TLDR:

• Wintermute is now quoting two-sided markets on event contracts across venues doing $20 billion monthly in volume.
• The prediction market industry has crossed $60 billion in 2026, yet still lacks the institutional liquidity it needs to mature.
• Event contracts price real-world outcomes directly, offering more targeted exposure than equities, rates, or currencies.
• Wintermute’s existing crypto infrastructure covers custody, collateral, and risk management that prediction market venues already require.

Wintermute has moved into the prediction market industry, now providing liquidity across event contracts on leading venues.

The algorithmic trading firm brings over $3.5 trillion in annual trading volume to a segment that has crossed $60 billion in 2026.

This entry marks a turning point for prediction markets, as institutional-grade infrastructure begins supporting a fast-growing but liquidity-thin space.

A $60 Billion Market That Needed Institutional Depth

The prediction market industry has expanded at a pace few anticipated just years ago. Trading volume across leading venues now exceeds $20 billion per month as of early 2026. That growth has outpaced the liquidity infrastructure needed to support it properly.

Wintermute is stepping in to close that gap by quoting continuous bid and offer prices across event contracts. Two-sided liquidity tightens spreads and allows participants to trade in larger sizes. Over time, this also strengthens the accuracy of probabilities that these markets produce.

Jake Ostrovskis, Head of OTC Trading at Wintermute, addressed the core problem directly. “Prediction markets have the demand profile of a major asset class but the liquidity profile of an early-stage one,” he said.

He added that sustained two-sided liquidity is what allows these markets to become reliable real-time probability tools.

Ostrovskis further noted that deeper liquidity does more than improve execution. “That depth tightens spreads, supports larger trade sizes, and in turn improves the signal embedded in market prices,” he explained.

“That is where Wintermute can add value.” Wintermute already operates across more than 70 exchanges, making this expansion a natural fit.

Why Wintermute Is Betting on Event Contracts

Prediction markets price real-world outcomes directly, rather than through traditional proxies like equities or currencies. For institutions managing exposure to specific catalysts, this offers a more targeted tool.

Policy decisions, economic data releases, and other discrete events become tradeable with greater precision.

Wintermute captured that distinction in a public statement, saying “prediction markets are emerging as a distinct asset class, pricing probabilities on events that traditional markets don’t capture cleanly.”

That framing reflects how the firm views the segment’s broader role in financial markets. It also explains why the firm sees long-term value in committing liquidity here.

Many prediction market venues also operate on public blockchains using stablecoin settlement systems. This aligns closely with infrastructure Wintermute already manages across spot, DeFi, and OTC crypto markets.

Custody, collateral, and risk management requirements are already part of the firm’s daily operations.

That overlap makes the move into prediction markets a practical extension rather than an entirely new venture. Wintermute Group’s existing systems handle the technical demands these venues require.

As the industry continues its growth trajectory, institutional participation from firms like Wintermute is likely to accelerate further adoption across the space.

Traditional financial institutions are preparing to move trillions of dollars of assets onchain, but the risk of hacks and exploits is putting them off, according to blockchain security firm CertiK’s CEO Ronghui Gu.

“Right now, more and more institutions are trying to move assets onchain,” Gu told CoinDesk in an interview. “They imagine that, let’s say in 10 years, multiple trillion dollars — even tens of trillions of dollars — of assets are going to move onchain.”

The potentially massive migration of financial assets is hitting a wall because, although bankers and legacy institutions want to capture the efficiency of decentralized ledgers, the current operational reality is still too risky for conservative capital allocators.

“When they move assets onchain, they need to face all these AI attacks, smart contract vulnerabilities, oracle manipulation, and cross-chain bridge hacks,” Gu explained. “So, that’s being considered as one of the major blockers for all this TradFi to move trillions of dollars of assets onchain.”

Gu said their concerns are legitimate, noting that CertiK detected hacks nearly every day in April, making it the worst month in four years, fueled mostly by AI-driven attacks, notwithstanding “April was the worst month in four years with only three days without a hack,” Gu said, adding that CertiK believes this sudden rise could only be possible with AI.

