The push for a clearer regulatory framework around digital assets in the United States remains one of the thorniest policy debates in Washington, with a fast-approaching deadline that could determine whether key crypto legislation advances in the near term. The US CLARITY Act, designed to bring regulatory clarity to exchanges, wallets and developers, faces a narrow window to secure traction. A crypto executive warned that if the bill does not move through committee by the end of April, the odds of its passage in 2026 look markedly worse. The clock is ticking as lawmakers weigh competing priorities and a crowded calendar in both chambers.
Key takeaways
The CLARITY Act has a tight timetable: committee advancement by the end of April is framed as a prerequisite for any chance of floor action in 2026, according to industry observers.
Senate leadership has signaled appetite to prioritize other measures, such as the SAVE Act, before considering crypto market structure legislation, complicating the CLARITY Act’s path.
Stablecoin rewards stand out as a major hurdle, but observers warn they may not be the final obstacle; the bill could face concerns over DeFi, developer protections and the scope of regulatory authority.
While some lawmakers have been optimistic about an April timeline, independent analysts have warned that a delayed vote could push enactment further into the decade, potentially into 2027 or beyond.
Public commentary from political leaders underscores a broader need for compromise, with lawmakers and industry participants acknowledging concessions are likely on both sides.
Sentiment: Neutral
Market context: The regulatory spotlight on crypto remains intense as U.S. policymakers balance investor protection, financial stability and innovation incentives amid a shifting macro and regulatory backdrop.
Why it matters
The debate over the CLARITY Act crystallizes the broader tension between fostering innovation in the crypto sector and imposing safeguards that could stabilize a fragmented market. The central question for many stakeholders is whether a coherent, principles-based framework can be achieved without stifling experimentation, especially in areas like DeFi and wallet infrastructure where developers argue that current rules are vague or uneven in their application. Advocates say a well-defined set of rules would reduce uncertainty for exchanges, custodians and developers, potentially attracting more legitimate players into the U.S. crypto ecosystem. Opponents, however, warn that rushed legislation could impose overly broad or ambiguous standards that hamper innovation or push activities offshore.
The dialogue around stablecoins—sometimes framed as the bill’s linchpin—highlights the delicate balance lawmakers seek between consumer protection, financial-market stability and the speed at which new technologies evolve. Critics worry that focusing too narrowly on yield practices of stablecoins could miss larger questions about how stableassets interact with traditional banking rails and what protections should apply to on-chain protocols and developers. In the broader arc, the conversation signals a broader shift in how policymakers envisage regulatory authority across on-chain and off-chain activities, from scripting and DeFi governance to KYC/AML compliance for crypto service providers.
Advertisement
Within the policymaking process, internal dynamics also matter. For instance, a key Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee indicated that compromises will be necessary as both crypto advocates and banking interests push for favorable terms. The reality, many observers say, is that lawmakers will walk away with some concessions from both sides, rather than a pristine, perfect bill. This moderation could be the only viable path to a workable framework that gains bipartisan support while addressing substantive risk concerns. In parallel, commentary from industry leaders underscores a pragmatic approach: the CLARITY Act may not be the final word on regulatory design, with evolving oversight, enforcement priorities and technology-neutral standards likely to shape subsequent iterations.
On the legislative calendar, optimism about an April passage has given way to caution as Senate leadership weighs competing bills and priorities. Notable voices in the debate have warned that the timing is everything: a late ballot or postponed committees could push key decisions beyond midterms into a new political reality, complicating any immediate enactment. The urgency is partly tethered to the fact that other measures—such as voter verification initiatives under the SAVE Act—may receive precedence, effectively delaying crypto-specific legislation even if inputs from the crypto industry are deemed constructive.
Beyond the ideological divides, the policy conversation intersects with broader market dynamics. Investors and builders watch how regulators will interpret new authority in areas like stablecoins, on-chain governance and DeFi protocols. As discussions unfold, the industry continues to push for clarity about which actors would be regulated, what standards would apply, and how enforcement would be structured, all with an eye toward reducing the current patchwork of rules that many consider a drag on capital formation and innovation. The evolving dialogue suggests that even if a form of CLARITY bill emerges, its practical impact will depend on the specifics of the final text and the regulatory guardrails that accompany it.
One notable takeaway from industry commentators is that the debate over stablecoin yields may not be the definitive obstacle. While yield-related concerns dominate headlines, the bill’s proponents and opponents alike acknowledge that other contentious topics — including DeFi governance protections, developer liabilities, and the scope of regulatory authority — could surface once the immediate yield question is addressed. In short, passage hinges on a broader consensus about how a modern financial system can responsibly integrate programmable digital assets without creating systemic risk or stifling innovation.
Advertisement
A tweet from a prominent industry voice captured the urgency of the moment, underscoring the need for movement. The message, shared with the broader crypto community, signals that stall events could set the stage for a longer regulatory drag and a more uncertain roadmap for developers seeking clarity on permissible activities. The tweet and related discussions reflect a wider industry appetite for predictable rules, even as stakeholders acknowledge that any final framework will require careful calibration to satisfy both market participants and lawmakers.
On the political front, the rhetoric around crypto regulation remains varied. A senior Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee recently spoke about the need for compromise, noting that both crypto and banking lobbies will likely walk away with some dissatisfaction. The sentiment mirrors a broader pattern in which policymakers recognize that a workable framework will emerge only through negotiation, careful drafting and a willingness to adjust expectations on both sides of the aisle. The legibility of this compromise—how clearly it delineates responsibilities, protections and oversight—will greatly influence the sector’s trajectory in the coming years.
