Two Democratic lawmakers in the United States have formally introduced a bill aimed at curbing what they describe as government-insider trading risk tied to prediction markets. The BETS OFF Act, unveiled in a joint effort by Representative Greg Casar of Texas and Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, targets platforms whose markets place bets on sensitive government actions. The move follows a spate of high-profile bets linked to potential U.S. action in the Middle East, prompting questions about the role of real-time markets in shaping or amplifying political decisions.

Key takeaways

• The BETS OFF Act was introduced by Rep. Greg Casar and Sen. Chris Murphy in response to suspicious bets on international conflict scenarios, including a possible war involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran.
• The bill seeks to prohibit event contracts tied to sensitive government decisions and federal functions, effectively narrowing the scope of markets like Polymarket and Kalshi.
• The push comes amid continued regulatory scrutiny of prediction markets, following earlier proposals such as Sen. Adam Schiff’s DEATH BETS Act targeting war, terrorism, assassination, and deaths.
• Public discourse around insider information is central: lawmakers argue decisions in the Situation Room should not be swayed by financial positions on open markets.
• Industry声音 remains mixed—Polymarket defends the value of crowd wisdom, while Kalshi limits certain military action forecasts, reflecting divergent approaches to risk and governance in prediction markets.

Market context: The debate over prediction markets sits at the intersection of financial innovation, governance, and national security. As lawmakers push for tighter controls, market operators face clarifications on what kinds of forecasts can be legally listed, while observers watch whether broader crypto-asset and derivatives markets will influence or respond to policy changes.

Why it matters

At the heart of the BETS OFF Act is a concern that insider information—or access to non-public policy deliberations—could be translated into lucrative bets on the outcomes of military or other sensitive actions. Rep. Casar framed the issue around the possibility that “someone sitting in the situation room” could be empowered by market positions in decisions of life and death. The proposed legislation would restrict event contracts tied to government operations and major federal actions, which would notably limit the kinds of bets that platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi can offer on foreign policy and national security events.

The controversy is not purely theoretical. Earlier in the year, Sen. Schiff introduced the DEATH BETS Act, which emphasizes prohibition of markets listing events connected to war, terrorism, assassination, and deaths. The parallel push from multiple offices signals a growing concern among U.S. lawmakers about how prediction markets intersect with public policy and accountability. As markets, regulators, and political actors continue to navigate these questions, the debate intensifies around whether such platforms should be allowed to operate with the same latitude as other forms of speculative markets—and what safeguards are necessary to prevent misuse.

On the platforms themselves, Polymarket has positioned its operations as a way to harness collective intelligence for better forecasting, emphasizing the value of crowd-sourced signals during volatile periods. Kalshi, by contrast, has taken a more constrained stance for certain high-stakes scenarios, choosing not to list contracts on specific military actions or other sensitive geopolitical outcomes. The tension underscores a broader governance question: can prediction markets deliver genuine societal value without creating incentives that could distort policy or provoke manipulation?

Concerns about safety and legitimacy have also resonated beyond the markets’ floors. A Times of Israel military correspondent reported receiving death threats related to coverage of the Iranian missile strike date, underscoring the real-world stakes involved when financial markets entwine with geopolitics. Such incidents amplify the call for clearer boundaries around which events can be bet on and under what conditions, particularly when coverage intersects with ongoing conflict and public safety considerations.

Why it matters

Prediction markets have long claimed to distill “wisdom of the crowd” into probabilistic forecasts on a range of topics, from elections to sporting events. The current controversy places a sharp spotlight on how such frameworks function when sensitive geopolitical actions are on the line. If lawmakers succeed in restricting certain classes of contracts, the markets’ ability to reflect near-term probabilities on foreign policy may be curtailed. That could alter how information flows in high-stakes environments and potentially shift shifts in risk pricing across related derivative markets.

For policymakers, the BETS OFF Act represents a legislative attempt to recalibrate the balance between innovation and guardrails. The bill’s proponents argue that ensuring decisions about war and peace are not influenced by betting markets is essential to preserving the integrity of national security processes. Critics, however, may contend that market-based signals can illuminate risk and improve transparency—if properly designed with safeguards. The unfolding policy discussion will likely test the resilience and adaptability of prediction-market platforms, as well as the broader ecosystem of crypto- and mainstream financial markets intertwined with these services.

