Anthropic’s decision to shut down access to its latest artificial intelligence models after a US order to suspend access to foreign nationals highlights the risks of centralized control in AI, which could increase demand for decentralized alternatives, says Grayscale. 

Grayscale head of research Zach Pandl said in a note on Monday that the order to cut access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 shows “the centralized control of frontier AI technology and drives home the need for decentralized alternatives.”

“We expect demand for decentralized AI, like Bittensor and its TAO token, to continue to rise as investors seek alternatives,” Pandl said.

The US government on Friday directed Anthropic to suspend access to the models for foreign nationals over national security concerns. Anthropic subsequently disabled access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all users to comply with the order.

Pandl noted that in the 12 hours after Anthropic cut access to its latest models, Bittensor’s TAO token climbed 30% as users sought out a decentralized alternative, climbing to a three-week high of $283 on Monday.

TAO has outperformed the wider crypto market over the past week. Source: CoinGecko

Pandl explained that Bittensor offers an “alternative vision for AI based on decentralized principles,” aiming to provide access to AI resources through an open, global, decentralized network. 

“Think of it as Bitcoin for AI.”

“Access to artificial intelligence is becoming an increasingly important economic resource,” Pandl added. “As AI capabilities continue to improve, governments and AI labs will play an increasingly important role in determining who can access these tools and under what conditions.”

Anthropic suspension sets a precedent

Colton Malkerson, co-founder of EdgeRunner AI, argued that this event is a breaking point for corporate data independence.

“We’ve been saying for a while that companies are ‘renting’ their intelligence from the big labs, but this is even worse,” he said in a note to Cointelegraph. 

“It’s like renting your intelligence, just like if you’re renting a house and the landlord can cancel your lease whenever they want, kick you out, and look at all your property while you’re a tenant.”

Related: Amazon warning triggered US crackdown on Anthropic AI models: Reports

Tech entrepreneur and author Brett Hurt said in a note to Cointelegraph that the US order for Anthropic to cut off access to its models “was a precedent.” 

“The moment a government can silence a commercial AI model overnight, with no public hearing, no technical disclosure, and no appeals process, every lab in America is now operating under an invisible ceiling.”

Magazine: How AI just dramatically sped up the quantum risk for Bitcoin

Uniswap’s UNI token has been projected to climb from about $2.70 to $100 by the end of 2030 as tokenized assets increasingly enter decentralized finance, according to a new forecast from Standard Chartered Bank.

Standard Chartered Bank initiated coverage of Uniswap (UNI) on Monday and said the decentralized exchange could be one of the biggest beneficiaries of growth in tokenized assets and on-chain financial activity over the rest of the decade.

The bank expects tokenized assets on public blockchains to expand from roughly $340 billion today to $4 trillion by the end of 2028. At the same time, Standard Chartered projects the share of those assets being used in DeFi applications to rise from 3.5% to 30% by the end of 2030. Combined with growth in crypto-native assets, the bank estimates total assets locked in DeFi could reach about $2.7 trillion, nearly 37 times current levels.

Geoffrey Kendrick, Global Head of Digital Assets Research at Standard Chartered Bank, said he sees decentralized finance as the next major wealth-creation opportunity in digital assets. Based on that outlook, the bank believes Uniswap’s liquidity pools could eventually have access to roughly 37 times more assets for trading than they do today.

Under Standard Chartered’s forecast, UNI could reach $6.50 by the end of 2026, $20 by the end of 2027, $40 by the end of 2028, $65 by the end of 2029, and $100 by the end of 2030. The bank also expects UNI to outperform both Bitcoin and Ether during that period.

Fee burns and token supply changes support the thesis

Part of the bank’s optimism comes from changes made to Uniswap’s economic model over the past year. Before December 2025, swap fees generated on the protocol were distributed entirely to liquidity providers. A protocol upgrade known as UNIfication introduced protocol fees and a mechanism that burns UNI tokens, while later governance decisions expanded fee collection across additional liquidity pools.

According to Standard Chartered, Uniswap has generated roughly $21 million in protocol fees since the fee switch was activated and has burned about 5 million UNI tokens, equivalent to an annual burn rate near 1%.

Token supply has also declined. The bank noted that a one-time burn of 100 million UNI, combined with ongoing burns, has reduced total supply from 1 billion to 895 million tokens, while circulating supply has fallen to about 622 million.

Recent activity on the network has reinforced that trend. Earlier this month, the UNI Burn Bot reported a record daily burn of 134,000 UNI through the UNIfication system. The mechanism requires users claiming protocol fees from TokenJar contracts to burn an equivalent value of UNI through the Firepit contract, permanently removing those tokens from circulation.