In parallel, some observers have floated more cautious timelines. While a handful of lawmakers previously suggested an April path, industry-facing research from investment banks has offered more conservative forecasts, predicting that market-structure legislation could slip into 2027 or even later, with enactment potentially delayed until 2029 if the political dynamics shift post-midterms. Such projections illustrate how the regulatory road map remains uncertain, even as the appetite for a formal, nationwide framework persists among many industry participants and policymakers alike.
Across the spectrum, the insistence on a credible regulatory approach—one that supports innovation while protecting investors—remains a central theme. The ongoing negotiations produce a mixed signal: steady calls for a clear regime juxtaposed with pragmatic caveats about timing, political capital and the potential need for additional adjustments beyond a single bill. That tension is likely to define the near-term landscape for the U.S. crypto industry, as stakeholders monitor committee votes, floor calendars and the evolving posture of the administration toward market structure proposals.
Advertisement
What to watch next
Committee movement on the CLARITY Act by end-April and any statements detailing a concrete floor timeline in May.
Interactions between crypto and banking lobbies shaping compromise terms ahead of any Senate action.
Further discussions on stablecoins, DeFi protections and regulatory reach that could affect the final text.
Public comments and lobbying activity around the SAVE Act and its scheduling relative to crypto legislation.
Sources & verification
Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital, comments on the April committee deadline and the 2026 passage odds, via X: https://x.com/intangiblecoins/status/2032853696824873429?s=20
US Senate leadership and timing remarks on crypto market structure legislation and prioritization of the SAVE Act: https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-senate-thune-crypto-market-structure-april
TD Cowen’s assessment that crypto market structure legislation may not pass until 2027 and could take effect in 2029: https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-crypto-market-structure-bill-delayed
Public statements around stablecoin yields and regulatory hurdles, including comments from Senator Bernie Moreno: https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-us-clarity-act-coinbase-brian-armstrong-bernie-moreno
President Donald Trump’s remarks criticizing banks for stalling the bill: https://cointelegraph.com/news/trump-takes-swipe-banks-over-stalled-crypto-bill
Senator Angela Alsobrooks on the need for compromise in crypto-banking discussions: https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-banks-need-to-be-unhappy-crypto-bill-advance-senator
Context and related analyses including industry perspectives on regulatory paths and market structure narratives: https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
Additional industry commentary from Sandeep Nailwal’s discussion post: https://x.com/sandeepnailwal/status/2032228011651842197?s=20
Regulatory clock tightens for the CLARITY Act and what it means for the market
The central dynamic in Washington is a race against time — and a race against competing agendas. The CLARITY Act is designed to provide a formal blueprint for how a wide range of crypto activities should be regulated, from centralized exchanges to wallets and on-chain developers. Yet the bill’s fate currently hinges on committee momentum and the willingness of lawmakers to balance the interests of a crypto industry that argues for clarity with the concerns of the traditional financial-oversight establishment that pushes for stronger guardrails.
Industry voices argue that clarity, even if imperfect, can catalyze investment and innovation by reducing the ambiguity that currently deters new entrants and strains compliance budgets. Proponents suggest that a well-structured framework could offer a predictable operating environment, enabling legitimate actors to navigate the regulatory landscape with greater confidence. Opponents, conversely, warn that hasty policy could overreach, potentially constraining experimentation or inadvertently stifling emerging technologies. In this context, every procedural milestone — committee votes, floor time, and regulatory clarifications — could meaningfully shift the market’s risk and liquidity dynamics.
The debate also intersects with broader macro factors affecting risk appetite in the crypto space. As policy discussions unfold, traders and investors monitor liquidity conditions, stance of regulators, and any shifts in capital flows tied to ETF and futures product developments. The regulatory frame could influence how institutional participants allocate capital to crypto strategies, how custodians structure risk controls, and how developers plan project roadmaps in a landscape that remains sensitive to political signals and regulatory expectations.
Ultimately, the CLARITY Act’s trajectory will be read through the lens of bipartisan compromise. If lawmakers arrive at a version that allocates clear responsibilities, certain consumer protections, and defined supervisory authority without crippling innovation, it could unlock a period of greater market engagement. If not, the sector may endure a continuation of policy ambiguity that encourages careful risk management but slows capital formation. The coming weeks will reveal whether the administration and Congress manage to align incentives, or whether the debate simply continues to propagate into future sessions and administration cycles.
Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure
Polymarket has pulled a market tied to the fate of a missing U.S. service member after a wave of backlash, saying the listing violated its integrity standards. The decision comes amid heightened scrutiny of prediction markets that touch on real-world human outcomes and potential military actions.
The controversy centered on a prediction asking whether U.S. authorities would confirm the rescue of a pilot reportedly shot down over Iran, a topic that drew rapid and emotional reaction from users. Signals from the market suggested a majority—more than 60% of bettors—did not expect a rescue by the upcoming Saturday, highlighting how quickly sentiment can polarize around volatile, real-time events.
U.S. Representative Seth Moulton condemned the market as “disgusting,” expressing concerns about people speculating on the fate of a potentially injured service member. “They could be your neighbor, a friend, a family member. And people are betting on whether or not they’ll be saved,” he wrote, underscoring the human dimension behind the bets.
