, and how risk is managed across on-chain and off-chain rails. The current negotiations suggest a greater willingness to align on principles—openness to innovation paired with guardrails to guard investors and the broader financial system.
As always, the market will respond to fresh details. Investors and builders should watch for the publication of the draft language, the contours of any ethics and governance provisions, and how banks and non-bank financial intermediaries are integrated into the new regime. The next days could reveal a more concrete timetable for CLARITY Act passage, or reveal additional frictions that delay a final vote. In either case, the discussion signals a pivotal moment for crypto governance in the United States.
In its early-phase outreach, Cointelegraph attempted to obtain comment from the White House about the prospective deal but did not receive a response by publication time. As the lobbying and policymaking process continues, observers will be attentive to how this agreement in principle translates into formal language and a concrete legislative path. The stakes are high: a clear, workable framework could unlock a wave of institutional involvement and user-facing crypto products, while also defining the boundaries of what constitutes permissible yield generation in a regulated market.
Covenant AI, a developer operating on Bittensor’s subnet ecosystem, announced on Friday that it is leaving the decentralized AI network, accusing governance of not being meaningfully distributed and questioning whether the project can sustain its decentralization claims. In a post on X, Covenant AI founder Sam Dare said the team could no longer build on or raise for Bittensor because governance wasn’t truly distributed. “It is decentralization theatre,” Dare wrote, alleging that Jacob Steeves—known as Const—maintains effective control over the governance triad, resists meaningful transfers of authority, and deploys changes unilaterally without process or consensus.
The dispute centers on the core selling point of Bittensor: true decentralization. Covenant AI contends that Steeves wields outsized influence over governance and network operations, an accusation Steeves has denied. Bittensor describes its governance as a transitional framework, featuring a “Triumvirate” of Opentensor Foundation employees alongside a senate, rather than a fully open, fully distributed model. The company’s documentation frames this as a staged approach rather than a completed, decentralized system.
Key takeaways
- Covenant AI is exiting Bittensor, publicly challenging the project’s claim of decentralization and accusing governance of concentrated power under a Triumvirate-led structure.
- The core accusation centers on control over governance and network operations, with Covenant AI alleging unilateral decision-making and resistance to meaningful authority transfers.
- In response, Bittensor founder Jacob Steeves denies suspending subnet operations or granting special privileges, and says dissenting actions are either mischaracterized or misinterpreted—he also contends that certain token-related moves were ordinary market activity visible on-chain.
- The dispute has coincided with a material move in TAO’s price and trading volume, reflecting broader investor attention as the governance rift unfolds.
Governance under the lens: what changed and what stayed the same
The heart of Covenant AI’s claim is that the governance design of Bittensor—ostensibly built to be open and composite—operates in practice as a closed system. Covenant AI argues that the Triumvirate, comprising key Opentensor Foundation figures, plus a senate, retains root permissions and can steer network modifications without broad consensus. Dare framed the arrangement as incompatible with the decentralization narrative that attracted builders and financiers to the project, suggesting that the structure undermines the very premise of distributed governance.
Steeves, for his part, pushes back on the description of centralized control. In his public responses, he argued that he does not wield privileges beyond those of ordinary TAO token holders and that he cannot suspend subnet emissions. He also contends that any large token movements he has executed were disclosed through on-chain activity and thus transparent to the community. In a Friday X post, Steeves responded to Covenant AI’s claims by stating he had liquidated some of his “alpha holdings” on subnets that were not actively running or were on burn-heavy code, asserting that such actions alter emissions in a manner consistent with typical market dynamics on Bittensor.
Nevertheless, Covenant AI asserts that governance friction has tangible effects on project momentum. Emissions controls and moderation rights are among the specific levers cited as evidence of centralized influence, with Covenant AI describing moves as attempts to pressure or stifle the subnet’s development trajectory. Steeves counters by noting that moderation permissions were temporarily restricted and later restored, and he emphasizes that changes in on-chain token economics would be visible to observers. He also argues that his actions fall within the rights of token holders and do not amount to a covert governance coup.
Market signals and on-chain behavior amid the dispute
The governance dispute has spilled into market sentiment around TAO, Bittensor’s native token. TAO’s price had been under pressure, slipping roughly 18% over the preceding 24 hours as of Friday morning in market data cited by Cointelegraph. The selling momentum intensified in the day leading up to Covenant AI’s departure announcement, with on-chain sell volume hitting a level not seen since December 2024. Analysts framed the price and flow dynamics as a potential reflection of investors adjusting exposure to a project undergoing a governance upheaval.
External observers echoed the sense that the departure could be more than a PR dispute. One crypto analyst noted on X that the timing and scale of Covenant AI’s exit appeared deliberate, describing it as a calculated move rather than a coincidence. While market dynamics can be noisy, the episode underscores how governance tensions in decentralized projects can translate into tangible liquidity and price reactions, particularly when a builder with an active subnet exits.
