Drift Protocol, a major Solana-based DeFi exchange, has suffered a $285 million social engineering-driven exploit that weaponized a compromised administrator key rather than any code flaw.

Drift Protocol, a decentralized exchange built on Solana, was drained of approximately $285 million in digital assets on April 1 in what security researchers believe was a social engineering attack targeting the protocol’s administrative key infrastructure, according to Bloomberg. PeckShield Inc. was among the first firms to flag the breach, identifying that a significant portion of stolen funds were converted into USDC, the dollar-pegged stablecoin issued by Circle, based on on-chain data. The attack unfolded in approximately 12 minutes across 31 transactions, emptying nearly 20 vaults and netting, among other assets, 66.4 million USDC, 42.7 million JLP, 23.3 million MOODENG, 5.6 million USDT, 5.2 million USDS, 2.6 million JUP, 583,000 RAY, and 477,000 WETH.

Blockchain data shows that the attacker exploited a compromised Drift administrator key to list CVT as a new spot market on the platform and simultaneously raised withdrawal limits for USDC and four other markets to 500 trillion, effectively nullifying the protocol’s internal security controls. Using fraudulent collateral, the attacker was then able to withdraw freely from Drift’s spot market vaults. The use of different signature keys across the 31 transactions suggests that either the key management infrastructure was compromised or that multiple authoritative keys were accessed, pointing to a coordinated, targeted operation rather than an opportunistic smart contract bug.

The native DRIFT token fell from roughly $0.072 to $0.055 in the immediate aftermath, as users rushed to withdraw liquidity and the protocol halted deposits and withdrawals.

“The real target of the attack is people”

Lily Liu, chair of the Solana Foundation, addressed the incident directly on X, stating: “The Drift incident has far-reaching effects, impacting the entire ecosystem. The Drift team is working around the clock to investigate and control the situation, and we are doing our best to provide support. The smart contract itself has withstood the test. The real target of the attack is ‘people’ — more related to social engineering and operational security vulnerabilities rather than exploits at the code level.”

Vibhu Norby, Chief Product Officer of the Solana Foundation, reinforced that assessment, writing on X that the incident “is not caused by a program or smart contract vulnerability, but is more likely related to operational security or social engineering attacks.” Norby added that any protocol relying on a multi-signature mechanism across various chains could theoretically face similar risks, and stressed that the Drift security incident “is an isolated case and does not indicate a systemic issue with Solana DeFi or related products.”

The clarification from both officials was pointed: this was not a Solana failure, it was a human one. As crypto.news has previously reported, social engineering has become the dominant attack vector in the industry, with phishing, fake job offers, and impersonation campaigns now accounting for a majority of high-value breaches — a pattern accelerated by North Korea’s Lazarus Group and other state-linked actors.

Market fallout and cross-chain ripple effects

SOL fell 9% to an intraday low of $78.60 on April 2, bringing its market cap down to $45.5 billion, according to crypto.news data. Over the previous seven days, SOL had already shed more than 10%, making it the steepest loss among the top 10 cryptocurrencies. The $285 million hack stands as one of the largest exploits in the Solana ecosystem in the last five years.

Cross-chain infrastructure also felt the strain. Wormhole posted on X confirming that its user assets were not at risk and that bridge functionality remained operational, but warned that built-in Solana security mechanisms could cause some cross-chain transfers to experience delays. Wormhole core contributors said they were in active communication with the broader Solana ecosystem to provide

Drift Protocol hit by $285m social engineering attack on Solana

• Drift Protocol lost $285 million in one of the largest DeFi exploits in Solana’s history, with the attack executed through a compromised administrator key rather than a smart contract vulnerability.
• Solana Foundation leadership confirmed the breach was rooted in social engineering and operational security failures, stressing that Solana’s underlying code and smart contracts remained intact.
• SOL fell nearly 9% to an intraday low of $78.60 following the incident, bringing its market cap down to $45.5 billion.

Drift Protocol, a decentralized exchange built on Solana, lost approximately $285 million in digital assets on April 1 after an attacker exploited a compromised administrator key to drain nearly 20 protocol vaults in under 12 minutes, according to Bloomberg. The breach ranks as one of the largest DeFi hacks in Solana’s history and triggered a sharp selloff in SOL, which dropped 9% to $78.60 on the day.