Polymarket stated that it removed the market immediately, adding that it should not have been listed and that the company is reviewing how the listing passed internal safeguards. The platform did not offer further detail about which specific rule or policy was violated.
Advertisement
Key takeaways
Polymarket deleted a market linked to the fate of a missing U.S. service member after backlash, signaling a potential tightening of internal safeguards for sensitive events.
Officials and commentators are calling for clearer governance of prediction markets that touch on human safety and military outcomes, amid questions about which rules apply to borderline cases.
Historical tensions around insider trading concerns persist in prediction markets, with recent reporting suggesting substantial profits from timing bets on geopolitical events and renewed calls from lawmakers for regulator guidance.
Polymarket’s monetization strategy, including a recent fee overhaul, has intensified scrutiny around the platform’s business model and its alignment with user interests and integrity standards.
The episode underscores the ongoing friction between innovative risk markets and ethical, regulatory, and operational safeguards—an area likely to attract regulatory attention in the near term.
Polymarket’s misstep and the boundaries of prediction markets
From the outset, the market’s subject—whether authorities would confirm the rescue of a potentially endangered service member—presses into delicate territory. Prediction markets have long drawn scrutiny when they intersect with real-world crises, where outcomes can directly affect real lives. Polymarket’s decision to remove the market suggests a recalibration of what content it deems appropriate for its platform, even as the broader market remains interested in forecasting events that straddle news cycles and human risk.
Users quickly noted the lack of clarity around policy enforcement. As coverage of the incident circulated, questions arose about which specific rule in Polymarket’s “integrity standards” had been breached. Critics argued that without transparent guidance on how safeguards are applied, users are left to guess at the boundaries between legitimate forecasting and ethically fraught betting lines. This kind of ambiguity can erate legitimate concerns about governance and user trust—issues that affect not only participants but potential partners and investors evaluating the long-term viability of decentralized or crypto-native prediction platforms.
Polymarket’s action follows a broader context of scrutiny in the sector. The platform has recently expanded its price feeds and product lines, moving into equities and commodities in collaboration with data providers, a move that coincided with a notable uptick in activity and monetization. In March, the company implemented a revamped fee structure, which Cointelegraph noted propelled daily fees well above prior levels and brought revenue into a higher profile. While monetization is essential for sustainable operation, it can also intensify incentives to broaden markets and attract trading volume, complicating the governance calculus when sensitive topics are on the table.
Insider trading concerns persist in prediction markets
Beyond governance questions, prediction markets remain under the lens for potential insider trading issues. Last month, reporting highlighted a group of traders who reportedly profited by accurately timing bets on U.S. strikes in the Middle East. The betting activity centered on the timing of events that could only be known with public or near-public information, and investigators flagged the pattern as suggestive of informational advantages being exploited through blockchain wallets created specifically to target those events. The episode underscored the tension between fast-moving information markets and safeguards against unfair advantages.
In response to those concerns, lawmakers entered the conversation. At least 42 Democratic lawmakers pressed the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Office of Government Ethics to warn federal employees against using non-public information to trade on prediction markets. The appeal reflects bipartisan interest in establishing guardrails that protect both market integrity and the broader public interest, particularly when markets touch on national security or military actions.
Advertisement
Taken together, these developments illustrate a pivot point for the sector. On the one hand, prediction markets offer a compelling lens on how information and sentiment drive consensus around uncertain events. On the other hand, the same dynamics that make these markets attractive—liquidity, rapid pricing, and the potential for swift monetization—also invite ethical and regulatory scrutiny when real-world stakes are high.
What readers should watch next
The Polymarket episode is likely to reverberate through the ecosystem as platforms reassess which markets to enable and how to articulate rules with greater precision. Investors and participants should monitor whether Polymarket, or comparable platforms, publish more granular guidance on integrity standards and incident-response processes. Regulators may also weigh in with clarifications on permissible subjects, disclosure practices, and anti-insider trading measures for decentralized or crypto-enabled markets.
As markets evolve, expect ongoing debates about balancing openness and innovation with accountability. For traders and builders, the takeaway is clear: clarity and safeguards are becoming as important as the odds themselves, and the next wave of policy and product decisions will likely shape how widely these markets are adopted in mainstream financial ecosystems.
Readers should stay tuned to see how Polymarket and peers adjust their governance models, whether new guardrails emerge from regulatory discussions, and how participants adapt their strategies in response to these evolving standards.
Advertisement
Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure
Binance ETH reserve fell to 3.3M ETH, breaking below both the February and August 2024 historical lows.
Bitcoin reserves on Binance declined from 670,000 BTC in early February to 636,000 BTC by early April 2025.
USDT reserves on Binance grew from $35 billion on March 12 to $38 billion by April 2, reflecting rising dry powder.
USDC balances climbed from $4.6 billion in February to $6.6 billion by April 2, adding to total stablecoin buying power.
Binance ETH reserve has dropped to its lowest level in over a year, falling below key historical lows. At the same time, stablecoin balances on the exchange have been rising steadily.
On-chain data from CryptoQuant shows that these two opposing trends are reshaping the exchange’s liquidity structure.
The shift points to easing sell-side pressure alongside growing buying power among traders holding dollar-denominated assets.
ETH and BTC Reserves Record Notable Declines on Binance
Binance’s Ethereum reserve has fallen to 3.3 million ETH, according to CryptoQuant analyst Amr Taha. This level sits below the February 2024 low of 3.53 million ETH and the August 29, 2024 low of 3.49 million ETH. Breaking below both historical support levels marks a clear downward trend in ETH holdings on the exchange.