Uniswap governance has also expanded the burn framework. Proposal 96, approved in May, extended fee collection and UNI burns to BNB Chain, Polygon, and Celo, increasing the number of supported chains to 11.

Alongside those governance changes, Uniswap Labs has rolled out wallet services, cross-chain swaps, portfolio tracking tools, and multichain portfolio views. The company said nearly half of new traders on Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base who completed swaps in 2026 made their first transaction through Uniswap.

Bank sees valuation gap with Coinbase narrowing

In its report, Standard Chartered compared Uniswap’s business model with Coinbase and argued that the decentralized exchange remains undervalued relative to the volume it processes.

The bank described Uniswap as similar to YouTube because users create and supply liquidity, while Coinbase was compared to Netflix because it operates and manages its own centralized platform infrastructure.

According to the report, that structure gives Uniswap lower capital requirements since liquidity comes from users rather than the protocol itself. The bank also expects the platform to remain competitive in markets involving closely related assets such as stablecoins, liquid staking tokens, and eventually tokenized real-world assets.

Although Uniswap handles transaction volumes that are comparable to Coinbase, Standard Chartered said the protocol trades at a much lower market capitalization-to-transaction fee multiple. Geoffrey Kendrick said stronger commercialization efforts and partnerships with traditional financial institutions could help narrow that gap over time if Uniswap successfully scales its business.

Risks remain. Standard Chartered warned that specialized decentralized exchanges could develop products better suited for certain markets, while capturing tokenized asset activity will require stronger relationships with traditional finance firms. The bank also noted that Uniswap V4’s hook system has not yet been tested at the scale anticipated in its long-term projections.

Looking ahead, Standard Chartered said regulatory developments such as the expected passage of the U.S. Clarity Act or future guidance from the Securities and Exchange Commission could help address some of those challenges and support wider adoption of decentralized finance infrastructure.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has urged the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to coordinate more closely with other federal regulators on blockchain risks. 

The watchdog made its June 8 letter to FDIC Chairman Travis Hill public on June 15.

Meanwhile, the GAO said blockchain-related financial products and services have grown in recent years. It said regulators “lacked an ongoing coordination mechanism” for blockchain risks when it reviewed the issue in 2023. The office said such a process would help agencies identify risks and respond faster.

FDIC role grows under stablecoin law

The recommendation arrives as the FDIC’s crypto role grows under the GENIUS Act. As crypto.news reported in April, the FDIC proposed rules for stablecoin issuers operating through the banking system. The proposal covers reserves, redemption, capital, risk management, and custody standards.

Under that framework, reserve deposits backing stablecoins may qualify for deposit insurance if they sit inside insured banks. Stablecoin holders would not receive federal deposit protection. That difference keeps the FDIC at the center of a debate over how bank rules should apply to tokenized payment products.

The US Government Accountability Office has urged the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to make an effort to coordinate with other federal agencies to address risks from blockchain technology.

GAO made a June 8 letter to FDIC Chairman Travis Hill public on Monday, which said that it first flagged priority recommendations with the regulator in May last year, including addressing blockchain technology risks.

It said that blockchain technology was an area of concern that it put on its “High Risk List,” as it deems that regulators have struggled to oversee blockchain-based financial products and the risks they could pose to US markets.

Under the GENIUS Act passed last year, the FDIC is the main regulator for stablecoin issuers that are subsidiaries of the banks it supervises. Senate lawmakers are currently looking to pass a bill that would outline how federal agencies would regulate the wider crypto market.

Source: U.S. GAO

In its letter to Hill, the GAO said that it found in 2023 that financial regulators “lacked an ongoing coordination mechanism for addressing blockchain risks” and in the meantime, “blockchain-related financial products and services have grown substantially.”

“Establishing such a mechanism, as we recommended, would help FDIC and other regulators collectively identify risks and develop and implement a regulatory response in a timely manner,” it added.

The GAO also urged that the FDIC rotate case managers assigned to banks to strengthen supervision of the sector.

Related: FDIC moves to regulate stablecoin issuers under the GENIUS Act

It said it found in 2024 that the agency did not require supervisors to rotate to different banks, which “could compromise their independence and interfere with supervision outcomes,” and a rotation requirement “could mitigate threats to independence.”

The GAO said that the failure of multiple crypto and tech industry-linked banks in 2023 “raised questions” about whether the bank watchdogs took enough action to ensure institutions “promptly addressed supervisory concerns.”

Silicon Valley Bank, Silvergate Bank and Signature Bank, which all had significant exposure to the crypto industry, all collapsed in less than a week in March 2023 in the fallout of the bankruptcy of FTX, which sent crypto markets tumbling.

Magazine: Does ‘Paper Bitcoin’ mean there’s an unlimited supply of BTC?