Cointelegraph sought comment from Covenant AI and Bittensor for responses to the evolving narrative but did not receive official remarks by publication time. The broader market context remains relevant: governance design that emphasizes decentralization is increasingly scrutinized as multiple teams seek to attract talent and funding without compromising core distributed principles. The exchange between Covenant AI and Steeves—along with on-chain activity tied to token emissions and governance permissions—provides a live case study in how decentralization ambitions interact with practical governance controls.
Broader implications for decentralization in practice
Industry observers note that the Covenant AI episode highlights a broader, ongoing debate about the practical meaning of decentralization in long-running blockchain and Web3 projects. David and Daniil Liberman, co-founders of the Gonka protocol, described a tension that will resonate with builders across ecosystems: if a project’s infrastructure can be used against it because control rests with a concentrated subset of actors, does the model remain genuinely decentralized? Their assessment emphasizes the need for governance that can withstand complex, real-world pressures without becoming opaque or inert in the face of conflicts between contributors and governance stewards.
The debate also harks back to earlier public moments in Bittensor’s story. For instance, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang publicly celebrated Covenant AI’s milestone in training a decentralized large language model on Bittensor Subnet 3, calling it a remarkable technical achievement. That historic spotlight contrasted with the current governance friction, illustrating the dual aspects of decentralization narratives: the technical frontier that attracts builders, and the governance framework that must sustain it without central choke points.
As the community digests the tensions, readers should watch for how Bittensor’s governance documents evolve and whether any reforms are pursued to broaden participation or formalize oversight. The resolution, or lack thereof, will influence not only Covenant AI’s future on the network but also how other builders evaluate the feasibility of heavily multi-party, permissioned decentralization models in practice. Observers will be mindful of potential new on-chain disclosures, governance proposals, or changes to subnet permissions that could redefine participation rules for developers and token holders alike.
In this moment, the core question remains: can a decentralized AI network reconcile rapid innovation with a governance framework that remains genuinely open to diverse contributors, or will episodes like Covenant AI’s departure redefine decentralization as a continuous negotiation between ambitious builders and centralized control points?
What to watch next: keep an eye on any updates to Bittensor’s governance structure, changes in subnet emission policies, and new participation rules for subnets. The outcome will influence how other multi-stakeholder networks balance openness with accountability, and it will shape investor sentiment around projects that promise decentralization as a core value proposition.
Crypto World
Volatility compression grips crypto markets ahead of U.S. inflation report: Crypto Markets Today
The crypto market held steady on Friday, with bitcoin trading little changed at $71,700 and ether (ETH) at $2,180, extending the low-volatility price action that has characterized the past few months.
Daily Bollinger bands, a technical analysis tool that measures market volatility, are at their narrowest since early 2024. In the past, such a tight range — bitcoin has held between $63,000 and $75,000 since early February — has ended with a 40% move in price, according crypto analyst Eric Crown.
A breakout above $75,000 in bitcoin’s case would trigger upside momentum by trapping traders who are short and need to buy at market prices to cover their positions, while a short-term move below $70,000 will liquidate around $200 million worth of long positions that are betting on the breakout, according to CoinGlass’ liquidation heatmap.
One key catalyst on Friday will be the U.S. consumer price index (CPI) data. March inflation is estimated at 3.3% year-on-year, driven by surging energy prices. High inflation figures tend to spur upside price action in the U.S. dollar, which could weigh on risk assets like bitcoin.
Derivatives positioning
- Open interest (OI) in bitcoin futures increased by 1%, with average perpetual funding rates on major exchanges at their highest since Feb. 4. This shows a strengthening investor appetite for bullish exposure.
- Other major cryptocurrencies were mixed. OI increased slightly in XRP (XRP) while holding flat in ether (ETH) and solana (SOL). HYPE and AVAX are other standouts, displaying a bullish combination of OI growth and positive funding rates.
- The privacy-focused ZEC, meanwhile, shows OI growth and negative rates, a sign that traders are continuing to short futures and hedge downside risks even as the spot price rallies. ZEC’s price rose to nearly $400, the highest since Jan. 28.
- There seems to be no end to the downtrend in BTC’s 30-day implied volatility index, BVIV. The measure has slipped to 45%, indicating market calm. It has dropped in a near-straight line from 58% on March 31. Ether’s volatility index shows a similar pattern.
- The decline in volatility is largely led by ETF-related flows. “The ETF complex has created a feedback loop: institutions sell calls for yield, which suppresses upside vol, which makes selling more calls even more attractive. The impact is still subtle, but the direction of travel is clear. Bitcoin’s options market is maturing into a structurally skewed market, just like equities,” STS Digital’s CEO Maxime Seiler told CoinDesk.
- The implied volatility term structure is flat for the next six months and then rises from September, suggesting the market is prepping for a quiet few months in between.