PeckShield was among the first blockchain security firms to flag the incident, placing total losses at roughly $285 million. On-chain data later revealed that 31 transactions were executed across approximately 12 minutes. The attacker withdrew 66.4 million USDC, 42.7 million JLP, 23.3 million MOODENG, 5.6 million USDT, 5.2 million USDS, 2.6 million JUP, 583,000 RAY, and 477,000 WETH. A portion of the JLP tokens were burned, while the remaining assets were largely converted to SOL and distributed across multiple wallets.

The attack vector did not involve a flaw in the protocol’s smart contracts. Instead, a compromised Drift administrator key was used to list a new spot market and raise withdrawal limits across USDC and four other markets to 500 trillion — effectively disabling the platform’s security mechanisms and allowing the attacker to use fraudulent collateral to empty the vaults.

Solana Defends Its Infrastructure

Lily Liu, chair of the Solana Foundation, addressed the incident on X, stating: “The Drift incident has far-reaching effects, impacting the entire ecosystem. The Drift team is working around the clock to investigate and control the situation, and we are doing our best to provide support. The smart contract itself has withstood the test. The real target of the attack is ‘people’ — more related to social engineering and operational security vulnerabilities rather than exploits at the code level.”

Vibhu Norby, Chief Product Officer of the Solana Foundation, echoed that assessment, writing on X that the incident “is not caused by a program or smart contract vulnerability, but is more likely related to operational security or social engineering attacks.” He was also careful to contextualize the breach, noting that “any protocol relying on a multi-signature mechanism across various chains may face similar risks,” and calling the Drift security incident “an isolated case” that does not indicate systemic issues within Solana DeFi.

Cross-Chain Ripple Effects

Cross-chain bridge Wormhole also confirmed on X that its user assets were not at risk and that bridge functionality remained operational. However, the protocol warned that some Solana cross-chain transfers may experience delays due to built-in security mechanisms triggered by the incident. Wormhole said its core contributors were in active communication with the Solana ecosystem team.

The attack lands in a broader context of rising social engineering threats across crypto. As crypto.news reported in January, most major crypto breaches now stem from phishing, impersonation, and operational access failures rather than broken code — a pattern that the Drift incident reinforces. Only weeks prior, the Solana-based memecoin platform Bonk.fun was similarly compromised via a domain hijack that deployed a malicious wallet drainer, resulting in user losses exceeding $273,000.

The DRIFT token, which had already lost more than 86% of its value over the prior year, fell sharply from approximately $0.072 to $0.055 amid the chaos. The protocol had previously raised $25 million in a Series B round led by Multicoin Capital, bringing its total funding to over $52.3 million, according to crypto.news. At the time of the hack, its total value locked had stood at hundreds of millions of dollars, making it one of Solana’s most significant DeFi platforms.

The Solana Foundation said the community will continue to receive updates as the investigation concludes and noted that important operational security lessons are expected to emerge for the broader industry once the full picture is known.

Key Takeaways

• A $2.2 billion equal partnership between TotalEnergies and Masdar will pursue onshore renewable projects in nine Asian nations.
• The collaboration encompasses solar, wind, and energy storage initiatives, with headquarters established in Abu Dhabi.
• The joint portfolio features 3 GW already generating power and an additional 6 GW under development for completion by 2030.
• Geographic focus includes Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and Uzbekistan.
• Approximately 200 staff members from both organizations will support the venture, with leadership appointments pending.

TotalEnergies (TTE) and Masdar, the renewable energy flagship of the United Arab Emirates, revealed on Thursday their creation of a $2.2 billion collaborative enterprise to merge their land-based clean energy activities throughout nine Asian territories.

The agreement brings together two major forces in the renewable energy sector through an evenly split ownership arrangement, with each partner holding a 50% interest. Headquartered in Abu Dhabi, this new entity will function as the exclusive platform for both corporations to advance, construct, own, and manage land-based solar, wind, and battery storage developments in the region.

TotalEnergies SE, TTE

The geographic coverage spans Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and Uzbekistan.

The combined asset base includes 3 gigawatts of currently operational renewable infrastructure alongside 6 gigawatts of projects in development scheduled to begin operations before 2030’s end. Both parties are contributing holdings of approximately equivalent worth.