US spot bitcoin ETFs lost a net $64 million on Monday, even as spot ETFs for ether, XRP, Solana and Hyperliquid all pulled in fresh cash. On the surface, that looks like a clean rotation out of bitcoin and into everything else.

Ether funds gained $22.5 million, Hyperliquid funds $17.2 million, and the XRP and Solana funds about $2.8 million each. That tracks Monday’s price action, where the alts ran well ahead of bitcoin, with XRP up about 7%, Solana 6% and Hyperliquid 11% on the day. The flows followed the tape.

[@portabletext/react] Unknown block type “image”, specify a component for it in the `components.types` prop

It is worth keeping the scale in mind. Bitcoin ETFs still hold about $83 billion in assets, against roughly $10 billion for ether and around $1 billion each for the XRP, Solana and Hyperliquid products.

The bitcoin number needs a second look. The outflow was not broad, as BlackRock’s IBIT, the largest fund, actually took in $66 million. The net loss came almost entirely from Grayscale’s GBTC, the high-fee legacy trust that has been shedding assets since these funds launched, which lost $124 million on the day. Strip out GBTC and bitcoin ETFs had an ordinary session

[@portabletext/react] Unknown block type “image”, specify a component for it in the `components.types` prop

The real question is durability. If the altcoin ETFs keep drawing inflows once GBTC’s drag fades, the rotation is real. If not, Monday was a blip dressed up as a trend.

Bybit, one of the world’s top cryptocurrency exchanges by trading volume, has launched options trading on Tether Gold (XAUT), a token that provides you ownership of real physical gold.

The XAUT options are now live and allow traders to hedge risk, speculate on gold price movements, trade volatility, and build custom strategies through Bybit’s Request for Quote (RFQ) system for over-the-counter (OTC) deals.

Bybit partnered with Orbit Markets, a leading options market maker active in both crypto and traditional finance to ensure deep liquidity from the start. Orbit’s team brings significant expertise, including former senior executives from precious metals trading desks, notably the ex-APAC Head of Currencies and Precious Metals at Deutsche Bank.

“As tokenization accelerates, we believe the distinction between crypto and TradFi will continue to narrow,” said Jimmy Yang, co-founder of Orbit Markets. “Gold options are a cornerstone of traditional derivatives markets, and we are excited to see growing interest in TradFi derivatives within crypto.”

The XAUT options are European-style contracts settled in dollar-pegged stablecoin USDT, with each options contract corresponding to one XAUT token, which itself represents one troy ounce of physical gold.”

What Are Options?

Options are derivative contracts that give the buyer the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell the underlying asset at a set price before or on a specific date. A call option gives the right to buy, while a put option gives the right to sell.

Anthropic’s move to suspend access to its latest frontier AI models—after a U.S. directive tied to national security—has reignited debate over how concentrated control over advanced AI can translate into sudden access restrictions for users worldwide. Grayscale says the episode underscores the “centralized control” risks of frontier AI and may bolster demand for decentralized alternatives such as Bittensor.

In a note published Monday, Grayscale head of research Zach Pandl linked the U.S. order to the decision to cut access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models for foreign nationals, and later to disable access for all users to comply with the directive. Pandl argued that investors increasingly want ways to access AI capabilities without relying on a single institution’s permissions.

Key takeaways

• Grayscale says Anthropic’s access suspension highlights the risk that centralized frontier AI can be curtailed quickly by governments.
• After the shutdown, Grayscale pointed to a surge in demand for decentralized AI networks, citing Bittensor’s TAO token strength.
• The U.S. order required Anthropic to suspend access for foreign nationals over national security concerns, prompting broader compliance measures.
• Bittensor is positioned by Grayscale as an “open, global, decentralized” approach to AI access.

U.S. directive forces Anthropic to pull access

According to the reporting referenced by Cointelegraph, the U.S. government directed Anthropic on Friday to suspend access to its models for foreign nationals, citing national security concerns. Anthropic then disabled access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 not only for the targeted group, but for all users, to comply with the order.

Grayscale’s Pandl framed this as a stark example of how quickly centralized systems can change who is allowed to use the latest AI capabilities. In his Monday note, he said the situation “drives home the need for decentralized alternatives,” arguing that frontier AI access can be shaped by decisions made outside the open technical ecosystem.

Grayscale ties the access shock to momentum in decentralized AI

Pandl also pointed to market behavior in the immediate aftermath of Anthropic’s cut-off. He noted that in the roughly 12 hours after access was reduced, Bittensor’s TAO token rose by 30%, reaching a three-week high of $283 on Monday.

The note positions that move as evidence that users and investors are actively looking for alternatives when access to prominent centralized models is disrupted. CoinGecko data referenced in the original piece indicates TAO’s outperformance relative to the broader crypto market over the prior week.