Binance ETH Reserve Drops Below February 2024 Low While USDT and USDC Reserves Climb
“If this trend continues, it could create a more supportive setup for price expansion.” – By Amr Taha pic.twitter.com/aFbrLcdObH
Bitcoin reserves on Binance have also moved lower over recent weeks. The BTC balance declined from approximately 670,000 BTC in early February to 636,000 BTC by early April. That drop reflects a similar pattern of reduced crypto asset supply sitting on the exchange.
When fewer coins rest on an exchange, available sell-side supply tends to shrink. This shift often reduces the immediate pressure that sellers can place on spot prices during periods of market activity.
Rising Stablecoin Reserves Point to Growing Buying Power
As crypto reserves declined, stablecoin balances on Binance moved in the opposite direction. USDT reserves grew from $35 billion on March 12 to $38 billion by April 2. USDC reserves also climbed from $4.6 billion in February to $6.6 billion over the same period.
Advertisement
Taha noted in his analysis: “If this trend continues, it could create a more supportive setup for price expansion.” The combined growth in USDT and USDC balances reflects an accumulation of dry powder sitting ready on the exchange.
Stablecoin reserves rising while crypto reserves fall is a well-known market structure among experienced traders. It suggests that capital has rotated out of volatile assets and into dollar-pegged holdings, without leaving the exchange entirely.
Whether buyers begin deploying those stablecoin balances into spot markets remains the key variable to watch in the coming weeks.
X is preparing to automatically lock Twitter accounts that mention crypto for the first time, and the ripple effect on memecoin communities built entirely on social momentum could be severe.
X Head of Product Nikita Bier confirmed the mechanism directly: “We are in the process of implementing auto-locking + verification if a user posts about cryptocurrency for the first time in the history of their account.”
Yeah we’re aware. We are in the process of implementing auto-locking + verification if a user posts about cryptocurrency for the first time in the history of their account. This should kill 99% of the incentive, especially since Google isn’t doing shit to stop the phishing…
The trigger is first-time crypto posting, not repeat offenders. Bier’s rationale targets the 99% of phishing incentives tied to hijacked accounts promoting fraudulent tokens and fake giveaways. The move follows a wave of fake copyright violation emails stripping users of login credentials and 2FA codes.
For memecoins that depend on viral first-post discovery, new wallets, new converts, and new degens, this is a direct hit to the top of the funnel.
Advertisement
The broader market context adds pressure. X’s bot crisis, driven by AI-powered scam accounts exploiting recommendation algorithms with deepfake-heavy promotions, has already eroded trust in platform-native crypto signals.
Crypto Twitter Lock Mechanism Could Be A Good Cure For The Space
X’s verification layer filters scam noise and actually improves signal quality for legitimate crypto Twitter projects, driving renewed institutional interest and bringing back trust back to the industry. But the market might see whether the auto-lock policy reduces spam effectively or simply chills organic growth.
Advertisement
However, policy friction could also reduce crypto posting from new users by a material margin, cutting viral discovery loops that memecoins depend on.
X is about to auto-lock your account the moment you post about crypto – if it's your first time. Head of Product Nikita Bier just announced it. Hackers break into accounts and immediately start shilling random tokens. X is now looking to freeze those accounts before the damage… pic.twitter.com/IWV7ZuB4fw
Bitcoin Hyper Targets Early Infrastructure Upside as Memecoins Face Platform Risk
When social-layer memecoins face existential platform risk, capital has historically rotated toward projects with utility that doesn’t depend on viral posting cycles. That rotation is already showing up in presale momentum, and it’s worth watching where that money is going.
Bitcoin Hyper ($HYPER) is positioning directly in that gap. The project claims the title of the first-ever Bitcoin Layer 2 with Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) integration, delivering a faster performance than Solana through extremely low-latency processing, a Decentralized Canonical Bridge for BTC transfers, and high-speed smart contract execution.
Bitcoin has core limitations of slow transactions, high fees, and near-zero programmability, and Hyper is here to fix them. Hard numbers back the early traction, $32 million raised at a current price of $0.013678, with staking at a high 36% APY for early participants. Presale capital has been flowing toward infrastructure plays as memecoin sentiment cools.
Two U.S. military aircraft were shot down in separate incidents during combat operations over Iran on April 3 — an F-15E Strike Eagle and an A-10 Thunderbolt II — with a search-and-rescue operation still ongoing for one missing crew member as Operation Epic Fury approaches its sixth week.
Summary
Iran shot down a U.S. F-15E Strike Eagle on April 3; one of the two crew members was rescued, the other remains unaccounted for
An A-10 Thunderbolt II dispatched during the rescue effort was also struck by Iranian fire; the pilot ejected and was subsequently recovered
The incidents directly contradict recent U.S. government claims of complete air dominance over Iran, complicating the administration’s public messaging on the war’s progress
U.S. officials confirmed to CBS News that the F-15E Strike Eagle — a two-seat aircraft flown by a pilot and a weapons systems officer — was shot down by Iranian forces. One crew member was rescued by U.S. forces following a combat search-and-rescue mission. The second crew member, a weapons systems officer, remains missing. Images verified by CNN showed low-flying rescue aircraft conducting operations over Khuzestan Province in central Iran.
A rescue helicopter that extracted the surviving pilot was hit by small arms fire during the operation, wounding crew members on board before landing safely. An A-10 Warthog dispatched as part of the search effort was then struck by Iranian fire, forcing its pilot to eject over the Persian Gulf before recovery.