Drift Protocol and Kelp Dao were hacked by North Korean cybercriminals in April in two exploits that drained nearly $600 million from the two lending crypto pools. In February 2025, Bybit suffered a $1.46 billion attack, described as the biggest hack of all time.

DefiLlama data recently showed more than $1.1 billion had been lost to DeFi hacks in a year, exposing how vulnerabilities in cross-chain infrastructure can quickly spill into the broader ecosystem.

Persistent operational failure is the primary symptom of what Gu calls an “unfair game” in favor of malicious actors, because they possess infinite resources.

Deep pockets

Hackers focus on highly lucrative protocols with massive total value locked (TVL), so they are economically incentivized to pump immense capital into their exploits.

A single protocol attacker can easily spend $10,000 to $20,000 worth of computer tokens to keep advanced engines running continuous vulnerability scans against a protocol for days or weeks on end. Conversely, Gu said, protocol defenders operate under strict, localized project budgetary constraints.

“We have 5,000 clients,” Gu explained. “When we receive a request from a client, there’s a budget. We will spend tokens plus human experts within that budget.” That creates a massive structural gap: while a defense team is bound by a strict commercial contract to scan a protocol over a few hours, the machines of a hacker or group of hackers never stop hunting for a single crack in the code.

Gu said exploits have increased in speed and efficiency with AI and what’s worse is that the nearly-daily trend seen in April could continue through to the end of this year.

TLDR:

• XRP is trading at $1.34, posting a 2.80% gain in 24 hours with over $2.15 billion in trading volume.
• Binance Exchange Supply Ratio has trended downward throughout May, pointing to reduced immediate selling pressure.
• XRP’s NVT Ratio declined 23.73% to 151.53, suggesting the asset is fairly valued relative to network activity.
• The Awesome Oscillator remains near zero, reflecting market indecision and neither bullish nor bearish momentum dominance.

XRP is showing early signs of a potential market reversal as multiple on-chain indicators align. The asset is trading at $1.34 as of writing, reflecting a 2.80% gain over the past 24 hours.

Trading volume stands at over $2.15 billion, pointing to continued market participation. Analysts tracking exchange supply, network valuation, and momentum data suggest the asset may be nearing the end of its bottoming phase.

Exchange Supply Data Points to Reduced Selling Pressure

XRP’s price has been consolidating around the $1.33 range after months of sharp volatility. The movement has narrowed considerably, forming what analysts describe as an equilibrium zone. This kind of tight price action often appears before a directional move develops.

The Exchange Supply Ratio on Binance has been trending downward throughout May. After peaking in March and April, the ratio entered a clear decline, suggesting investors are moving XRP off exchanges. Coins leaving exchanges typically reduce the available supply for immediate selling.

When holders move assets into private wallets, it often reduces short-term selling pressure. This behavior can lay the groundwork for a price recovery over the medium term. The trend has been consistent enough to draw attention from market analysts.

PelinayPA noted in a recent market post that the declining exchange supply ratio may help create a foundation for an upward move. The combination of reduced exchange holdings and stable price action adds weight to the bottoming thesis currently circulating among analysts.

NVT Ratio Decline Adds to Valuation Case for XRP

The NVT Ratio for XRP has dropped sharply by 23.73%, bringing it to a reading of 151.53. The NVT Ratio compares market value to on-chain transaction volume. A falling reading suggests the asset is not overvalued relative to its network activity.

In crypto market analysis, a low or declining NVT is often read as a sign that an asset trades at a relatively fair or attractive level. It means network usage remains strong even as price consolidates. This combination can attract buyers who rely on fundamental on-chain data.

The Awesome Oscillator, meanwhile, remains just below the zero line with minimal bar readings. Neither buyers nor sellers hold a clear momentum advantage at this point. This neutral reading supports the view that the market is still searching for direction.