- On Deribit, BTC and ETH options continue to display put skews, although it’s much weaker than a week ago as traders chase upside bets, particularly the BTC call option at the $80,000 strike.
Token talk
- CoinDesk’s DeFi Select Index (DFX) is the best-performing benchmark on Friday, rising by 0.38% while the bitcoin-dominant CoinDesk 5 (CD5) is down by a quarter of a percent.
- The CoinDesk Computing Select Index (CPUS) is the worst performer, losing 1.4% after it was dragged down by bittensor (TAO), which lost more than 12% since midnight UTC after Covenant AI, one of the network’s largest subnet developers, said it was leaving Bittensor.
- “The entire premise of Bittensor, the promise that drew builders, miners, validators, and investors into this ecosystem, is that no single entity controls it,” Covenant AI founder Sam Dare wrote on X. “That promise is a lie.”
- One token that shrugged off broader crypto market apathy was DASH, which surged more than 19% since midnight UTC, contributing to a 24-hour gain of 34% as traders rotated back into the privacy sector.
The Japanese government amended the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act on Friday to classify crypto assets as financial instruments.
The amendment also bans insider trading and other activities that involve buying and selling based on undisclosed information, Nikkei reported.
The amended act will also now require cryptocurrency “issuers” to be more transparent and disclose information once a year.
Japan’s Financial Services Agency has previously regulated crypto assets under the Payment and Settlement Act, citing their potential use as a means of payment. However, the regulations and classifications have been updated to reflect increasing institutional investment in the asset class.
By reclassifying crypto as a financial instrument rather than just a payment method, Japan is moving crypto out of the experimental payments category and into the same league as its stock market.
Crypto under the TradFi umbrella
“We will expand the supply of growth capital in response to changes in financial and capital markets, and ensure market fairness, transparency, and investor protection,” said Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama at a press conference after the Cabinet meeting.
Fines and sentences for unregistered crypto exchanges have also increased under the amendment.
Related: Prediction markets are testing legal limits in strict Asian markets
Japan signaled that it was bringing crypto under the same umbrella as traditional finance in January when Katayama said, “To ensure citizens benefit from digital and blockchain-based assets, the role of exchanges and market infrastructure will be essential.”
The government backed plans in December to significantly reduce Japan’s maximum tax rate on crypto profits, with a flat rate of 20% across the board.
Crypto ETFs coming to Japan
Japan is also planning to legalize crypto exchange-traded funds (ETFs) by 2028, marking a major shift toward mainstream crypto adoption, according to a January report.
Major financial groups, including Nomura Holdings and SBI Holdings, are among the first companies expected to develop crypto-linked exchange-traded products.
Asia Express: Phantom Bitcoin checks, China tracks tax on blockchain
A New York judge couldn’t decide yesterday whether or not to acquit Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm on conspiracy charges relating to his role in the creation of the non-custodial crypto mixer.
Storm was convicted last year of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, however, a jury was unable to come to a decision on more serious conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy to evade US sanctions charges.
As such, the question of whether or not to acquit Storm fell to Judge Katherine Polk Failla.
“This is a lot,” she said after hearing arguments from both Storm’s defence and government prosecutors.
As reported by The Block, Storm’s defence argued that Tornado Cash is legal, and that his work to update and maintain his legal business used by ordinary people doesn’t make him guilty of abetting the criminal money launderers who also use it.
General Counsel of Solana Policy Institute, Patrick Wilson, called this expansive claim “alarming,” and noted that, “Once criminals use a noncustodial tool at sufficient (though unspecified) scale, even otherwise lawful activity can be recast as illegitimate.”
Government prosecutors argued, however, that his work means he not only helped but profited from money launderering. One prosecutor caused a brief stir in the courtroom after implying that anyone whose funds were mixed with criminal funds via Tornado Cash may also be liable.
The CEO of the DeFi Education Fund, Amanda Tuminelli, attended the hearing and claimed that the government “still does not understand the tech at issue.”
Read more: Ethereum dev arrested in Turkey ups Roman Storm donation to $500K
“The lack of nuance, the misrepresentations about how a UI functions, and the equivocation between different technologies is really disheartening at this point in the case,” she said.
“It was good to see the judge digging in and asking detailed questions, but there is no way to predict how she will rule on Storm’s motion. Given that she was focused on dates for retrial at end of 2026, I think we can expect to see the case continue,” Tuminelli added.
The Rage reports that the topic of the First Amendment was barely touched upon, as well as the subject of unlicensed money transmission. The choice of New York as the venue was debated, however.
The prosecution claimed that the location of a Tornado Cash hacker, investors, and an attorney acting on behalf of a hacked crypto exchange, are all based in New York. Storm’s defence hit back, claiming that the investor’s funding was irrelevant and that the hacker didn’t use Tornado Cash for illegal purposes.
Prosecutors further claimed that an Ethereum cloud service used by Tornado Cash, which used a Manhattan bank, also constituted a New York venue.
