Bettors have long been able to speculate on the chance of a nuclear weapon detonating on Polymarket, but the current conflict with Iran – and scrutiny about insiders trading on war – has apparently caused the platform to remove the contracts.

The markets, which asked users to assign probabilities to whether a nuclear weapon would detonate by specific dates, have circulated on Polymarket for years and historically have resolved to “No.”

But renewed attention to the contracts comes as prediction markets face criticism after a trader reportedly made more than $400,000 betting on Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro’s ouster shortly before the U.S. operation that led to his capture, raising questions about whether insiders could exploit the platforms to trade on the outbreak of war – such as the start of this current conflict with Iran – and other military actions.

Historical trading suggests the contracts occasionally priced meaningful risk.

A Polymarket contract in 2023 at one point implied roughly a 19% chance that a nuclear weapon would detonate before the end of the year, according to platform data.

A later market expiring in June 2025 traded near 12%.

The markets also attracted significant trading activity. The 2025 contract alone recorded more than $1.7 Million in volume, while the 2023 version drew nearly $700,000 in wagers.

All this comes as U.S. regulators consider how to oversee prediction markets.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposed rules in 2024 that would bar exchanges it regulates from listing event contracts tied to war, terrorism, assassination, or other activities deemed contrary to the public interest.

Chairman Mike Selig said the Commission plans to issue clearer guidance on prediction markets in the near future.

Australia could unlock 24 billion Australian dollars ($17 billion) annually from advances in tokenized markets and digital assets, but only if lawmakers move forward with regulation. A new study by the Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre (DFCRC) outlines regulatory uncertainty, coordination hurdles, and a limited pathway for pilots as the primary constraints. The research argues that a well-designed sandbox for testing tokenized financial market use cases could catalyze ongoing collaboration between regulators and industry players, help refine licensing frameworks, and accelerate real-world adoption of tokenized rails for markets, payments, and collateral management.

Key takeaways

• The DFCRC projects up to A$24 billion in annual economic gains from tokenized markets and digital finance if regulatory frameworks are clear and supportive.
• A dedicated sandbox for testing tokenized financial market use cases is recommended to foster regulator–industry collaboration and to mature licensing for institutional participants.
• Tokenized instruments, including government bonds and CBDCs, could underpin the growth of tokenized markets, enabling more efficient collateralized lending, settlement, and cross-border payments.
• Without a more predictable regulatory regime, the projected gains could shrink significantly; the study cautions that gains depend heavily on the pace and scope of policy reform.
• The report notes the project was launched in collaboration with the Digital Economy Council of Australia and financed by OKX, highlighting industry interest and the potential role of private partners in advancing a regulatory-ahead regime.

Tickers mentioned:

Sentiment: Bearish

Market context: The findings reflect a broader global push toward regulated tokenized finance, with sandbox approaches and pilot programs shaping how markets, settlements, and collateral management could evolve as liquidity and interoperability improve across digital assets.

Why it matters

The Australia study frames tokenization not merely as a technology upgrade but as a foundational shift in how capital markets, payments, and asset ownership operate. By linking regulatory clarity with technical experimentation, the DFCRC argues that tokenized markets could unlock liquidity that today remains constrained by legacy infrastructures and custodial frictions. In practical terms, tokenization could widen investor access to a broader set of instruments, improve market depth, and facilitate faster settlement cycles—benefits that, in turn, could widen the pool of available capital and deepen secondary markets.

More specifically, tokenized money—encompassing stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)—could streamline cross-border and domestic transactions by diminishing reliance on traditional correspondent banking rails, which can carry high fees. The DFCRC notes that tokenized rails promise greater transparency, traceability, and resiliency, with smart contracts automating processes such as collateral management, margining, and settlement. In this vision, assets become not only more liquid but more programmable, enabling new forms of automated lending, repo arrangements, and invoice financing that could reduce transaction costs and expand financing options for businesses and institutions alike.

Crucially, the report emphasizes the distribution of gains across three core areas—collateralized lending, repo, and invoice financing—where tokenized rails could yield the most measurable improvements. In such ecosystems, smart contracts handle collateral evaluation, threshold triggers, and settlement on a continuous basis, reducing counterparty risk and improving capital efficiency. If regulators provide a clear, interoperable framework, these gains could translate into tangible improvements for the broader economy, from faster settlement times to lower financing costs for infrastructure projects and small-to-medium enterprises.