What to watch next

• Prospective committee hearings and floor votes on the BETS OFF Act, including potential amendments clarifying the scope of prohibited contracts.
• Regulatory clarifications from U.S. agencies overseeing prediction markets and related financial instruments, potentially addressing enforcement mechanisms and permissible product design.
• Updates on Kalshi’s and Polymarket’s product offerings in response to any new regulatory guidance or legislative actions.
• Ongoing reporting on insider-information concerns connected to policy decisions and how such concerns may influence market design and investor protection measures.

Sources & verification

• Official statements from Representative Greg Casar and Senator Chris Murphy announcing the BETS OFF Act, and the legislative text when released.
• Public statements and policy positions from Polymarket on the role and limits of prediction markets in current events.
• Kalshi’s publicly stated market scope and its approach to sensitive geopolitical contracts, including any restrictions on military action forecasts.
• Past congressional actions and debates around prediction markets, such as the DEATH BETS Act introduced by Senator Adam Schiff.

Key figures and next steps

Market participants and policy observers will be watching how lawmakers articulate the balance between innovation and safeguards in prediction markets. The BETS OFF Act joins a broader set of questions about the accountability of platforms that monetize forecasts on sensitive events. If enacted, the legislation could reorient product design, risk controls, and the permissible scope of bets offered to the public. Until then, Polymarket and Kalshi—along with other platforms—continue to operate within the existing regulatory framework while navigating the evolving political discourse surrounding insider information, elections, and foreign policy risk.

What to watch next (summary)

• Legislative votes or committee actions on the BETS OFF Act and its potential amendments.
• Regulatory clarifications issued by relevant U.S. agencies about prediction-market operations.
• Platform policy adjustments by Polymarket and Kalshi in response to new rules or enforcement actions.
• Ongoing media reporting on insider-information concerns and related safety incidents tied to market-driven forecasts.

Phantom, a popular self-custodial crypto wallet, has obtained no-action relief from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), allowing it to connect users to derivatives trading through registered market participants without registering as an introducing broker.

The relief allows Phantom to act as a technology service vendor (TSV) to Designated Contract Markets (DCMs), registered futures commission merchants (FCMs), or introducing brokers (collectively, “Collaborators”), enabling users to access event contracts, perpetual contracts, and other CFTC-regulated derivatives through Phantom’s interface.

Phantom described the relief as “first-of-its-kind,” signaling a potential regulatory template for other crypto wallet providers looking to bridge crypto-native users into traditional financial markets. Phantom also said it proactively engaged with the CFTC to clarify how a non-custodial interface could provide access to regulated markets.

The letter imposes 10 conditions, including: providing users with risk disclosures consistent with CFTC regulations; complying with National Futures Association rules on public communications; executing joint-and-several-liability undertakings with each Collaborator; and maintaining records in line with CFTC standards. The relief remains in effect until the Commission issues formal rulemaking addressing broker registration requirements for software providers.

This article was written with the assistance of AI workflows. All our stories are curated, edited and fact-checked by a human.

Ripple (XRP) is stepping up its Latin American strategy, moving to formalize its presence in Brazil’s regulated crypto market while quietly deepening real-world payment and tokenization rails in the country. The company said it plans to apply for a Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) license from the Central Bank of Brazil, a move that would pull its local operations directly under the country’s evolving crypto framework.​

The push comes as several Brazilian financial institutions are already plugged into Ripple’s infrastructure for cross‑border flows and on‑chain settlement. Investment bank Banco Genial uses Ripple’s network to process same‑day dollar transfers, effectively turning the ledger into back‑end plumbing for faster FX and remittance rails. Braza Bank has gone a step further, issuing a real‑backed stablecoin on the XRP Ledger, using Ripple’s tech stack to tokenize local fiat and streamline domestic and cross‑border settlements.