Storm’s defence argued, however, that the payments to this cloud service cannot constitute an act aiding criminal conspiracy.
Roman Storm faces an October retrial
After last year’s trial, Storm filed for a pre-trial motion under Criminal Rule 29 that would acquit him on all counts.
His defence argues that the prosecution’s evidence wasn’t legally sufficient, and claims that, if his acquittal isn’t granted, the government “would criminalize the publication of decentralized software in violation of the first amendment.”
Read more: Roman Storm says he’s been ‘financially cancelled’ after payroll firm axe
Government prosecutors have requested that a retrial be scheduled for October so that the two remaining charges can be decided upon.
Storm currently remains free on a $2 million bail.
Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Quick Summary
- Tesla’s Q1 2026 electric vehicle deliveries reached 358,023 units, falling below analyst projections of 370,000.
- Shares have declined 23% in 2026 and are approaching their eighth consecutive weekly decline.
- The automaker manufactured 408,300 vehicles while delivering only 358,023, resulting in an unprecedented inventory surplus.
- Derivative trading patterns that historically bolstered share prices have weakened throughout 2026.
- Wall Street forecasts Tesla will experience negative free cash flow exceeding $6 billion during the current year.
Tesla’s first quarter 2026 delivery figures came in below expectations, accompanied by a concerning accumulation of unsold vehicles.
The electric vehicle manufacturer reported deliveries of 358,023 units during the opening quarter, undershooting analyst consensus of 370,000. While this represents a nominal 6% increase compared to the first quarter of 2025, that baseline itself reflected a 13% year-over-year decline, making the comparison less meaningful.
Tesla manufactured 408,300 vehicles during the three-month period while delivering 358,023 units. This differential of approximately 50,000 vehicles marks the company’s largest ever accumulation of unsold inventory.
JPMorgan analyst Ryan Brinkman highlighted the inventory accumulation as a significant drain on free cash flow, noting that undelivered vehicles consume capital until they reach customers.
Cash Flow Challenges Mount
The situation is complicated by timing factors. Tesla increased its capital expenditure forecast to $20 billion for 2026, a substantial jump from $8.5 billion spent in 2025. The majority of this investment targets artificial intelligence infrastructure and humanoid robotics manufacturing.
Wall Street analysts compiled by Visible Alpha project Tesla will generate negative free cash flow surpassing $6 billion in the current year, followed by additional negative cash flow exceeding $1.2 billion in 2027.
William Blair analyst Jed Dorsheimer noted “global EV demand ex-China remains under pressure,” suggesting that Tesla is “actively sacrificing its EV business in favor of a fully autonomous future.”
Market headwinds extend beyond Tesla. Intensifying competition, tariff policies from the Trump administration, and the elimination of the $7,500 federal electric vehicle tax credit have dampened demand throughout the sector.
The Model 3 and Model Y accounted for 97% of total Q1 deliveries, underscoring the company’s continued dependence on these two product lines.
Derivative Market Activity Weakens
Beyond fundamental factors, technical market dynamics have shifted. GLJ Research analyst Gordon Johnson has monitored options market activity surrounding Tesla and observed that retail investors have reduced aggressive call option purchasing in 2026.
Historically, substantial call buying compelled market makers to hedge positions by acquiring shares. This purchasing activity generated what market participants term a “gamma squeeze,” creating a self-reinforcing cycle that elevated share prices independent of underlying business performance.
Johnson contends this technical support mechanism has diminished, exposing the stock more directly to fundamental performance. He maintains a Sell rating with a $25.28 price target—significantly below consensus estimates and representing a contrarian position.
Nevertheless, his analysis of options market dynamics provides relevant insight into technical influences.
Entering Friday’s session, Tesla traded at $344.82 during premarket hours, declining approximately 0.2%. The stock currently trades at roughly 170 times projected 2026 earnings.
Full-year 2025 deliveries totaled 1.64 million units, down from 1.79 million in 2024.
Bittensor subnet developer Covenant AI said Friday that it is leaving the decentralized artificial intelligence network, accusing Bittensor of operating under a concentrated governance structure that undermines its decentralization claims.
In a Friday post on X, Covenant AI founder Sam Dare said the team could no longer build on or raise for Bittensor because its governance was not meaningfully distributed.
“It is decentralization theatre,” Dare said. “Jacob Steeves maintains effective control over the triumvirate, resists any meaningful transfer of authority, and deploys changes unilaterally whenever he chooses, without process and without consensus.”
The dispute cuts to the core of Bittensor’s decentralization pitch. Covenant AI alleged that founder Jacob Steeves, known as Const, exerts outsized influence over governance and network operations, an accusation Steeves denied.
Bittensor’s governance documents describe a transitional system in which a “Triumvirate” of Opentensor Foundation employees holds root permissions alongside a senate, rather than a fully open governance model.