Taken together, the NVT decline and the AO neutrality paint a picture of a market at a crossroads. The absence of strong bearish momentum, paired with easing exchange supply, keeps the bullish case intact. Analysts continue to watch the $1.33 area as a key level for any potential move higher.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged a Texas man with running a crypto fraud that raised about $12.3 million from roughly 150 investors by falsely claiming AI-powered trading bots would deliver guaranteed returns. The alleged scheme operated through Privvy Investments, LLC, and under the business name Gateway Digital Investments from at least October 2022 to mid-2024, according to the SEC’s complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

prosecutors say Nathan Fuller, a Cypress, Texas resident, pitched investors on investments that promised returns of 40% to 50% within 30 to 45 days, and even claimed some could secure guaranteed profits exceeding 100% in as little as 21 days. To bolster the pitch, Fuller allegedly asserted that investor funds were secured by a surety bond, insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and protected by a professional liability insurance policy. The SEC contends none of these assurances were true.

Central to Fuller’s pitch were proprietary AI-based trading bots that Fuller claimed would execute high-frequency arbitrage trades across crypto platforms. The agency states the bots did not function as represented, undermining the core promise behind the investment strategy. The complaint also notes that Fuller used aggressive branding around AI to attract retail investors, a pattern the SEC has flagged in other enforcement actions tied to crypto schemes.

Key takeaways

• The SEC alleges Nathan Fuller raised $12.3 million from about 150 investors through Privvy Investments and Gateway Digital Investments between 2022 and 2024, based on false assurances of AI-driven profits.
• Investors were promised 40–50% returns within 30–45 days, with some claims of profits over 100% in 21 days; sophisticated-sounding claims were used to create an aura of legitimacy around the scheme.
• According to the SEC, investor funds were misused for personal expenses and to make Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors, while many statements were fake and issued by fictitious entities.
• In total, about $6.2 million is alleged to have gone to personal expenses, with roughly $5.5 million paid to earlier investors, as the scheme sought to sustain itself.
• The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and civil penalties as part of the action.

Alleged mechanics and misrepresentations

At the heart of the case, according to the SEC, were Fuller’s assurances that AI-enabled trading bots would perform high-frequency arbitrage across multiple crypto venues. The complaint asserts that Fuller’s bots did not operate as advertised, calling into question the legitimacy of the entire investment program. To entice participation, Fuller touted “guaranteed” returns and painted a picture of risk-managed exposure backed by supposed insurance and surety instruments that would shield investors from losses.

The SEC’s filing emphasizes that much of the money raised from investors did not fund real trading activity. Instead, the agency alleges that a substantial portion of the funds was diverted for personal use and for distributions to earlier investors in a manner characteristic of a Ponzi-style arrangement. In an attempt to maintain the illusion of legitimacy, Fuller allegedly produced fake account statements and communications from fictitious entities.

Financial flows and investor restitution risks

From the $12.3 million raised, the SEC alleges that at least $6.2 million was spent on personal expenses. A further roughly $5.5 million was used to make payments to earlier investors—an arrangement designed to create the impression of ongoing liquidity and profitability. The persistence of fake statements and fraudulent correspondence is cited as part of the broader deception that kept investors engaged while funds were diverted away from purported trading activity.

The SEC’s action seeks to unwind the illicit gains and deter future misconduct. The agency is pursuing permanent injunctions to stop Fuller from engaging in similar schemes, disgorgement of any profits obtained through the alleged fraud, and civil penalties. The case highlights the ongoing regulatory focus on the intersection of AI branding and crypto investments, where appearances of sophistication can mask fraudulent intent.

Regulatory backdrop: a broader enforcement pattern around AI and crypto

The Fuller case sits within a wider pattern of enforcement actions that blend AI branding with crypto investment pitches. In a separate action from the same enforcement cycle, the SEC charged three purported crypto asset trading platforms and four investment clubs in a $14 million scheme that also leaned on AI branding to lure retail investors, with fraudsters presenting themselves as financial professionals in messaging apps and promising profits from AI-generated trading tips. The actions illustrate how the SEC is scrutinizing not just outright fraud but also the marketing narratives that accompany crypto offerings tied to AI hype.