Fintech firm Nomad is also using Ripple’s network for stablecoin‑based fund flows between Brazil and the U.S., positioning XRP‑ledger rails as an alternative to traditional correspondent banking in a corridor notorious for fees and friction. At the same time, partners including CRX and Justoken are issuing tokenized assets through Ripple’s custody products, covering commodities and other real‑world assets that local investors already understand and regulators can more easily slot into existing frameworks.​

If granted, a VASP license would effectively turn Ripple from a quasi‑grey “technology vendor” into a supervised participant in Brazil’s digital asset regime. That matters for institutions that want crypto‑adjacent yield, remittance efficiency, or tokenization upside but remain unwilling to touch unlicensed infrastructure. For Ripple, Brazil offers the right mix: large remittance corridors, a sophisticated banking sector, and regulators that are tough but pragmatic on stablecoins and tokenized assets.​

For XRP and broader market watchers, the Brazil pivot is another sign that Ripple’s post‑U.S.‑litigation strategy leans heavily on jurisdictions where payment use cases, not speculative trading, are the headline. If Ripple can secure a VASP license and scale real‑world flows through banks like Genial and Braza, Brazil could become one of the key test beds for whether XRP‑ledger infrastructure can matter beyond courtrooms and secondary‑market narratives.

OpenSea has pushed back the launch of its long-awaited SEA token for the second time, with co-founder and CEO Devin Finzer announcing Monday that the previously planned March 30 token generation event will not go ahead as scheduled.

“A delay is a delay. I’m not going to dress it up, and I know how it lands,” Finzer wrote on X, adding that the OpenSea Foundation opted to hold off rather than force a debut in challenging market conditions. No new date has been set.

The SEA token was first announced in February 2025 as part of OpenSea’s broader strategy to transform the platform beyond NFTs into a multi-chain trading hub.

Alongside the delay, OpenSea is making several changes to its incentive program. The current Treasure rewards wave will be the last, though accumulated rewards will be “meaningfully considered.”

Users who participated in Seasons 3 through 6 will have the option to claim refunds for platform fees paid during those periods, though doing so will require forfeiting any Treasure accumulated from those waves.

Starting March 31, OpenSea will also cut token swap trading fees to 0% for 60 days, a move aimed at driving adoption of its expanded OS2 platform, which now includes cross-chain trading, mobile features, and perpetual futures.

Finzer framed the delay as a strategic decision rather than a setback. “The thing that’s carried us through every cycle was a willingness to make hard calls when it mattered,” he wrote, adding that the foundation would announce a new timeline only once launch conditions are deemed appropriate.

Community Apathy

The response from the community has been predictably sour, though muted; likely a reflection of eroding expectations rather than surprise.

The refund mechanism itself has drawn criticism, with users questioning why participants in earlier waves who traded significantly higher volumes weren’t given the option.

“Like many of you, I’ve been personally looking forward to SEA since before I joined. I’m with you. But I also want to see it set up for long-term success and sustainability,” OpenSea CMO Adam Hollander wrote on X.

The reassurances may not land easily, given the platform’s track record on this front. As The Defiant reported last October, most users’ trust in the legacy NFT platform had already fallen as the company sought to convince users to trade tokens on OpenSea, with data showing that much of the activity at the time was driven solely by SEA farming incentives.

For many participants who have spent months farming Treasure across multiple reward waves, the indefinite delay amounts to the latest in a long series of deferred promises from a platform once synonymous with the NFT boom.

A Long Time Coming

The SEA token has been dangled in front of OpenSea users for the better part of two years.

Speculation began in earnest in late 2024, when the OpenSea Foundation surfaced on X and was found to have been registered in the Cayman Islands.

The formal announcement arrived in February 2025 alongside the public launch of OS2, OpenSea’s revamped trading platform, which integrated token swaps, a pivot driven by a significant decline in NFT trading volume, which had fallen from a peak of $5 billion per month in January 2022 to just $195 million in January 2025.

In September 2025, OpenSea quietly doubled its NFT trading fees from 0.5% to 1%, funneling half of all fees into a pre-token launch rewards pool distributed through a gamified system.

Much of the trading activity that followed was driven by SEA farming incentives rather than genuine product-market fit, with critics pointing to surprise KYC requirements and vague promises regarding how 2021-era traders would be rewarded.

After OpenSea concluded its first chest farming season in October 2025, the platform’s DEX aggregator volumes plummeted from an all-time high of $462 million on October 15 to roughly $5 million per day in the weeks that followed. DeFiLlama data shows that daily volumes have plunged further to just $2 million.

U.S. stocks opened higher on Tuesday, extending a risk‑on regime across the Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq even as crypto‑linked names like Coinbase and MicroStrategy once again trade more like volatile Bitcoin proxies than companies being valued on their own fundamentals.