The enterprise will employ roughly 200 professionals sourced from both parent companies. The executive leadership structure remains to be announced.

TotalEnergies chief executive Patrick Pouyanné stated that merging both organizations’ capabilities across these nine markets would unlock greater value than either company could achieve operating separately.

The Asian Opportunity

Masdar’s Chairman Sultan Al Jaber, who simultaneously holds positions as CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and UAE Minister of Industry and Advanced Technology, identified Asia as the primary driver of worldwide electricity consumption expansion through the current decade.

Al Jaber indicated the collaboration would speed up Masdar’s advancement throughout the continent while creating fresh avenues to provide what he characterized as affordable, dependable energy infrastructure.

He further emphasized the UAE’s proven history in renewable energy implementation, especially throughout Central Asia and the Caucasus region, as a strong platform for this broadened initiative.

Partnership Framework and Scope

The joint venture maintains its headquarters in Abu Dhabi, positioning it alongside Masdar’s current operational infrastructure. Both enterprises have pledged to provide assets of equivalent magnitude, ensuring equilibrium in the partnership from inception.

The 3 GW of already functioning capacity provides the venture with immediate operational momentum, while the 6 GW development pipeline demonstrates the ambition both parties are placing on the next four-year period.

TTE stock declined 0.34% on the day of the announcement.

Bitcoin briefly touched a fresh intra-day high near $68,589 as markets absorbed a mix of geopolitics and macro signals. The move came alongside a broad risk-on rally in U.S. equities, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbing more than 1,125 points, the S&P 500 rising around 2.9%, and the Nasdaq advancing about 3.8%. The day’s headlines centered on chatter about ending a war involving the United States, Israel and Iran, buoying sentiment even as traders remained wary of sustaining gains in the crypto market.

On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump told aides he could consider ending the conflict with Iran, with the Strait of Hormuz partially open but no formal statement issued. Separately, unconfirmed reports attributed to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian suggested Tehran might be seeking a path to exit the war, though such remarks have not been independently verified. Whether the statements prove reliable or not, they contributed to a mood shift that encouraged risk-taking across traditional markets, even as crypto traders kept their expectations in check.

Despite the synchronized bounce in risk assets, observers caution that Bitcoin’s ability to sustain the breakout remains uncertain. Analysts cited by Cointelegraph highlighted that a daily close above the 50-day moving average near $68,879 would be a meaningful signal of a potential trend shift. From there, some see room for a liquidity-driven extension toward approximately $82,000, but only if buyers step in with durable, directional commitments rather than headline-driven moves.

Key takeaways

• Bitcoin briefly rose to about $68,589 as geopolitical and macro headlines supported a risk-on backdrop.
• U.S. equities logged a broad rally: the Dow up by more than 1,125 points, the S&P 500 up roughly 2.91%, and the Nasdaq up about 3.83%.
• Analysts say a daily close above the 50-day moving average near $68,879 would mark a potential trend change and could unlock further upside if leveraged players unwind or cover shorts.
• Crypto traders remained skeptical of a durable breakout, with much price action driven by headlines, equities, and perpetual futures rather than sustained buy-side conviction in spot markets.
• Cointelegraph notes point to flat open interest in futures and weak spot demand since the Feb. 6 sell-off below $60,000, alongside short-term traders selling below cost basis around $85,800 and stablecoin inflows near a two-year low.

The market backdrop: what’s really pushing the price action

In the broader market, the relief rally follows a period of heightened attention to policy and conflict dynamics. The weekend and early-week headlines suggested at least a possibility of de-escalation, with Trump’s communications and unconfirmed statements from Iranian leadership contributing to a mood swing that benefited risk assets. However, the cryptocurrency market did not display the same confident impulse that characterized equities, underscoring a divergence between macro optimism and crypto-specific demand.

In a sense, Bitcoin’s price trajectory remains tethered to a mix of headline risk and technical thresholds. The $68,879 level—the approximate 50-day moving average—has emerged as a practical line in the sand. A daily close above that level would be interpreted by many traders as a sign that bullish momentum can persist beyond a few sessions. Conversely, failure to clear that barrier could reinforce a rangebound pattern, leaving BTC prone to whipsaws tied to news flow and broader market sentiment.