In a broader context, the SEC has acknowledged that some of its past crypto enforcement actions benefited from clearer investor protections and avoided overreach. In a 2025 enforcement results update, the regulator noted that since fiscal year 2022 it had brought 95 actions and imposed $2.3 billion in penalties for book-and-record violations that “identified no direct investor harm” and “produced no investor benefit or protection.” The agency has signaled a continued emphasis on rigorous disclosure, investor protection, and clear linkages between securities laws and crypto offerings as the industry evolves.

Related reporting has also centered on debates over crypto regulation and investor privacy. The broader enforcement environment reflects ongoing tensions between innovation and safeguards, with AI-enabled marketing and “guaranteed” returns becoming recurring flashpoints in a market that often intertwines technology, finance, and emerging asset classes.

Source: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings and enforcement releases in this matter, which detail the allegations and relief sought against Fuller and related entities. See the SEC complaint filed in the Southern District of Texas for full allegations and statutory bases.

As the crypto sector continues to test the boundaries of technology and investor protection, market participants should monitor how courts interpret AI-driven claims, the sufficiency of disclosures, and the durability of enforcement actions when real-world trading activity does not substantiate promised returns.

Investors and observers will want to watch how the courts address disgorgement timelines, potential restitution, and the overall precedent set for AI-themed crypto offerings that promise outsized gains with purported risk mitigation.

TLDR:

• A federal judge ordered Circle to blacklist Zama’s cUSDC contract, freezing roughly $12.6 million in pooled USDC funds.

• Plaintiffs allege Overnight Finance’s Ermilov moved $15.77M from a shared treasury just before an OVN holder vote passed.

• Zama’s entire cUSDC pool was frozen because the contract holds funds from all depositors, not just the disputed address.

• Activist firm Patagon Management, known for forcing DAO treasury payouts, is one of the co-plaintiffs driving the suit.

A federal court order has led Circle to blacklist Zama’s confidential USDC contract, freezing roughly $12.6 million in funds early Saturday.

The freeze stems from a class action suit filed against Overnight Finance creator Maxim Ermilov. Plaintiffs allege Ermilov diverted more than $15 million from a shared treasury.

The move has drawn attention because it swept innocent users’ funds into the dispute.

Court Order Triggers Freeze on Zama’s Contract

Circle blacklisted the cUSDC contract address at 1:08 a.m. UTC on Saturday. The freeze locked 12,606,386 USDC in the Ethereum-based contract. Public block explorers identify the frozen address as Zama’s confidential USDC token.

Zama CEO Rand Hindi said on X that his team was investigating the freeze. He later wrote that the contract appeared to have been “caught in a crossfire of another case.” Hindi also confirmed that Circle gave no prior warning before the blacklist was executed.

Because cUSDC wraps the USDC backing every token holder, blacklisting the contract locks the full pool. The frozen amount is slightly more than the disputed deposit, meaning other users’ funds were also swept in. The plaintiffs told the court they were prepared to advance funds to make unrelated parties whole.

Hindi addressed the scale of outside exposure directly. “Since there wasn’t much utility yet for the cUSDC wrapper, there were very little funds in it, and as a result the vast majority (>99%) of funds in the cUSDC contract came from that single hacker’s deposit,” he wrote on X. Zama also announced it would pause the cUSDC, cUSDT, and cWETH contracts during its investigation.

Zama said in a statement that it is “an infrastructure provider, not a mixer or a tumbler.” The firm added that its legal team is working to isolate the flagged address and restore access for affected users as quickly as possible. Hindi also pushed back on any suggestion that the protocol enables money laundering.

“It’s also really useless for hackers to try to use Zama to hide their trail as we are precisely not a mixer and we do not obfuscate the sender and recipient, only balances and amounts,” he wrote.