Advertisement
Iran’s state media posted claims of downing the aircraft and announced a reward for the capture of any “enemy pilot or pilots.” Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf mocked the U.S. search effort publicly on X.
A Direct Contradiction
The downing conflicts with statements from President Trump, who said in a prime-time address two days earlier: “They have no anti-aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated. We are unstoppable as a military force.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other officials have repeatedly asserted U.S. air dominance over Iran.
According to Axios, three F-15Es had previously been lost to friendly fire during the conflict. The war has now claimed 13 American lives and wounded 365 service members. Israel separately suspended airstrikes in areas relevant to the ongoing U.S. rescue effort, according to an Israeli official speaking anonymously to the Associated Press.
Advertisement
Economic Pressure
Iran’s response has escalated alongside the aircraft losses. Tehran has imposed what amounts to a toll system on the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which approximately 20% of globally traded oil transits. Missile and drone attacks struck oil, gas, and desalination facilities across the Persian Gulf on Friday. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago’s Austan Goolsbee told CBS News that the Iran war risks fueling inflation in a way that could prevent the Fed from cutting rates in 2026.
As analysts warned months ago, Middle East escalation carries supply chain and inflationary consequences that reverberate across all risk assets. Institutional capital flows have already shifted in response to the conflict’s progression, with large asset managers repositioning across both traditional and digital markets as geopolitical uncertainty deepens.
Leap Wallet will shut down its products by May 28, ending a crypto wallet project that began in the Terra ecosystem and later expanded to Cosmos and other chains.
Summary
Leap Wallet will shut down its apps, web platform, exchange tool, and validator service by May 28.
Users can still access assets through another wallet using their recovery phrase or private key.
Leap began in Terra and expanded into Cosmos after the 2022 collapse changed its path.
The closure affects its browser extension, mobile apps, web app, exchange tool, and validator service.
Leap said on Friday that it plans to sunset its software suite by May 28. The shutdown covers its browser extension, iOS and Android apps, Leap WebApp, Swapfast exchange platform, and Leap Cosmos Hub Validator.
Advertisement
The team said the decision came after building across multiple networks since 2022. In a post on X, it said, “We started Leap in 2022 to redefine what wallet experiences in crypto mean.” It added that the project later grew across “100+ chains.”
Leap also said the move was difficult for the team. It stated, “This decision was not made lightly,” while adding that it still believes in the long-term future of crypto and the interchain ecosystem.
Leap said noncustodial users will still be able to access their assets after the shutdown. The team explained that users can restore the same wallet address through another wallet by using a recovery phrase or private key.
Advertisement
The FAQ said there is no need to move assets to a new address. It explained, “There is no need to withdraw or send your assets to a new address,” because importing the recovery phrase or private key will restore access to the same address.
The team also issued a separate notice for Cosmos users who delegated ATOM to Leap’s validator. It asked them to redelegate to another validator if they want to keep earning staking rewards.
Project began in Terra ecosystem
Leap launched in late 2021 with a $50,000 grant from Terraform Labs, the now-defunct firm behind TerraUSD. In early 2022, the project raised a $3.2 million seed round co-led by CoinFund and Pantera Capital.
At the start, Leap positioned itself as a wallet focused on Terra, with tools for staking LUNA, trading, and connecting with applications such as Anchor and Mirror. It aimed to offer a wallet experience similar to what MetaMask built for Ethereum and Phantom built for Solana.
Advertisement
After the collapse of Terra in 2022, Leap shifted its focus and expanded into the wider Cosmos ecosystem. That move allowed the project to continue as a multi-chain wallet after its original market changed.
The shutdown now closes that chapter for the wallet. While the apps and related services will go offline, users will still retain control of their assets through standard wallet recovery tools supported by other providers.
Leap Wallet will sunset all products, including extensions and mobile apps, on May 28, 2026, across iOS and Android.
Users can migrate safely using their recovery phrase, as Leap is non-custodial and assets remain on the blockchain at all times.
ATOM delegators staking with Leap’s Cosmos Hub validator must redelegate early due to network unbonding period delays.
After the May 28 deadline, all installed Leap apps will stop functioning, though fund recovery via recovery phrase remains fully possible.
Leap Wallet has officially announced that it will discontinue all its products on May 28, 2026. The crypto wallet provider has been active since 2022, serving users across more than 100 blockchain networks.
The shutdown covers extensions, mobile apps, and several associated services. Users are advised to begin migrating their assets to other supported wallets ahead of the deadline.
All core wallet functions will remain available until that date to allow a smooth transition.
Products Scheduled for Discontinuation After the May Deadline
The shutdown affects a broad range of products tied to the Leap ecosystem. These include Leap Wallet browser extensions and mobile versions on iOS and Android.
Compass Wallet, the Leap WebApp, and the Swapfast service are also on the list. Leap Cosmos Hub Validator and Leap Cosmos Snaps will be discontinued as well.
Advertisement
The team behind Leap shared the news through an official tweet. They noted the wallet was launched to change what crypto wallet experiences could offer users.
Since launch, it expanded to support over 100 chains across multiple ecosystems. The post also reflected the care and responsibility the team felt toward its user base.
In the announcement tweet, the team wrote that the decision to shut down was not made lightly. They added that they continue to believe in the long-term future of the crypto space.