Analysts highlighted that the market’s appetite for directional bets remains constrained. The research notes that a lack of durable bid depth—evidenced by flat open interest in Bitcoin futures and tepid spot demand since the February dip below $60,000—suggests most price moves are driven by news and correlated markets rather than a broad base of new buyers. This posture makes BTC more vulnerable to abrupt reversals if headlines turn sour or if macro conditions deteriorate again.

What traders are watching next

Beyond the immediate friction at the $68,879 threshold, traders are watching for clearer signals from both the spot and futures markets. A sustained move past that line could invite a liquidity-driven push higher if liquidations and stop-orders align to reinforce the breakout. In practice, that would require a broad shift in investor posture—from cautious footing to active accumulation among spot buyers and ETF-like vehicles, if applicable in the current market environment.

On the technical front, the next real milestones are shaped by volatility regimes and risk tolerance. If Bitcoin can establish a daily close above the 50-day moving average, buyers may gain confidence to press toward higher targets. If not, the picture could tilt back toward consolidation, with traders awaiting a fresh catalyst to re-ignite momentum. This dynamic underscores a larger question facing the crypto market: will the current price action translate into durable demand, or will it remain a series of episodic rallies tethered to headlines?

On-chain signals add nuance to the story. Cointelegraph highlighted that stablecoin inflows to exchanges are near a two-year low, which generally signals a cautious stance among traders. Simultaneously, open interest in Bitcoin futures and spot demand have remained flat since the Feb. 6 decline, reinforcing the impression that the market is not currently laying down strong directional bets. These indicators suggest that even as price moves translate into headlines-based enthusiasm, the fundamental bid for Bitcoin remains restrained—a critical factor for readers weighing whether this rally has legs or is likely to falter.

For investors and builders, the unfolding scenario offers a key lesson: headlines can temporarily lift risk assets, but the path to sustained upside in BTC depends on a credible, durable bid from market participants across the full spectrum of the ecosystem. In this context, the potential for a broader move will hinge not just on geopolitical optics but on the crypto market’s ability to attract real spot demand and to overcome the structural restraint that has characterized the current cycle.

Looking ahead: uncertainty and the path forward

While the Wall Street Journal’s report on possible de-escalation added a narrative tailwind, the absence of official confirmation means markets remain in a wait-and-see posture. For Bitcoin, the critical test remains whether buyers can sustain a move beyond the near-term technical ceiling and ignite a longer-lasting uptrend. Until then, the price action could continue to reflect a tug-of-war between headline-driven optimism and the more cautious posture seen in on-chain metrics and spot-market activity.

Readers should watch for any tangible policy developments that could shape risk appetite and for evidence of improving spot demand, not just speculative leverage. In the near term, the absence of a clear bid from the spot market and muted open interest imply that BTC could continue to drift within a familiar range until a decisive catalyst emerges.

As markets digest these signals, the next few sessions may reveal whether the current optimism has a durable basis or if crypto markets will revert to a more cautious stance as the macro and geopolitical backdrop evolves. The balance between headlines, technical levels, and real demand will determine whether BTC can translate short-term enthusiasm into a sustained move higher or retreat to the lower end of its recent trading band.

Key takeaways

• Binance’s BNB is down 4.5% in the last 24 hours and now trades below $590.
• The bearish performance comes as President Trump threatens to attack Iran’s power plants. 

BNB (formerly Binance Coin) is currently trading below $585 as of Thursday, continuing its three-week decline. 

The correction has deepened following US President Donald Trump’s statement that the ongoing US-Iran conflict could last until late April, which has dampened investor sentiment towards riskier assets. 

From a technical standpoint, momentum indicators are signaling a potential for further downside in BNB.

Trump’s remarks weigh on market sentiment

Bitcoin, Ether, BNB, and XRP are in the red after President Trump warned on Wednesday that the US-Iran war could extend until late April. He also threatened to target Iranian power plants and stated that Iran would be sent back to the “Stone Age” if an agreement is not reached.

These statements have tempered hopes for de-escalation, further reducing investor appetite for riskier assets. As a result, the US Dollar (USD) and oil prices have strengthened, while US equities and other high-risk assets have come under pressure. 