The authors acknowledge that projected gains are contingent on regulatory unfoldings. The report highlights that, absent substantial regulatory reform, Australia could see far more modest economic benefits. If the current trajectory persists, DFCRC estimates that crypto-related economic gains may plateau at around A$1 billion by 2030, well short of the aspirational A$24 billion. Kate Cooper, chief executive of the crypto exchange OKX, underscored this view, stressing that robust regulation is a prerequisite for material gains, as uncertain rules can choke investor confidence and slow the deployment of tokenized services. The media release accompanying the study reiterates that the most significant upside emerges from well-defined licenses and infrastructure built to institutional standards. For readers seeking the full economic analysis, the DFCRC Economic Impact Report is available here: https://dfcrc.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/260303_DFCRC_Economic+Impact+Report_V7_Single.pdf.

The discussion sits within a broader international context where policymakers are balancing innovation with consumer protection, market integrity, and systemic risk concerns. While Australia contemplates a regulatory path, the underlying message is consistent with global trends: for tokenized markets to scale, regulators and industry participants must co-create frameworks that reduce friction without sacrificing safeguards. The DFCRC’s partnership with the Digital Economy Council of Australia and its funding from OKX signal both a public and private appetite for experimentation—paired with a clear-eyed recognition that policy design will ultimately determine the speed and scale of adoption. The study’s emphasis on three pillar areas also resonates with other research suggesting that tokenized collateral and automated settlement can transform capital markets by unlocking liquidity and reducing operational risk.

As the authors point out, the estimated gains could be higher or lower depending on regulatory outcomes, and the direction of policy evolution will shape both the pace and the geographic footprint of any rollout. The report’s cautions aside, the proposed sandbox model offers a concrete pathway to de-risk experimentation, offer a platform for pilots, and create license-ready infrastructure that could invite institutional participants to participate in tokenized markets at scale. In the near term, observers will watch how regulators respond to proposals for pilot projects, licensing regimes, and pilot-friendly capital-raising mechanisms that could accelerate the transition from theory to practice in tokenized finance. The collaboration behind the report reflects a broader industry push for practical regulatory reform that can foster innovation while preserving market integrity.

References to the DFCRC and its associated documents appear in links within this article, including the economic impact report and related materials that discuss tokenization and CBDCs in the Australian context. The broader ecosystem benefits described by the DFCRC align with ongoing discussions about how tokenized assets could reshape payments, lending, and collateral management, underscoring the importance of clear, institutionally aligned frameworks as Australia contemplates the next era of digital finance.

What to watch next

• Regulatory progress in Australia: any new guidelines or licensing reforms that enable sandbox participation by banks and non-bank financial institutions.
• Launch of tokenized-government-bond pilots or wholesale securities pilots within a sandbox framework.
• Deployment and testing of CBDCs in controlled environments to support settlement, collateralization, and cross-border flows.
• Announcements of further collaborations between regulators, industry groups, and crypto firms to evolve licensing standards for institutional players.

Sources & verification

• Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre Economic Impact Report PDF: https://dfcrc.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/260303_DFCRC_Economic+Impact+Report_V7_Single.pdf
• OKX media release on the DFCRC economic impact collaboration: https://dfcrc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Economic-impact-report-media-release-digital.pdf
• Tokenization explained overview: https://cointelegraph.com/explained/tokenization-explained
• CBDCs overview for beginners: https://cointelegraph.com/learn/articles/what-are-cbdcs-a-beginners-guide-to-central-bank-digital-currencies
• Stablecoins market cap and growth data: https://cointelegraph.com/news/stablecoins-300-billion-market-cap-47-growth-ytd
• Additional reference: Australian crypto industry perspectives and related policy discussions: https://cointelegraph.com/news/australia-crypto-adoption-regulation-smsf-growth-2026

Unlocking Australia’s $24 Billion Digital Finance Opportunity

The DFCRC’s analysis positions tokenization as a potential lever for widening participation in capital markets and for improving the efficiency of financial plumbing through programmable assets. A well-structured sandbox could serve as a bridge between high-level policy goals and the day-to-day realities of banks, fintechs, and asset managers exploring tokenized markets. By enabling controlled experiments with tokenized government bonds, collateralized lending, and cross-border settlement, Australia could build a scalable blueprint for modernizing its financial infrastructure while maintaining robust investor protections. The study emphasizes that gains are not just about faster settlements or better liquidity; they hinge on a broader regulatory architecture that supports innovation without compromising financial stability. If policymakers can align on licensing standards, interoperability, and risk controls, the country could position itself as a measured, forward-looking hub for digital finance at the regional level and beyond.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin has recorded five straight monthly red candles in 2025, pushing sentiment to historically exhausted levels.
• Gold and silver erased $2.4 trillion in market value in one session after a parabolic rally through early 2025.
• Dollar strength overrode geopolitical fear, revealing gold as a macro trade rather than a pure crisis hedge. 
• A strong Bitcoin monthly reversal could trigger sharp altcoin gains, especially in assets that held technical structure.

Bitcoin continues to face mounting pressure as traditional safe-haven assets experience a sharp reversal. Gold and silver together erased roughly $2.4 trillion in combined market value in a single trading session.