Leap Wallet: Sunset Notice
After careful consideration, we’ve made the decision to sunset Leap Wallet and its associated products.
Advertisement
The products will be sunset on 28th May, 2026, and all users should complete their migration before then.
We started Leap in 2022 to redefine what…
— Leap Wallet | Sunset on 28th May (@leap_wallet) April 2, 2026
They also extended appreciation to partners and users who supported the product over the years. The message was direct, measured, and absent of any bitterness or blame.
Advertisement
Until May 28, 2026, all listed products will retain their existing core functionality. Users can still view balances, send tokens, and manage their staking positions.
Exporting recovery phrases and private keys will also remain available throughout this period. No core feature will be removed before the official sunset date arrives.
What Users Must Do Before the Shutdown Date
Users holding assets in Leap Wallet are encouraged to move to another wallet provider. The team recommended Keplr, MetaMask, Phantom, and Rabby as compatible alternatives.
Since Leap is a non-custodial wallet, assets are held on the blockchain and not within the app. This means migration does not require any complex transfer of funds between addresses.
Advertisement
Any user with a recovery phrase can import it directly into another supported wallet. That process will restore all addresses and balances automatically across compatible chains.
No manual transfers are necessary for this to work correctly. Starting early reduces the risk of delays or missed steps before the deadline.
Those who delegated ATOM to Leap’s Cosmos Hub validator must also take a separate action. They need to redelegate to another validator to keep earning staking rewards.
Network unbonding periods can stretch over several days, so acting promptly matters. A detailed migration guide with full instructions is available at leapwallet.io.
Advertisement
After May 28, 2026, all Leap products will stop functioning, including already-installed apps. Users who miss the deadline can still recover their funds using their recovery phrase.
Importing it into any compatible wallet will restore full access to holdings. Migration support remains available at support@leapwallet.io until the shutdown date.
Polymarket removed a market tied to the fate of a missing US service member after mounting backlash, saying the listing violated its “integrity standards.”
The controversy erupted after a prediction market appeared asking whether US authorities would confirm the rescue of a pilot reportedly shot down over Iran, with most users (over 60%) betting that they wouldn’t be rescued until Saturday.
US Representative Seth Moulton condemned the market, calling it “disgusting” and expressing concerns over people speculating on the fate of a potentially injured service member. “They could be your neighbor, a friend, a family member. And people are betting on whether or not they’ll be saved,” Moulton wrote.
Representative criticizes Polymarket market. Source: Seth Moulton
In response, Polymarket said it had taken the market down immediately, adding that it should not have been listed and that the company is reviewing how it passed internal safeguards. The platform did not provide further detail on what specific rule had been breached.
While Polymarket said it took the market down because it did not meet its integrity standards, the platform did not specify which rule had been violated, prompting further scrutiny from users.
“I’m looking at the “Market Integrity” page, and I checked the TOS, and I don’t see which prohibition is relevant here,” Jack Newsham, a correspondent on Business Insider’s national desk, wrote on X.
As Cointelegraph reported, Polymarket has seen a sharp rise in fees and revenue after expanding its fee model on March 30, with daily fees jumping from about $363,000 to over $1 million and revenue nearing $1 million at its peak. The increase follows broader taker fees across categories like finance, politics and tech, as the platform ramps up monetization.
Insider trading concerns rise on prediction markets
There have also been growing concerns about insider trading on prediction markets. Last month, it was reported that a group of traders made about $1 million by correctly betting on the timing of US strikes on Iran, with some placing trades just hours before the attacks. The activity, which involved newly created wallets focused almost entirely on strike-related bets, raised insider trading suspicions.
To address these concerns, at least 42 Democratic lawmakers have urged the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Office of Government Ethics to warn federal employees against using non-public information to trade on prediction markets.
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
Brian Armstrong has put himself personally on the line for Bitcoin quantum resistance, pledging direct oversight of Coinbase’s post-quantum cryptography research and implementation efforts at a moment when the threat has moved from theoretical to time-stamped.
The commitment signals that Coinbase is no longer treating quantum risk as a long-range problem for someone else’s roadmap.
Going to start spending time on this personally – seems like we all need to solve it sooner rather than later. https://t.co/qLUE6TCPL5
The urgency is not manufactured. Google Quantum AI and Caltech research published in late 2025 modeled a hypothetical advanced quantum computer cracking Bitcoin’s encryption in under nine minutes – barely inside the network’s 10-minute block confirmation window.
Advertisement
Armstrong’s personal involvement is a direct institutional response to that narrowing margin.
Key Takeaways:
Armstrong’s Commitment: Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has pledged personal oversight of the exchange’s Bitcoin quantum resistance initiatives, including collaboration with Bitcoin Core developers through a newly formed Quantum Advisory Council.
The Threat Window: Google Quantum AI research models a cryptographically relevant quantum computer breaking Bitcoin’s encryption in under nine minutes – inside the 10-minute block time – with Google targeting quantum readiness by 2029.
Protocol Reality: Bitcoin’s decentralized governance requires community consensus via the BIP process for any cryptographic upgrade – making Coinbase’s developer-facing engagement more consequential than a unilateral exchange decision.
Industry Alignment: MicroStrategy’s Michael Saylor and Coinbase CSO Philip Martin are actively contributing to quantum resistance efforts; BTQ Technologies deployed a quantum-resistant Bitcoin Core testnet in early 2026, with mainnet planned for Q2 2026.