Covenant AI claims subnet emissions were suspended, Bittensor founder denies allegations
Covenant AI said Steeves had taken several actions against the project in recent weeks, including suspending emissions to its subnet, restricting moderation powers in community channels and applying “direct economic pressure” through visible token sales during the dispute.
Steeves rejected the allegations, claiming that he cannot suspend subnet emissions and that he does not hold “any privilege beyond what normal TAO holders have.”
In a Friday X response, Steeves said he sold some of his “alpha holdings on his three subnets because they were not running and were on near 100% burn code,” which changed the emissions the same way “all buys and sells on Bittensor do.”
Steeves also denied stripping Covenant AI of its moderation rights, saying he only temporarily removed the team’s ability to delete posts before restoring it. He added that large token sales would have been visible onchain.
“Less than 1% of what i had invested in his teams. Visibility is impossible to avoid in my position. I reserve my right to buy and sell tokens which is what underpins the entire system of dTao,” he added.
Bittensor previously garnered mainstream attention after Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang praised the decentralized training run on Bittensor Subnet 3, calling Covenant’s milestone of pre-training the largest decentralized LLM a “remarkable technical achievement,” during the All-In Podcast on March 19.
Related: Bittensor’s TAO price may plunge 40% within five weeks: Fractal data
TAO’s sales volume skyrockets ahead of Covenant AI’s departure announcement
The governance dispute also weighed on Bittensor’s (TAO) token, which was down around 18% over the previous 24 hours as of Friday morning, according to market data.
However, sell volume on TAO rose to its highest level since December 2024, about 24 hours before Covenant AI announced its departure. “If you think that’s a coincidence, you don’t understand the game you’re playing. This was a calculated exit and execution,” wrote crypto analyst Ardi in a Friday X post.
Cointelegraph reached out to Covenant AI and Bittensor for comment but had not received a response by publication.
The dispute raises wider concerns for projects striving for decentralization, according to David and Daniil Liberman, co-creators of the decentralized layer-1 blockchain Gonka protocol.
“Decentralized networks that want serious builders have to answer one question: can the infrastructure you build on be used against you? If the answer is yes, the decentralization is cosmetic,” they told Cointelegraph.
Magazine: Michael Heinrich loves AI coins Goat, Turbo & Aethir… but not TAO
- Toncoin whales have accumulated over 189,700 TON in three months.
- Heavy accumulation comes as TON activates the Catchain 2.0 upgrade.
- TON price rose to intraday highs of $1.32, could eye $1.89-$2.40 next.
Toncoin (TON), the cryptocurrency token of the Telegram-supported TON Blockchain, is trading higher on the day amid signs of renewed investor interest.
On Friday, the Toncoin price hovered at $1.30 as large holders, or “whales,” scooped up more tokens. The accumulation comes amid a tentative broader market recovery.
Toncoin price tests $1.30 zone amid whale accumulation
Toncoin’s price has climbed 4% in the past 24 hours, hovering near the critical $1.30 resistance zone.
The token reached an intraday high of $1.32 during the Asian trading session.
Buyers helped push trading volume up, with the metric spiking 104% as of writing to $160 million, marking a 45% increase from the previous day’s average.
This uptick arrives as Bitcoin holds above $71,000 amid bets on a new leg to $80,000.
Notably, TON’s momentum aligns with this backdrop, particularly as the network’s 100 largest whale addresses have collectively scooped up an additional 189,730 $TON over the past three months.
This accumulation persists despite broader market headwinds.
Analysts at Santiment highlighted what’s likely bullish in a post:
“Even with the #29-ranked coin in crypto losing two-thirds of its market cap since its local top in early August 2025, this heavy accumulation is a promising sign that a relief rally may come quickly once crypto markets finally turn the page from this bear cycle.”
Whale activity often points to fresh confidence in a project, and the aggressive buying shows interest in Toncoin’s underlying ecosystem.
The token is tied to the Telegram-integrated TON blockchain, which continues to expand through decentralized applications and mini-apps.
TON price is looking to bounce higher as the community cheers the Catchain, an upgrade designed to boost network throughput and block processing capacity.
In a post on X, Telegram CEO Pavel Durov commented on how bullish this upgrade is for Toncoin, noting that it marks the first step in a 7-stage Make TON Great Again (MTONGA) vision.
The TON blockchain just got upgraded and is now 10× faster.
Block rate increased 6×.
Transactions are now instant, subsecond.
This was step 1 of 7 to Make TON Great Again (MTONGA).
Next step: cut the already low transaction fees by 6×.
— Pavel Durov (@durov) April 9, 2026
What’s next for Toncoin price?
Such large-scale buying often precedes price reversals, as these investors position for potential rebounds.
Toncoin’s technical picture indicates that the price remains entrenched in a downtrend that began in June 2025, when it peaked above $8.20.
Persistent selling has resulted in a 84% decline in its value.