U.S. stocks opened higher on Tuesday, with risk appetite still firmly intact even as traders digest a busy macro and corporate tape. According to Gate market data cited by ChainCatcher, the Dow Jones Industrial Average opened up 0.66%, the S&P 500 rose 0.42%, and the Nasdaq Composite gained 0.33%, extending the bid for long‑duration assets that has defined much of this quarter’s trade.​

The tone in crypto‑linked U.S. equities was more hesitant. While Bitcoin continues to trade near record territory, the equity market is increasingly treating names like Coinbase and MicroStrategy as leveraged wrappers on BTC (BTC) rather than as companies to be valued on cash flows and business execution. Recent crypto.news coverage has shown how Coinbase stock can jump sharply on strong Bitcoin days—particularly when ETF inflows spike—only to give back gains once spot volatility cools and volumes normalize. MicroStrategy, which now functions as a quasi‑Bitcoin holding company, exhibits the same dynamic in amplified form: rallies following new BTC purchases or upbeat commentary have repeatedly met a wall whenever Bitcoin consolidates or corrects.

That pattern is again visible in early U.S. trading. Bitcoin is holding near recent highs rather than breaking to new extremes, and crypto equities are reacting with fatigue rather than fresh upside follow‑through. The market’s message is stark: without a clear new leg higher in BTC, investors are less willing to pay a premium for listed proxies that layer corporate and regulatory risk on top of underlying coin exposure. Prior reporting on Coinbase’s sensitivity to ETF flows and MicroStrategy’s balance‑sheet concentration has underlined that point, framing both stocks as effectively high‑beta BTC trades with additional idiosyncratic risk factors attached.

At the index level, however, U.S. equities are still behaving like classic bull‑market tape: dips are shallow, breadth is reasonable, and buyers are quick to step in when macro data come in “good enough.” That backdrop helps explain why crypto stocks are not seeing deeper stress despite the absence of a fresh Bitcoin breakout. For now, COIN and MSTR remain trapped between two narratives—on one side, institutional demand for regulated BTC exposure via ETFs and public equities; on the other, a market increasingly disciplined about paying up for stories that do not deliver differentiated earnings power. As long as Bitcoin grinds rather than trends, crypto‑linked U.S. stocks are likely to keep trading more like volatile derivatives on BTC than like the core components of a new financial sector.

Bill Covers Sensitive Event Contracts

The intended legislation aims to prohibit trading on non-economic events in which the government acts. It also limits markets where participants have prior information or direct control over outcomes. Lawmakers say this kind of contract raises regulatory and ethical issues. Therefore, the bill seeks to establish clearer boundaries for prediction platforms.

The last few years on websites such as Kalshi and Polymarket have drawn increased scrutiny. Markets tied to geopolitical events and leadership performance have attracted attention, as well as issues with voided contracts. Furthermore, platform practices have been complicated by the issues of voided contracts. Such cases have affected the campaign to gain greater control.

Kalshi has faced lawsuits involving controversial event contract payments. Traders have expressed concerns when markets have been stopped or canceled during crucial events. Reports of war actions in relation to geopolitical events have also attracted more attention. These remain among the issues defining the regulatory discussion.

Harassment and Threats of Concern

Authorities and news media have drawn attention to threats related to the activity of predictive markets. There have also been claims that some users pressure journalists to affect coverage related to a live betting market. Polymarket has blamed such tendencies, stating that harassment is contrary to its rules and is not in line with its policies.

The proposed bill faces difficulty in gaining wider backing. Republicans currently control Congress and might not take the bill seriously. Politicians have indicated that prediction markets have attracted political attention, creating a dynamic that makes enacting new regulations harder.

Others have begun to censor some of their contracts. As others continue offering similar contracts, Kalshi minimizes exposure to sensitive geopolitical markets. Geopolitical speculation remains active and attracts users. This tendency keeps the sector under close observation. U.S. legislators have proposed the BETS OFF Act to limit the use of prediction markets for deals involving sensitive events. The proposal would contribute to increased regulatory interest because platforms are subject to legal challenges and regulatory scrutiny.

Blockchain oracle network Pyth has unveiled what it calls the first continuously updating crude oil composite index, designed to fill pricing gaps left by traditional commodity markets that operate on fixed trading schedules.

The Pyth 24/7 Oil Index aggregates both onchain and offchain data, pulling from institutional trading desks and exchanges during regular hours and from decentralized derivatives venues during nights, weekends, and holidays. The goal is to eliminate stale reference prices during periods when legacy benchmarks like NYMEX WTI futures stop updating.

