Bitcoin’s mining concentration problem just showed up on the blockchain itself, triggering a small “reorg.”

Foundry USA, the largest bitcoin mining pool, produced seven consecutive blocks late on Monday and in the process orphaned two valid blocks mined by AntPool and ViaBTC.

Think of it as two checkout lines opening at the same time in a busy store. At first, both lines are moving, but suddenly, one of the line starts clearing customers faster. This leads everyone to shift to the faster line and the slower one gets abandoned.

That’s essentially what happened here: Dominant pool Foundry’s “line” moved ahead quickly with several blocks in a row, so the network followed it, leaving the other valid blocks by AntPool and ViaBTC behind.

Bitcoin miners compete to add new blocks of transactions to the blockchain, and sometimes two miners find a valid block at nearly the same time. When that happens, the network briefly splits, but it ultimately chooses one chain to continue – usually the one that grows faster.

A mining pool, such as Foundry, is a group of miners who combine their computing power to mine blocks and split the rewards,. Finding a block solo is like winning a lottery that individual miners can rarely win on their own.

Bitcoin’s consensus rule is absolute: the chain with the most cumulative proof of work wins. AntPool and ViaBTC’s two blocks became stale, permanently erased from the ledger, and those miners earned nothing for producing them.

The event was a 2-block chain reorganization, rare but not unprecedented, and the clearest on-chain signal yet that hashrate is concentrating into fewer hands as the industry contracts.

At block height 941,881, AntPool and Foundry found valid blocks within 12 seconds of each other, at 15:49:35 and 15:49:47 UTC respectively. Both were legitimate and the network briefly split, with some nodes following one chain and others following the other.

The race continued to block 941,882, where ViaBTC extended AntPool’s chain and Foundry extended its own.

That created two competing chains, each two blocks deep, running in parallel. Later on, blocks 941,883 through 941,886 all went to Foundry, making their chain the heaviest by a wide margin.

Transactions in the orphaned blocks weren’t lost, however. They return to the mempool and get included in future blocks. An orphaned block is a valid block that loses the race when two miners find blocks at nearly the same time, getting discarded permanently from the chain despite being perfectly legitimate.

Mining difficulty just dropped 7.76% on Saturday, the second-largest negative adjustment of 2026. Hashrate has retreated to roughly 920 EH/s from the 1 zetahash record hit in 2025.

Smaller and mid-sized miners are exiting because bitcoin at $70,000 sits well below the estimated $88,000 average production cost. Every operator that shuts down concentrates the remaining hashrate into fewer pools.

A 2-block reorg doesn’t threaten Bitcoin’s security. The network handled it exactly as designed, with the longer chain winning and consensus re-establishing within minutes.

But when fewer pools control more hashrate, the probability of a single pool finding multiple consecutive blocks increases, and with it the probability of competing chains when two large pools find blocks near-simultaneously.

Two leading prediction-market platforms have rolled out tighter guardrails on Monday to curb insider trading and suspected market manipulation in event-based contracts, as lawmakers in Washington step up scrutiny of a sector that blends finance, law and politics.

Kalshi and Polymarket argued that their updates are designed to prevent the exploitation of confidential information and to reduce the risk that markets skew the outcomes of real-world events. The moves come amid a broader policy push in the United States to regulate or restrict prediction markets that resemble gambling or sports betting.

Key takeaways

• Kalshi and Polymarket introduced new guardrails to combat insider trading and manipulation in event contracts.
• Kalshi will preemptively bar political candidates from trading on their campaigns and exclude individuals connected to college and professional sports from relevant markets.
• Polymarket expanded prohibitions to forbid trades based on stolen confidential information or those who can influence market outcomes.
• A bipartisan bill, the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act, would bar CFTC-registered platforms from listing event contracts that resemble sports bets or casino-style games.
• The policy debate highlights tensions over jurisdiction, licensing and the boundaries between financial markets and entertainment-oriented betting.

Guardrails tighten as Congresseye rules intensify

Kalshi said it would preemptively ban political candidates from trading on their own campaigns, along with individuals known to be involved in college and professional sports—such as athletes, staff, and referees. The exchange described the move as part of a long-running effort to align with evolving regulatory guidance and proposed legislation addressing insider trading and market manipulation in prediction markets.

In a separate but related move, Polymarket unveiled broader prohibitions intended to close loopholes that could enable insiders to benefit from confidential information or influence the outcome of a contract. The company said its updated rules aim to make the market more resistant to manipulation and to protect the integrity of events traded on its platform.

The changes come on the heels of intense public debate about whether some well-timed bets on political or geopolitical events reflect legitimate market activity or exploit privileged information. In recent coverage, observers noted bets placed around high-profile events such as U.S. and Israeli actions in Iran and a U.S.-led operation related to Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, with some traders appearing to use multiple accounts to mask activity. The Guardian reported that the Iran-strike bets were made by users who could be perceived as having inside information, underscoring the ongoing concerns about insider knowledge shaping market outcomes.