What to Watch: BTQ Technologies’ Q2 2026 mainnet launch and the Coinbase Quantum Advisory Council’s first published migration standards are the two near-term signals that will indicate whether institutional momentum is translating into protocol-level action.
The Quantum Threat to Bitcoin Is Specific – and the Clock Is Running
Bitcoin’s cryptographic security rests on the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem. Google’s quantum research has already prompted other blockchain ecosystems to accelerate post-quantum cryptography transitions, and Bitcoin – the most valuable target – faces the sharpest exposure.
Advertisement
The specific mechanism is Shor’s Algorithm: run on a sufficiently powerful quantum computer, it can derive a private key from an exposed public key, which is precisely what happens when a Bitcoin address transacts on-chain.
Many are wondering "what Google saw" that caused them to revise their post-quantum cryptography transition deadline to 2029 last week. It was this: https://t.co/dQtmTK9pdz
Older Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash addresses are most exposed. SegWit and Taproot addresses offer partial cover – the public key isn’t broadcast until spending – but that protection evaporates the moment funds move. NIST finalized its first post-quantum cryptography standards in 2024, establishing lattice-based and hash-based signature schemes as the baseline framework. Bitcoin has not adopted any of them yet.
That gap – between available cryptographic tools and Bitcoin’s actual protocol, is the structural problem Armstrong is positioning Coinbase to help close.
What Armstrong’s Personal Oversight Actually Means – and Why Coinbase’s Institutional Weight Changes the Calculation
Armstrong’s commitment is not a press release pledge. According to reporting on the initiative, Coinbase has established a Quantum Advisory Council that includes Bitcoin Core developers, with the explicit mandate to develop migration standards before cryptographically relevant quantum computers arrive.
Coinbase CSO Philip Martin described the situation as an “urgent problem” requiring industry consensus – and noted that post-quantum cryptography exists, but Bitcoin lags other chains in adopting it.
Advertisement
The latest quantum papers from Google and Caltech are an important signal for the industry. Timelines are still debated, but the time to act is now. The good news: post-quantum cryptography exists. This is a solvable problem, and many chains already have roadmaps. Bitcoin needs…
That distinction matters. This is not Coinbase upgrading its own infrastructure in isolation – a task any well-resourced exchange could accomplish internally.
The Advisory Council structure is designed to feed into the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal process, the community-consensus mechanism through which any protocol-level cryptographic change must pass. Coinbase, through its engineering resources and developer relationships, is positioning itself to draft and test BIPs specifically aimed at post-quantum transitions.
The institutional logic is transparent – and legitimate. Sovereign wealth funds and ultra-long-horizon institutional allocators weigh generational risk differently than retail traders.
Advertisement
Investor Kevin O’Leary has explicitly flagged quantum uncertainty as a factor that could deter institutional Bitcoin allocations.
By addressing a 10-to-20-year risk today, Coinbase is signaling custodial seriousness to exactly the capital it wants to attract. Coinbase’s recent regulatory positioning follows the same pattern: institutional-grade engagement on foundational issues before the pressure becomes acute.
JUST IN: Kevin O’Leary aka Mr. Wonderful says that institutions do not want to own more than 3% of Bitcoin in their portfolios because of the risk of quantum computing. pic.twitter.com/xJYLZlCvvb
MicroStrategy’s Michael Saylor is contributing to quantum resistance efforts alongside Armstrong – which adds significant Bitcoin treasury credibility to what might otherwise read as an exchange-driven initiative.
Advertisement
Jameson Lopp of Casa, who has tracked this risk closely, has estimated that full network migration to quantum-safe addresses will require years of coordination across wallets, custodians, and users. Armstrong’s involvement compresses none of that timeline on its own.
What it does is add institutional momentum to a process that previously lacked it.
Cambodia’s parliament passed its first cybercrime law on April 3, 2026, targeting online scam centres directly.
Convictions carry prison terms of up to 10 years and fines reaching $250,000 for gang-related scam operations.
Cambodia extradited two high-profile figures to China amid a broader crackdown on senior scam network leaders.
Britain sanctioned Cambodia’s largest fraud complex and a crypto marketplace used to trade stolen personal data.
Cambodia’s cybercrime law marks a turning point in the country’s fight against online fraud operations. The parliament passed the legislation on Friday, April 3, 2026, making it the first law specifically targeting scam centres.
These centres have cost international victims billions of dollars. The move follows growing global pressure on Southeast Asian governments to act against the illicit operations embedded across the region.
Parliament Approves Strict Penalties for Online Scam Operators
The new law sets out prison terms of two to five years for those convicted of online scams. Fines can reach up to $125,000 for individual offenders.
Gang-related scams or cases involving multiple victims carry heavier sentences of up to 10 years. Fines in such cases can go as high as $250,000.
Justice Minister Keut Rith described the law as a tool to strengthen ongoing enforcement efforts. He stated the law aimed to enhance the “cleaning operation” taking place across the country.
Advertisement
He also stressed that it would ensure the centres do not return after the crackdown. The law will proceed to Cambodia’s king for final signature before taking full effect.
Rith further explained the reach of the problem during his remarks to reporters. He said the issue had also affected the economy, tourism, and investment in Cambodia.
He described the law as being “strict like the fishing net, strict to ensure we don’t have the online scams anymore in Cambodia.” Those words captured the government’s stated intent to pursue a thorough and lasting enforcement effort.
The law also covers penalties for money laundering, data collection on victims, and scammer recruitment. Previously, Cambodia had no dedicated legislation for targeting scam operations.