The launch comes amid extreme volatility in global energy markets. Joint U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on Iran and subsequent Iranian retaliation triggered immediate surges in oil and gas prices and heightened volatility in financial markets.

The cessation of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on the region’s oil infrastructure have significantly impacted global supply chains. Roughly 20% of the world’s oil transits the Strait, making any disruption there a systemic risk for global energy pricing.

Pyth noted that onchain commodity trading has surged alongside the crisis. Hyperliquid alone processed over $1 billion in daily WTI oil perpetual volume during recent volatility spikes — activity that occurred largely outside traditional market windows.

Pyth’s oracle model, in which institutional trading firms and market makers publish first-party pricing data directly to the network, gives it a combined view of liquidity across both traditional and decentralized venues.

The oil index is the first in a planned series of proprietary always-on indices spanning commodity, macro, and cross-asset categories.

[PRESS RELEASE – George Town, British Virgin Islands, March 17th, 2026]

Aster, a privacy-focused trading ecosystem backed by YZi Labs, today announced the official launch of Aster Chain Mainnet. This purpose-built Layer 1 blockchain is designed to dismantle the “transparency trap” of modern DeFi, offering institutional-grade privacy and CEX-level performance to professional and retail traders worldwide.

Ending the Era of Onchain Position Hunting

Transparency is a defining characteristic of decentralized finance, supported by public ledgers, verifiable transactions, and open protocols. However, transparency between protocols and users differs from transparency among market participants. When trading activity, including order placement, position size, and liquidation levels, is fully visible on-chain, such information may be observed and used by other participants in the market.

Position hunting – where traders identify a large position, see its liquidation price, and coordinate to trigger a forced liquidation – has cost traders millions of dollars on fully transparent platforms. Infamously, in March 2025, a trader opened a $375 million BTC 40x short on a fully transparent platform. Traders quickly began openly coordinating on Twitter to pool funds and hunt the position.

Aster’s default privacy removes that attack surface entirely.

The Aster Thesis: Privacy is a Fundamental Right

Unlike existing solutions that treat privacy as an opt-in feature or a third-party wrapper, Aster Chain embeds encryption directly into the execution layer. On Aster, privacy is the default, not a privilege.

The Aster privacy stack utilizes a ZK-verifiable encrypted architecture:

• ZK-Verifiable Encryption + Stealth Address Mechanism: Every order is ZK-verifiable encrypted before it reaches the chain; with Account Privacy enabled, orders are routed through unique stealth addresses, ensuring no link between users’ wallets and their trading activity, and preventing any third party from tracing, correlating, or reconstructing trades.
• Selective Disclosure: While asset transfers remain traceable for compliance, the execution layer shields strategic intent. Users who want their activity visible can choose to make it public. With Account Privacy enabled, users can generate a Viewer Pass to share with selected parties, allowing only those with access to the pass to view their private orders.
• Zero Performance Trade-off: Aster Chain achieves peak throughput of 100,000+ TPS and a median block time of 50ms, all without gas – performance that matches the speed traders expect from a centralized exchange.

“Transparency between a protocol and its users is a fundamental feature, but transparency between a trader and their competitors is a critical vulnerability,” said Leonard, CEO at Aster. “Aster Chain is the only architecture that treats privacy as a fundamental requirement for a fair market, neutralizing predatory attacks at the base layer.”

CEX Speed Meets DEX Principles

Aster Chain delivers the sub-second finality and high-leverage experience of a CEX while upholding the core tenets of decentralization: self-custody, verifiability, and permissionless access. Trading privacy removes the last reason to stay on a centralized exchange. The network is supported by a native bridge to BNB Chain and proprietary oracles to ensure high-fidelity price data.

Fuelling the Next Wave of Innovation

The mainnet launch marks the start of a phased expansion. Beyond the flagship Aster trading UI, the ecosystem is inviting builders to create specialized vaults and collaborative DeFi products through Aster Code.

To coincide with the launch, Aster will initiate a Staking Program within a week to reward early supporters and liquidity providers.

About Aster

Aster is a privacy-first onchain trading platform backed by YZi Labs, with unique features like Hidden Orders to protect user trading activity. It offers perpetual contracts across crypto, stocks and commodities, as well as crypto spot trading, and is powered by Aster Chain, a Layer 1 blockchain built to power the future of decentralized finance.

Users can learn more about Aster on the official website or follow Aster on X.