Overnight Finance Treasury Dispute Explained

The class action was filed on May 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Three funds holding OVN tokens accuse Ermilov of moving more than $15 million from a shared treasury. The filing describes Ermilov as a Russian national living in Abu Dhabi.

Ermilov built Overnight Finance, a DeFi yield platform that issued the USD+ stablecoin and OVN governance token.

The project raised $850,000 in a pre-seed round led by Hack VC in February 2022. OVN token sales began in September 2023, with holders promised a pro rata claim on the treasury.

The complaint quotes a November 6, 2024 Discord message in which Ermilov wrote, “you can buy 51% of OVNs and vote to have [the Treasury] distributed.”

OVN holders initiated a vote on May 4, 2026, to liquidate the treasury and distribute the funds. Just before the vote crossed a majority threshold on May 11, the lawsuit alleges Ermilov moved more than $15.77 million. About $12.5 million of those funds were USDC, and the bulk ended up in Zama’s cUSDC contract.

Ermilov, however, disputed the plaintiffs’ account. “They had no right to vote the way they did,” he told The Block. He also argued that the token confers no financial entitlement.

“OVN is not a security, so no rights to profit or distributions of any nature,” he said. Asked why funds were moved into Zama’s system, he said the move was meant to “hide balances from general public to minimize personal security risks,” citing recent kidnappings of crypto holders.

Activist Investors and a Familiar Legal Strategy

The plaintiffs in this case are not ordinary token holders. One co-plaintiff, Patagon Management, has built a practice around pressuring DAOs to liquidate treasuries and return value to token holders. The firm is run by Diogenes Casares, who is associated with a group sometimes called the RFV Raiders.

Casares has said the broader community has unwound DAOs including Fei Protocol, Rome DAO, and Temple DAO, and shaped governance of others. “Collectively, these protocols have Risk-Free assets in excess of $1B,” he wrote in January 2023.

Patagon previously sued Wei “Max” Wu over Spartacus DAO, a project whose holders had voted to dissolve it and reclaim the treasury. In that case, a judge granted an emergency restraining order barring Wu from moving $35 million in crypto.

The court also allowed service by NFT, email, and Discord — the same channels the Overnight plaintiffs are now seeking to use on Ermilov.

On May 29, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts issued a text-only order directing Circle to block the USDC and set a hearing for Monday, June 1.

The order came on an ex parte motion, meaning Ermilov’s side had not yet been heard. The June 1 hearing will allow both sides to present arguments.

Onchain investigator ZachXBT called the freeze “precedent setting” for blacklisting a contract where funds are pooled with other users. “Overall I feel bad for Zama users who have now been indirectly impacted with this mess of a US civil case,” he wrote.

The case is now set to test the limits of Circle’s freeze authority in private legal disputes involving pooled DeFi contracts.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged a Texas man with running a crypto fraud scheme that raised $12.3 million from roughly 150 investors by falsely claiming to use AI-powered trading bots to generate guaranteed returns.

Nathan Fuller, a resident of Cypress, Texas, operated the scheme through his company Privvy Investments, LLC, and under the assumed business name Gateway Digital Investments between at least October 2022 and mid-2024, according to the SEC’s complaint filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Fuller allegedly promised investors returns of 40% to 50% within 30 to 45 days, with some told they could make guaranteed profits exceeding 100% in as little as 21 days. To back up the pitch, he claimed investor funds were secured by a surety bond, insured by the  Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and protected by a professional liability insurance policy. None of it was true, the SEC alleges.

Source: SEC

At the center of the scheme were proprietary AI-based trading bots that Fuller claimed would conduct high-frequency arbitrage trading across crypto platforms. “Fuller’s bots did not function as represented,” according to the complaint.

Related: SEC Commissioner Peirce defends crypto privacy tools against surveillance push

Half of raised money went to personal expenses

Of the $12.3 million raised, Fuller allegedly misappropriated at least $6.2 million for personal expenses and used roughly $5.5 million to make Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors. To keep the scheme going, he sent investors fake account statements and fabricated correspondence from fictitious entities.