Advertisement
Authorities had relied on charges such as aggravated fraud and recruitment for exploitation. This new legislation addresses that legal gap directly.
Recent Arrests and Extraditions Signal Broader Crackdown
Cambodia’s enforcement actions have extended beyond legislation in recent months. On Wednesday, the government extradited Li Xiong to China.
Li Xiong was a former leader at a Cambodian financial conglomerate accused of laundering money for criminal organisations. The extradition reflects a shift toward holding senior figures accountable.
In January, Chinese-Cambodian businessman Chen Zhi was arrested in Cambodia and also extradited to China. Chen Zhi faced accusations of running a brutal online scam and money laundering operation.
Advertisement
His arrest marked a dramatic reversal for a once-prominent business figure. The case drew international attention to Cambodia’s ties with transnational crime networks.
On Thursday, Britain sanctioned operators of what it described as Cambodia’s largest fraud complex. The UK also targeted a crypto marketplace used to trade stolen personal data.
Britain called it part of a fast-growing network of scam centres across Southeast Asia. Workers in these compounds are reportedly confined and forced to commit fraud.
Cambodian officials say the current campaign is broader than previous efforts. Hundreds of sites are being closed, and senior figures are being detained.
Advertisement
The government had long played down the existence of these compounds. That position has now clearly changed.
An imposter X account masqueraded as Jonathan the tortoise’s veterinarian to announce a fabricated death
Major publications including BBC, Daily Mail, and USA Today fell for the deception, which garnered 2 million views
Cryptocurrency donations were being requested through the fraudulent account
The governor of Saint Helena personally verified Jonathan was alive during a nighttime check
Cryptocurrency scam losses reached an unprecedented $17 billion in 2025
An elaborate social media hoax declaring the death of the planet’s oldest living terrestrial animal transformed into a cryptocurrency fraud scheme that managed to deceive numerous prominent international news organizations.
Jonathan the Tortoise is alive and well 🐢
• He’s ~193 years old — the longest-living land animal on Earth
• A suspected crypto scammer went viral on April Fools Day pretending to be his vet
Jonathan, a Seychelles giant tortoise aged 194 years who resides on Saint Helena island, became the subject of false death reports earlier this week following a deceptive X account that disseminated the fabricated news to millions of users.
The fraudulent profile adopted the name and credentials of Joe Hollins, Jonathan’s actual veterinary doctor. The account expressed being “heartbroken” while announcing that Jonathan had “passed away peacefully.”
Within a short timeframe, the message accumulated two million impressions. Multiple prestigious news organizations, including the BBC, Daily Mail, and USA Today, ran articles declaring Jonathan’s demise based solely on this account’s claims.
The reality: the authentic Joe Hollins maintains no presence on X whatsoever. He verified that the announcement was entirely fraudulent.
Advertisement
“Jonathan the tortoise is very much alive,” Hollins told USA Today. “I believe on X the person purporting to be me is asking for crypto donations… it’s a con.”
Investigation revealed the counterfeit account originated from Brazil rather than Saint Helena.
How the Truth Came Out
Nigel Phillips, Saint Helena’s governor, was preparing to retire for the evening when international messages began pouring in. He personally ventured outside during nighttime hours to inspect the tortoise’s condition firsthand.
Jonathan the Giant Tortoise’s death has been revealed to be a hoax, and the big guy is alive and well at the age of 193.
A crypto scammer created an account impersonating his caretaker and spread misinformation to several media outlets. pic.twitter.com/ybEonk8fDJ
Phillips discovered Jonathan precisely where expected — resting beneath a tree within his enclosure.
“Jonathan is asleep under a tree in the paddock,” Phillips told The Guardian. He verified the animal was “very much alive.”
The following Thursday morning, Phillips addressed the situation with humor on social platforms. He referenced Mark Twain, stating the “report of my death was an exaggeration.”
The Friends of the British Overseas Territories published an official statement highlighting that the fraudulent account had recently modified its username while actively requesting cryptocurrency contributions.
Guinness World Records acknowledged the news with a relieved “phew.”
Advertisement
Jonathan’s Condition
Notwithstanding the digital commotion, Jonathan maintains excellent health considering his advanced age. While he has experienced vision loss due to cataracts and no longer possesses his olfactory sense, his appetite remains robust and he continues to be physically active.
His residence at Plantation House, which serves as the governor’s official home, is shared with three companion tortoises: Emma, David, and Fredrik.
Throughout his remarkable lifespan, Jonathan has witnessed eight British monarchs, survived two global conflicts, and experienced the complete evolution of the digital era.
News organizations that initially published the death reports have subsequently issued retractions.
Advertisement
This deception represents a broader pattern of cryptocurrency fraud employing impersonation strategies. Blockchain analytics company Chainalysis documented that crypto scam losses achieved a record-breaking $17 billion throughout 2025.
Individual scam payments surged by 253% to an average of $2,764, fueled by artificial intelligence-enhanced impersonation techniques and progressively sophisticated criminal operations.
NewsBeat2 days ago
Business1 day ago
Fashion16 hours ago
Crypto World3 days ago
Tech5 days ago
Tech5 days ago
Sports4 days ago
Business2 days ago
Fashion6 days ago
Tech4 days ago
Tech6 days ago
Tech4 days ago
Fashion5 days ago
Politics5 days ago
Crypto World4 days ago
Tech5 days ago
Tech4 days ago
You must be logged in to post a comment Login