Retail interest in BNB has also declined in recent days. According to CoinGlass, BNB’s long-to-short ratio reads 0.80 on Thursday, its lowest point in a month. 

A ratio below one indicates bearish market sentiment, with traders betting on a further decline in BNB’s price.

BNB could dip to February’s low

The BNB/USD 4-hour chart is bearish and inefficient as BNB has underperformed in recent days. 

Currently, BNB is trading well below the 50-day, 100-day, and 200-day Exponential Moving Averages, which all trend higher above the current price and frame a broader bearish backdrop. 

The Relative Strength Index (RSI) on the 4-hour chart reads 42, below the neutral 50, indicating a bearish bias. The Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) is also drifting deeper below the zero, signaling persistent selling pressure rather than a completed downside exhaustion.

If the bearish trend persists, BNB will retest the initial support at $570.16 (February’s low). A break below this level would open the way toward lower daily lows and deepen the corrective phase toward the key psychological level at $500.

However, if the bulls regain control of the market, they would encounter immediate resistance at $697, in line with the descending EMAs.

A sustained recovery above this barrier would be needed to ease the current bearish tone and expose the next resistance at $790.79.

Polymarket, the prediction-market platform, rolled out a broadened fee model on March 30, expanding taker fees beyond crypto and sports to a wider array of categories. In the days that followed, metrics tracked by DefiLlama show a sharp rise in on-platform activity monetized through fees, with daily trading fees crossing the $1 million mark on Wednesday and Thursday. Revenue after incentives climbed to as high as $995,000 on Wednesday before easing to roughly $899,000 on Thursday. The shift underscores how Polymarket is recalibrating its economics to lock in ongoing investor interest amid intensifying regulatory scrutiny.

The broadening of the fee schedule coincides with a deliberate push to monetize activity more aggressively. Polymarket expanded taker fees to categories such as finance, politics, economics, culture, weather and tech, while keeping geopolitical and world events free of fees. The core idea appears to be extracting more value from routine trading activity, a move that aims to sustain liquidity and growth even as jurisdictions around the world tighten oversight of prediction markets. Data from DefiLlama illustrates the immediate impact: daily fees surged from about $363,000 on Monday to more than $1 million on midweek days, with revenue after incentives peaking at near $1 million on Wednesday before settling lower on Thursday.

Key takeaways

• DefiLlama data show Polymarket’s daily fees jumped from roughly $363,000 to over $1 million in the days after the March 30 fee overhaul, signaling a dramatic monetization shift.
• Revenue after incentives rose to as high as about $995,000 on one day, then moderated to around $899,000 on the following day, reflecting how the new fees translate into platform economics.
• The fee expansion added taker charges across more categories—finance, politics, economics, culture, weather and tech—while keeping geopolitical and world-events fees free.
• Regulatory pressure remains a core driver of strategy, with ongoing limits on access in multiple jurisdictions and actions by U.S. states, even as investor interest persists.

Regulatory pressure tightens across borders

The surge in Polymarket’s fees arrives amid a broader regulatory crackdown on prediction markets across Europe, North America and beyond. In Europe, the platform has faced mounting restrictions as regulators argue that it operates as an unlicensed gambling venue in several jurisdictions. Hungary and Portugal, for example, moved to block or limit access in January over licensing concerns and, in Portugal’s case, questions around political betting. These frictions complicate user acquisition and liquidity, even as demand for event-based markets remains visible among certain trader cohorts.

Other notable developments illustrate the global regulatory tension. In Argentina, a court order issued on March 17 ordered a nationwide ban on Polymarket, contending that the platform allowed users to place bets without sufficient identity and age verification, raising concerns about accessibility for underage users. Polymarket’s own geoblock information indicates the platform is currently blocked in 33 countries, a figure that underscores the cross-border compliance challenges faced by the operator. Kalshi, a competing prediction market, reports even broader restrictions, stating it is banned in 52 jurisdictions.

Across the United States, the regulatory environment remains unsettled. At least 11 states have taken legal action against prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi, with cease-and-desist orders or new legislative proposals under consideration in several states. Despite these crackdowns, both platforms have signaled an ability to pursue expansion, with reports of potential large-scale fundraising rounds that could value each platform around $20 billion. The tension between growth ambitions and regulatory risk continues to shape the trajectory of the sector.