Bulls are not out of the woods yet, but a decisive break above $1.35 could ignite fresh upside momentum.
In this case, a potential target in a fresh rally would be the next resistance cluster around $1.89-$2.00. Significant supply pressure could follow at $2.40, an area of prior profit-taking deals.
Conversely, if sellers regain control, primary support levels beckon at $1.15.
A drop below $1.00 could accelerate selling toward $0.85, the multi-month low.
Key takeaways
-
Impersonation scams can be low-tech yet highly effective, using fake websites that closely mimic trusted cryptocurrency platforms to deceive users.
-
The CoinDCX case shows how a 7.16 million rupee fraud complaint escalated into legal action before it was identified as an impersonation case.
-
The fake domain coindcx.pro, not the real platform, was used to mislead the victim and carry out the fraud.
-
Scammers built a complete fake ecosystem using websites, Telegram channels and social media to create credibility.
While coverage of the cryptocurrency industry often focuses on market volatility, smart contract vulnerabilities and shifting government policies, some serious threats are remarkably low-tech. Deception often wears a familiar face. A fraudulent website that perfectly mirrors a legitimate exchange can cause both financial and reputational damage.
The CoinDCX impersonation incident is a stark case study of this pattern. What began as a 7.16 million rupee ($77,000) fraud complaint eventually escalated into police proceedings against the exchange’s leadership. However, the court’s intervention ultimately shifted the blame away from the actual platform, revealing that the culprit was a sophisticated digital facade operated by scammers.
A fake CoinDCX, but a real complaint
The case originated from a complaint filed by a 42-year-old insurance consultant based in Mumbra, a suburb in the Thane district within the Mumbai metropolitan region. The complainant alleged that he had been defrauded of about 7.16 million rupees. During the scam, he believed he was dealing with CoinDCX, which was presenting investment opportunities to him.
The offer allegedly included assurances of 10% to 12% monthly returns and references to a crypto franchise-style model linked to the platform. These elements, namely the promise of high returns and the apparent legitimacy of the brand, formed the core of the alleged fraud.
What sets this case apart is what happened next. Instead of being identified as an impersonation scam, the complaint escalated into legal action that led to the arrest of the company’s co-founders, Sumit Gupta and Neeraj Khandelwal.
The role of coindcx.pro in this case
Central to the incident was a counterfeit website, coindcx.pro, which the victim interacted with instead of the real CoinDCX website, coindcx.com.
Such fake domains are a common method in impersonation scams. They appear visually similar, seem trustworthy and deliberately exploit the brand’s established credibility.
According to statements issued by CoinDCX, no money connected to this matter was processed through its exchange systems. The scam did not originate within the platform itself. Instead, external actors allegedly used its name and reputation as bait.
Did you know? Domain impersonation scams often use subtle tricks, such as replacing letters, for example “o” with “0,” or adding extra words, to make fake websites nearly indistinguishable from real ones at a glance.
How the fraudsters built a fake ecosystem
The impersonation reportedly extended well beyond a single domain. The scammers also built supporting infrastructure, such as Telegram channels and social media accounts, to reinforce the illusion of legitimacy. This reflects a broader trend in crypto scams today, where perpetrators no longer rely on a single deceptive element but instead build an entire parallel ecosystem.
For the victim, this setup created a seamless and consistent experience: a website, an associated community and representatives, all seemingly connected to a recognized brand.
How the case escalated
The complaint was filed at the Mumbra police station in Thane on March 16, 2026. As the investigation progressed, CoinDCX’s co-founders were taken into custody in Bengaluru.
This turn of events highlights a key complexity in impersonation cases. When victims mention a prominent company in a complaint, it can take time to distinguish genuine involvement from misuse of the brand name. In fast-moving investigations, this lack of clarity can sometimes lead to action against legitimate companies before all the facts are established.
The case reached a critical stage when it came before a Thane magistrate court. The court granted bail to CoinDCX’s co-founders and noted that no prima facie case had been established against them. It observed that the complainant had been deceived by individuals impersonating the company’s promoters, not by the company itself. The victim also admitted having had no interaction with the company’s co-founders.
Did you know? Cybercriminals often buy expired or similar-looking domains in bulk, enabling them to launch multiple fake versions of a popular crypto platform within hours once a scam template proves effective.
A wider pattern of fake domains
The CoinDCX case is not an isolated incident.
According to the company, it reported more than 1,200 fake websites impersonating its platform between April 2024 and January 2026. This suggests that, for fraudsters, impersonation is not a sporadic tactic but a scalable strategy.
CoinDCX also stated that the first information report (FIR) filed against its co-founders was false.
Creating a domain that closely mimics a well-known platform is relatively inexpensive. When combined with messaging apps and social media, it allows fraud networks to recreate an appearance of trust at scale.
Why high monthly returns remain a key trigger
A central feature of the alleged scam was the promise of 10% to 12% monthly returns.