While token price changes do not prove causality, the timing described by Grayscale suggests that decentralized AI networks may be perceived as more resilient when frontier model availability is constrained.

Bittensor as an “AI for everyone” network, not a permissioned gate

Grayscale’s research director argued that Bittensor offers a different approach to AI infrastructure: an “alternative vision for AI based on decentralized principles,” intended to deliver access to AI resources through an open, global, decentralized network.

Pandl summarized the concept by comparing it to “Bitcoin for AI,” emphasizing the idea that access to capabilities should be governed by open protocols rather than by a single lab’s authorization policies. In his view, as AI improves, AI access increasingly functions like an economic resource—meaning the rules determining who can use it, and under what conditions, become a central issue for both governments and market participants.

Industry voices: centralized AI limits are becoming more visible

Beyond Grayscale, other commentators highlighted broader implications. Colton Malkerson, co-founder of EdgeRunner AI, described the incident as a “breaking point” for corporate data independence, telling Cointelegraph in a note that companies are “renting” intelligence from big labs—an arrangement he said can become worse when access is withdrawn abruptly.

In his analogy, he framed it like a tenant whose landlord can cancel a lease at any time while also viewing the tenant’s property. The point was not about a specific model’s quality, but about the structural dependency that arises when advanced AI is delivered through centralized systems.

Tech entrepreneur and author Brett Hurt also called the U.S. order a “precedent.” In comments provided to Cointelegraph, he argued that the ability of a government to silence a commercial AI model overnight—without a public hearing, technical disclosure, or an appeals process—creates an “invisible ceiling” over labs operating in the country.

Both perspectives reinforce Grayscale’s central claim: when frontier AI is treated as a permissioned resource, policy decisions can instantly determine its availability. For developers and users, that raises practical questions about continuity, portability of workflows, and the feasibility of building systems that can operate across changing access regimes.

Looking ahead, investors and builders will likely watch whether decentralized AI networks see sustained usage (not only short-term token volatility) and whether policymakers clarify how cross-border access to frontier models will be handled in the future. The larger uncertainty is how long access constraints remain and whether similar directives spread to other model providers.

Bernstein has projected Robinhood’s prediction market revenue to reach $586 million in 2026, up from $150 million in 2025, as World Cup trading activity has pushed daily market volumes as high as $4.8 billion.

According to a Monday client note from research and brokerage firm Bernstein, prediction markets have become Robinhood’s fastest-growing revenue-generating product since launch, supported by a surge in trading tied to the FIFA World Cup.

The firm said daily prediction market volume climbed from $2.2 billion on June 11 to $4.8 billion on June 12, when the U.S. faced Paraguay. Bernstein noted that those figures already exceed the $1.4 billion traded during last season’s Super Bowl, one of the sector’s biggest events.

Based on its estimates, Robinhood’s prediction market business could contribute about 17% of transaction-based revenue and 10% of total company revenue in 2026.

World Cup activity drives prediction market growth

In its analysis, Bernstein pointed to Robinhood’s partnership with Rothera, a CFTC-licensed exchange and clearinghouse, as a major advantage. Since launching on May 28, Rothera has processed about 200 million contracts over its first 18 days, with FIFA World Cup and Major League Baseball contracts accounting for nearly all trading activity.

Bernstein said Robinhood’s distribution network gives it a competitive position in the sector. The firm cited the company’s large retail user base, a $0.01 commission per contract, and fee discounts of up to 50% for Gold subscribers.

Competition has also expanded as more firms introduce new contract categories. Bernstein highlighted Polymarket’s recent rollout of private company event contracts and Kalshi’s launch of CFTC-regulated perpetual futures tied to major cryptocurrencies. According to the firm, Kalshi’s crypto futures products generated $1 billion in trading volume within a week of launch.

Growing interest in private market exposure has coincided with activity elsewhere in the financial and crypto sectors. Earlier this month, Robinhood chief executive Vlad Tenev said Robinhood Securities received approval to act as an underwriter, allowing the company to participate directly in bringing firms public rather than only distributing IPO shares.

At the same time, crypto trading platforms have expanded products linked to private companies before they reach public markets. A report published by Talos and Coin Metrics last week said pre-IPO perpetual futures are increasingly being used as price discovery tools ahead of public listings. 

The report cited billions of dollars in trading volume tied to SpaceX-related contracts on Hyperliquid and said Cerebras Systems contracts traded within about 1% of the stock’s eventual opening price after listing.

Bernstein previously identified Robinhood, DraftKings and Coinbase as public companies positioned to benefit from rising prediction market participation during the World Cup. The firm estimates the tournament could generate more than $3 billion in additional handle and between $5 billion and $10 billion in extra consumer trading volume across the sector.