The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and civil penalties.

The Fuller case comes as the combination of AI and crypto has opened new frontiers for bad actors. Last year, the agency charged multiple crypto platforms and investment clubs in a separate $14 million scheme that also leaned on AI branding to lure retail investors, with fraudsters posing as financial professionals in WhatsApp groups and promising profits from AI-generated trading tips.

Related: SEC approves Paxos as ‘blockchain-native’ clearing agency

SEC charges Donald Basile in $16 million crypto scheme

Last month, the SEC charged crypto executive Donald Basile and two companies he controlled with raising roughly $16 million from hundreds of investors through false claims tied to a crypto token called Bitcoin Latinum.

Despite recent moves, the agency has acknowledged that some of its past enforcement actions against crypto companies lacked clear investor benefit and misinterpreted federal securities laws. In a statement on its 2025 enforcement results, the regulator said that since fiscal year 2022, it brought 95 actions and imposed $2.3 billion in penalties for book-and-record violations that “identified no direct investor harm” and “produced no investor benefit or protection.”

Magazine: AI-driven hacks could kill DeFi — unless projects act now

TLDR:

• Top crypto analyst, Crypto Patel projects Litecoin could reclaim the $100-$140 range during its current accumulation phase.
• The analyst expects LTC to target $200-$280 after the next halving-driven market expansion.
• A move toward $500-$700 remains possible if Litecoin breaks key resistance during the next cycle.
• Reaching $1,000 may require institutional adoption and stronger long-term demand beyond 2030.

Despite years of muted performance and fading investor interest, the analyst believes Litecoin remains positioned within a historically important accumulation zone that could support future gains.

Analyst Maps Litecoin Rally to $1,000 Through Three Phases

Crypto analyst Crypto Patel has presented a multi-cycle roadmap outlining how a Litecoin rally to $1,000 could unfold over the coming years.

According to the analyst, LTC remains in a deep accumulation phase despite trading more than 80% below its all-time high.

In a recent post on X, Patel divided Litecoin’s potential growth into three distinct phases. The first phase involves reclaiming the $100 to $140 range, which he expects could occur between now and 2027 as market conditions improve.

The second phase targets a move toward $200 to $280. Patel believes this stage could develop following the next Litecoin halving cycle, which is expected to strengthen supply-side dynamics and attract renewed market attention.

His final phase focuses on the next major bull market peak. During that period, the analyst expects Litecoin to challenge its previous record high before extending toward the $500 to $700 range.

While Patel acknowledged that a Litecoin rally to $1,000 remains possible, he described it as a longer-term objective that may require conditions extending beyond 2030.

The analyst assigned a 20% to 30% probability to a move toward $500. However, he estimated only a 5% to 10% chance of Litecoin reaching $1,000 under an extreme bullish scenario supported by stronger institutional participation.

Why Litecoin Bulls See Opportunity Despite Market Skepticism

Patel argues that Litecoin’s current market structure presents a favorable risk-reward setup compared with assets already trading near cycle highs.

The analyst pointed out that LTC is trading within a long-term support region where buyers have historically emerged after extended periods of weakness.

He also cited several factors that could support future growth. Among them are Canary Capital’s proposed Litecoin ETF, the network’s upcoming 2027 halving event, and Litecoin’s continued reputation as a payment-focused cryptocurrency.

The analyst additionally referenced Litecoin’s MWEB privacy feature and its long-standing position as the asset often described as silver to Bitcoin’s gold. These factors, he noted, continue to support the project’s relevance within the broader digital asset market.

Still, Patel outlined notable challenges. He observed that Litecoin failed to surpass its 2021 peak while Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana established new highs.

He also noted that ETF-related demand remains limited and that Litecoin lacks the smart contract ecosystem available on competing blockchain networks.

For now, Patel maintains that Litecoin remains a slow-moving, long-term cycle asset. Whether a Litecoin rally to $1,000 eventually materializes may depend on broader adoption trends and sustained demand growth in future market cycles.