Such claims are a common element in financial fraud. In the cryptocurrency space, they are often paired with urgency, exclusivity or an association with a recognized platform.
From a behavioral perspective, these promises serve two key roles:
In many cases, the perceived legitimacy of the brand helps overcome doubts that might otherwise arise from the unusually high returns.
Did you know? Many impersonation scams reuse the same scripts and layouts across different brands, allowing a fake site built for one exchange to be repurposed for another within days.
Legal and reputational fallout of the CoinDCX incident
Although the court found no case against CoinDCX’s co-founders, the incident highlights the wider consequences of impersonation scams.
For companies and their executives, such events can result in:
For users of any exchange, seeing it associated with negative news can be unsettling. Those who have invested through the platform may fear financial loss. Even when a recovery process exists, few would want to become involved in a difficult and often lengthy procedure.
The case also raises important questions about how law enforcement handles digital impersonation, where identities can be replicated far more quickly than they can be verified.
CoinDCX’s response
In the aftermath of the incident, CoinDCX announced a 100 crore rupee ($10.76 million) initiative called the Digital Suraksha Network (DSN), focused on fraud prevention and user awareness.
The reported measures include:
-
An AI-driven WhatsApp helpline
-
APIs for sharing fraud-related data
-
Collaboration with law enforcement for training and improved response
While these steps cannot completely eliminate the risk of impersonation, they reflect a move toward more proactive defense and stronger coordination across the ecosystem.
What users should take away
The CoinDCX impersonation case offers several practical lessons:
-
Verify domains carefully. Even minor variations can indicate a fraudulent site.
-
Be cautious of promises of fixed or unusually high monthly returns.
-
Treat Telegram groups and social media handles as unverified unless they are officially confirmed.
-
Ensure that all transactions are conducted only through official platforms.
In many cases, the difference between a legitimate service and a scam is not advanced technology but careful verification.
Crypto World
ServiceNow (NOW) Stock Plunges Nearly 8% Amid Geopolitical Chaos and AI Disruption Concerns
Key Takeaways
- ServiceNow (NOW) shares plummeted approximately 7.86% on Friday, April 10, 2026, settling near $89.81.
- Renewed Middle East conflict following a ceasefire breakdown sparked widespread market anxiety and contributed to the decline.
- Anthropic unveiled Managed Agents, fully autonomous AI tools capable of handling complex workflows, sparking concerns over traditional SaaS model obsolescence.
- Famed short seller Michael Burry briefly posted (then removed) commentary suggesting Anthropic poses a competitive threat to Palantir, amplifying SaaS sector concerns.
- Year-to-date, NOW has declined 38.3% and currently trades 56% beneath its 52-week peak of approximately $211.
ServiceNow (NOW) faced a brutal trading session Friday, with shares collapsing nearly 8% to close around $89.81 as twin headwinds slammed the enterprise software provider in an already shaky market environment.
SaaS investors endured a particularly punishing day across the board.
The initial pressure originated from geopolitical developments. News emerged of a ceasefire violation in the Middle East, sparking renewed investor anxiety and triggering broad risk-off sentiment. This stood in stark contrast to the situation just ten days prior, when NOW had rallied 6.2% following President Trump’s comments about constructive diplomatic engagement with Iran. Friday’s session wiped away most of those gains.
The second blow struck more directly at ServiceNow’s core business model. Anthropic rolled out Managed Agents, a new class of autonomous artificial intelligence systems designed to execute sophisticated, multi-stage workflows independently. Market participants viewed this development as potentially disruptive to conventional SaaS platforms that rely on human operators to manage business processes.
Burry’s Brief Commentary Intensifies Selling Pressure
Michael Burry, the prominent investor famous for prescient contrarian positions, briefly published and subsequently removed a social media statement asserting that Anthropic was “eating Palantir’s lunch.” Though fleeting, the remark highlighted growing investor concerns about established SaaS companies’ exposure to emerging AI-native competitors and added momentum to Friday’s downturn.
While Burry’s quickly-deleted commentary offered no new hard data about ServiceNow’s operations, it resonated in an already nervous trading environment.
NOW shares have now surrendered 38.3% of their value year-to-date. Trading at $89.81, the stock languishes more than 56% below its 52-week high of $211.48 achieved in mid-2025. An investor who purchased $1,000 of NOW stock five years ago would currently hold approximately $858 in value.
The stock has experienced 11 single-day moves exceeding 5% over the past twelve months, indicating Friday’s sharp decline, while severe, fits within recent volatility patterns.
Fundamental Performance Remains Robust
Despite the stock’s punishing performance this year, ServiceNow’s core business metrics continue showing strength. The company reported full-year 2025 revenue of $13.3 billion, representing 21% growth versus the prior year. Subscription revenue, which provides stable recurring cash flows, contributed $12.9 billion to that figure.
ServiceNow closed 2025 with $28.2 billion in remaining performance obligations—a forward-looking indicator of committed future revenue—reflecting 27% year-over-year expansion.