The selloff followed a parabolic rally that both metals staged earlier in 2025. Bitcoin, by contrast, has now recorded five consecutive monthly red candles throughout the year.

Dollar strength has become the dominant force shaping price action across both crypto and commodity markets.

Dollar Strength Exposes the Limits of Traditional Safe Havens

Gold and silver have long been considered reliable hedges during times of geopolitical uncertainty. However, recent price action across both metals tells a different story about their true nature.

Despite tensions involving Iran, global shipping disruptions, and persistent inflation talk, dollar strength overrode fear-driven demand for metals.

Gold climbed as much as 96% since the start of 2025, while silver surged approximately 191% over the same period.

Both assets had entered parabolic territory before the sharp correction ultimately took hold. The pullback effectively flushed excess leverage from an already overstretched market position.

One analyst on X wrote that dollar strength “overpowered fear,” arguing gold behaves more like a macro trade.

According to the post, gold remains tied to yields and the dollar, not a pure crisis hedge. The comment reflects how macro traders are reassessing the metal’s role in uncertain conditions.

Five Red Months Push Bitcoin Toward Historic Exhaustion

The digital asset has fallen approximately 27% since the start of 2025, even as metals posted strong gains. The nature of that decline, however, differs sharply from the selloff metals experienced this week. Rather than a sudden forced liquidation, the drop has resembled a slow and sustained liquidity drain.

Forced selling in overleveraged markets typically produces violent, sharp price drops within short timeframes. Bitcoin’s five-month slide has been more measured and gradual by comparison. That distinction carries weight when evaluating where the asset stands heading forward.

Bitcoin is now trading at historically stretched levels across multiple timeframes. Sentiment has been steadily drained throughout several months of consecutive losses. In effect, the asset has already completed the reset cycle that metals are only now beginning.

What a Reversal Could Mean for BTC and Altcoins

A strong monthly close for Bitcoin at current levels would carry considerable upside momentum. Historically, when a price breaks out after extended compression, the move tends to be sharp rather than gradual.

Altcoins that maintained structure during the prolonged bleed are best positioned to benefit from any rotation.

The same analyst noted that when Bitcoin moves aggressively after long compression, altcoins tend not to follow quietly. Instead, they often surge alongside the broader shift in market sentiment. Assets that held technical structure through the downturn are likely to see the largest moves.

Risk factors, however, remain present. If dollar strength continues building and equities weaken, Bitcoin will not escape the broader fallout. Oversold conditions build potential energy, but a macro catalyst is still needed to confirm a sustained reversal.

A new study from the Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) suggests that artificial intelligence models prefer Bitcoin over stablecoins and other forms of money for different financial situations, with very few showing a preference for fiat currency. 

The BPI tested 36 models generating more than 9,000 responses, and the AI agents “overwhelmingly chose to use Bitcoin for their economic activity,” the institute said on Tuesday as it released the results of its research. 

The study found that 48.3% of AI models chose to use Bitcoin (BTC) overall, and it was the most selected monetary instrument across all 9,072 responses.

When prompted with scenarios about preserving purchasing power over multi-year horizons, 79.1% of AI responses chose Bitcoin, “the single most lopsided result in the study.”

However, for payment scenarios, services, micropayments, and cross-border transfers, stablecoins were chosen in 53.2% of responses compared to just 36% for Bitcoin.

Bitwise chief investment officer Jeff Park said that the most obvious explanation for stablecoins not doing better is that they “can be frozen, Bitcoin can’t.”

Almost 91% of responses chose a digitally native instrument such as Bitcoin, stablecoins, altcoins, tokenized real-world assets (RWA), or compute units over traditional fiat. 

“Zero of the 36 models tested chose fiat as their top overall preference, making digital-money convergence one of the most universal findings in the study.” 

Methodology had limitations

The Bitcoin Policy Institute said the current study was limited to 36 models tested across six providers, and it would look to expand to additional models in the future. 

It also acknowledged that system prompt framing may have influenced the results, adding that “future work will test alternative framings and measure sensitivity.”

This was apparent in some of the “open-ended monetary scenarios” presented to the AI models. 

Related: OpenAI pits AI agents against each other to detect smart contract flaws 

For example, one scenario asked what financial instrument an AI would choose if it were operating across multiple countries with “75,000 units of accumulated earnings” wanting to store them in a way that is “not tied to any single country’s monetary policy or banking system,” which would already rule out fiat currency. 

BPI also said that the AI models’ preferences do not reflect real-world adoption and that the results instead indicate training data patterns.

The study revealed that Anthropic models averaged a 68% Bitcoin preference, whereas OpenAI models averaged 26%, Google’s 43%, and xAI 39%. 

Magazine: 6 massive challenges Bitcoin faces on the road to quantum security