Kalshi described its policy evolution as a proactive response to the regulatory environment and to proposed congressional action. The company, which is a member of the Coalition for Prediction Markets, argued that these guardrails are part of preparing for potential legal guidance and legislative developments that address insider trading and market manipulation in prediction markets.

Policy spotlight: bipartisan efforts and legal tensions

On Monday, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff and Republican Senator John Curtis introduced a bipartisan bill, the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act, that would bar Commodity Futures Trading Commission-registered entities from listing event contracts that resemble sports betting or casino-style games. In their view, sports prediction contracts are effectively sports bets—an assertion Schiff has repeated to emphasize the public-law implications of these instruments when they resemble gambling more than information-driven markets.

The proposed legislation would withdraw a key allowance for platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket by limiting what contracts they may offer in the United States. Schiff’s office framed the issue as one of regulatory clarity and consumer protection, while Curtis stressed maintaining state authority over broader gaming and betting activities.

Kalshi’s chief executive, Tarek Mansour, reacted to the bill by framing the move within a broader “casino lobby” effort. He argued that the legislation is not about protecting consumers but about preserving entrenched monopolies, a line he shared publicly on social media. His comments underscore how industry actors view the political dynamic surrounding prediction markets and their place in the U.S. financial-regulatory landscape.

Legal tension has already surrounded prediction-market operators in several states, which have asserted that sports-event contracts constitute gambling that requires a state license. Platforms such as Kalshi, Polymarket andCoinbase have contended that their offerings are not illegal betting and, regardless, fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission rather than state authorities.

The policy debate is not theoretical for traders and developers who rely on prediction markets for hedging and information discovery. As reported by Cointelegraph, the U.S. Senate has been weighing bills aimed at curtailing or redefining the reach of these markets, alongside state-level actions that challenge the legality of specific contracts. The ongoing legal and regulatory discourse creates an environment of uncertainty, even as platforms push for clearer rules that would allow compliant operation in the United States.

For context, Cointelegraph’s reporting has highlighted instances where traders leveraged event-driven markets to capitalize on geopolitical developments, reinforcing concerns about information asymmetry and the potential for manipulation. The new guardrails by Kalshi and Polymarket are thus part of a broader effort to reconcile the commercial appeal of prediction markets with legitimate safeguards against abuse.

What to watch next in the evolving landscape

As lawmakers advance their proposals and courts consider disputes over jurisdiction and licensing, the trajectory of prediction markets in the United States remains uncertain. If the proposed act passes, CFTC-approved platforms could face tighter restrictions or even a narrowed set of permissible contracts, potentially dampening growth but improving trust and regulatory compliance.

For users, traders and builders, the key questions are how the guardrails translate into practical trading limits, whether state or federal rules will ultimately prevail, and how enforcement will unfold in a landscape that often intersects with political sentiment and sports governance.

The next chapter will likely hinge on legislative momentum in Congress and any legal clarifications from federal or state authorities. Watch for updates on whether the bipartisan bill gains traction, how the industry responds with further rule adjustments, and whether there are new developments in the ongoing legal actions against these platforms. The balance between innovation and integrity in prediction markets remains delicate, and investors should monitor both regulatory signals and platform-level safeguards as the market evolves.

Sources: Kalshi newsroom announcements on guardrails; Polymarket rule updates; U.S. Senate press releases announcing the proposed act; coverage of insider-trading concerns around event contracts; The Guardian reporting on Iran-strike bets; ongoing state-level legal actions against prediction-market operators.

Balancer Labs, the team behind the decentralized finance protocol Balancer, is shutting down after mounting financial pressure and a $116 million hack in November, with executives proposing continuation of the protocol under a leaner, more cost-effective structure.

“After careful consideration, I have decided to wind down Balancer Labs. This is not a decision I take lightly,” one of Balancer Protocol’s founders, Fernando Martinelli, said on Monday, adding that Balancer Labs has become a “liability rather than an asset to the protocol,” as it has been operating without revenue.

Balancer Labs CEO Marcus Hardt added that it was spending too much to attract liquidity relative to the revenue the protocol is making, a strategy that came at the cost of diluting Balancer (BAL) token holders.

Balancer was one of the more notable DeFi protocols during the 2020–2021 bull market, reaching a peak of $3.3 billion in total value locked (TVL) in November 2021.

However, that figure fell to $800 million by October 2025, with the hack leading to another $500 million TVL drop over the next two weeks. Balancer’s TVL has since fallen to $158 million, showing how challenging it is for DeFi protocols to recover from large-scale hacks.

Martinelli said the November exploit “created real and ongoing legal exposure” and that maintaining a corporate entity that carries the liability of past security incidents wasn’t sustainable.

Balancer Labs executives outline restructuring plan

Moving forward, Hardt and Martinelli are pushing for Balancer’s future to be managed by the Balancer Foundation and the protocol’s decentralized autonomous organization.

Martinelli advocated for Balancer to adopt a more “lean continuation path,” which involves cutting BAL emissions to zero, restructuring fees to enable Balancer’s DAO to capture more revenue, reducing the team as much as possible and targeting lower operating costs.