The company has also taken proactive steps to counter the AI competitive threat. ServiceNow has established partnerships with both Anthropic and OpenAI, and earlier this year completed the acquisition of Moveworks, an AI agent technology provider serving major enterprises including Toyota and Unilever. That acquisition’s technology has been integrated into Autonomous Workforce, a product introduced in February that ServiceNow claims can autonomously handle 90% of routine IT support requests.
Shares last changed hands at $89.81, having touched a session low of $88.66.
Update April 10, 2026, 10 am UTC: This article has been updated to add more details from the announcement.
Hong Kong has issued its first stablecoin issuer licenses, approving Anchorpoint Financial and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation under a new regulatory framework overseen by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA).
The HKMA announced the initial batch of licensees on Friday, marking the first approvals under its stablecoin regime.
Anchorpoint Financial is the stablecoin joint venture formed by Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong), Animoca Brands and Hong Kong Telecommunications. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited is HSBC’s Hong Kong-based banking entity and one of the city’s three note-issuing banks.
The first approvals highlight Hong Kong’s cautious approach, with regulators appearing to favor bank-linked and institution-backed issuers in the regime’s opening phase.
The announcement comes after weeks of unconfirmed reports about potential licensees and a missed March timeline, marking a cautious start to Hong Kong’s stablecoin licensing rollout. HKMA Chief Executive Eddie Yue said in February that a very small number of issuers would be licensed in March, a timetable the HKMA ultimately missed before granting the first approvals.
Hong Kong’s stablecoin regime took effect on Aug. 1, 2025, and requires issuers of fiat-referenced stablecoins to obtain an HKMA licence and meet rules covering reserve backing, redemption, governance and Anti-Money Laundering controls.
Hong Kong rolls out stablecoin regime after delays
The stablecoin regime also gives the HKMA power to investigate violations and take enforcement action, including fines, suspensions and license revocations.
Yue said the new regime gives stablecoin issuers a regulated framework to operate in Hong Kong while requiring safeguards around user protection and risk management.
The licensed issuers are expected to launch their operations in the coming months, according to the HKMA.
Related: Hong Kong, Shanghai authorities to test blockchain for cargo trade data
On April 1, the HKMA said it was actively advancing the licensing process after missing its earlier March timeline.
Earlier media reports also pointed to possible frontrunners. On March 13, HSBC and a Standard Chartered-backed venture were tipped as likely recipients, but the regulator had not confirmed any names at the time.
Cointelegraph reached out to the HKMA for more information, but had not received a response by publication.
Magazine: Asia Express: Phantom Bitcoin checks, China tracks tax on blockchain
Children going through family courts face increased risk of self-harm, new research finds
Barrick Mining: IPO Spinoff Dream Hits Royalty Shocker And Margin Squeeze
Politics Home | Labour MP Says “Harmful” Jury Trial Reforms Are A “Distraction” As Rebellion Grows
-
Fashion7 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Spanx – Corporette.com
-
Business4 days agoThree Gulf funds agree to back Paramount’s $81 billion takeover of Warner, WSJ reports
-
Sports6 days agoIndia men’s 4x400m and mixed 4x100m relay teams register big progress | Other Sports News
-
Business6 days agoExpert Picks for Every Need
-
Tech3 days agoHow Long Can You Drive With Expired Registration? What Florida Law Says
-
Business5 days agoNo Jackpot Winner, Prize to Climb to $231 Million
-
Fashion4 days agoMassimo Dutti Offers Inspiration for Your Summer Mood Board
-
Fashion3 days agoLet’s Discuss: DEI in 2026
-
Politics7 days ago
Wings Over Scotland | The quality of mercy
-
Crypto World2 days agoBitcoin recovers as US and Iran Agree a Ceasefire Deal
-
Business5 days agoAkebia Therapeutics, Inc. (AKBA) Discusses Pipeline Progress and Strategic Focus on Kidney Disease Treatments at R&D Day – Slideshow
-
Crypto World23 hours agoCanary Capital Files SEC Registration for PEPE ETF
-
Politics6 days agoThe UK should not pay a penny in slavery reparations
-
Fashion7 days agoFrugal Friday’s Workwear Report: Hammered Metallic Button Sweater Vest
-
Tech4 days agoSamsung just gave up on its own Messages app
-
Tech4 days agoHaier is betting big that your next TV purchase will be one of these
-
Fashion7 days agoWeekly News Update, 4.3.26 – Corporette.com
-
NewsBeat7 days agoKemi Badenoch talks ‘spring cleaning’ Reform defections
-
Tech4 days agoGamer Restores the Original PlayStation Portal From Two Decades Ago
-
Tech7 days agoFlat tire? Dead battery? Speedy’s serves stranded Seattle riders as a quicker e-bike picker-upper
You must be logged in to post a comment Login