In late March, Polymarket and Kalshi introduced new trading restrictions aimed at curbing insider trading after criticism about well-timed bets and concerns about market integrity. The reform push signals a desire to bolster trust in event markets while navigating a landscape where regulators are increasingly vigilant about preemptive positions and information asymmetries.

Investor interest persists amid a risk-laden backdrop

The interplay between monetization, regulatory risk and investor sentiment remains delicate. The private investment narrative around Polymarket received a high-profile boost when Intercontinental Exchange, the parent of the New York Stock Exchange, reportedly invested about $600 million in Polymarket last week. The move underscores a sustained interest from large financial players in the potential of structured prediction markets, even as the sector contends with licensing, anti-gambling, and consumer-protection concerns in key markets.

On the funding side, both Polymarket and Kalshi are rumored to be exploring new rounds that could push their valuations into the tens of billions of dollars, highlighting a long-term belief among some investors that event-based markets can scale beyond their current regulatory envelopes. The ongoing push for expansion, paired with legal scrutiny, creates a dynamic where monetization levers, compliance, and user protection must co-evolve to maintain liquidity and participation.

As a matter of policy and practicality, March 24 saw explicit steps to address market integrity concerns through tightened trading rules, setting a precedent for how similar platforms might balance rapid growth with stronger oversight. The broader market will continue to watch how regulators respond to these shifts, whether geoblocking efforts intensify, and how exchanges balance revenue opportunities with responsible operator practices that protect users and maintain fair markets.

Readers should stay attentive to regulatory updates, particularly in Europe and the United States, where the legal status of prediction markets remains unsettled in several jurisdictions. The evolution of Polymarket’s fee model, alongside liquidity dynamics and enforcement actions, will likely shape how users engage with event-based markets in the coming months and whether investor appetite for large-scale funding rounds sustains the sector’s momentum.

What to watch next: regulatory clarity in key jurisdictions, the sustainability of elevated fee-driven revenue, and whether the ongoing confluence of large-cap investment and stricter market rules will redefine how forecast markets operate at scale.

Prediction market Polymarket’s recent fee expansion has started to affect its numbers, with daily fees and revenue climbing sharply in the days following a March 30 price overhaul. 

According to DefiLlama data, daily fees rose from about $363,000 on Monday to over $1 million on both Wednesday and Thursday, while revenue (the portion retained after incentives) reached as high as $995,000 on Wednesday before easing to about $899,000 on Thursday. 

The jump follows the rollout of a broader fee model on Monday, when the platform expanded taker fees beyond crypto and sports to categories including finance, politics, economics, culture, weather and tech, while keeping geopolitical and world events fee-free. 

The spike shows how aggressively Polymarket is monetizing trading activity to maintain continued investor interest amid regulatory scrutiny in the US, Europe and other countries worldwide. Last week, Intercontinental Exchange, the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, invested $600 million in Polymarket.

Prediction markets face growing regulatory scrutiny

The fee and revenue spike comes as prediction markets, including Polymarket, face growing regulatory scrutiny across multiple jurisdictions.

In Europe, Polymarket has faced mounting restrictions, with Hungary and Portugal moving to block or limit access in January over concerns that the platform operates as unlicensed gambling. Regulators in both countries cited licensing issues and, in Portugal’s case, concerns around political betting.

Related: Peter Brandt, Polymarket traders don’t see new Bitcoin highs this year

On March 17, a court in Argentina ordered a nationwide ban on Polymarket, arguing that the platform allowed users to place bets without sufficient identity and age verification. The court said this meant that even children and adolescents could access the platform and place bets without any control. 

According to Polymarket’s website, the platform is currently blocked in 33 countries. Kalshi, on the other hand, reports that it’s banned in 52 jurisdictions. 

In the United States, at least 11 states have taken legal action against prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi, with several issuing cease-and-desist orders or considering new legislation.

Despite regulatory crackdowns, Polymarket and Kalshi are looking to expand, with both reportedly exploring new funding rounds that could value each platform at around $20 billion.

On March 24, Polymarket and Kalshi introduced new trading restrictions to curb insider trading following criticism over well-timed bets and growing concerns around market integrity.

Magazine: Are DeFi devs liable for the illegal activity of others on their platforms?