Forecasts point to 0.1% month-on-month growth in the headline CPI for July, up from June’s –0.4% reading. The year-on-year figure is expected at 3.4%, down from 3.5%, and annual core CPI inflation is seen dropping to 2.5% from 2.6%.

According to ING, a softer-than-expected print could weaken the dollar, an outcome that could bode well for the crypto market.

In bitcoin’s case, traders are hoping the report will push the price out of its recent trading range of $62,000 to $66,000. However, the way BTC options are currently priced suggests low expectations for CPI-driven fireworks.

Markus Thielen, founder of 10x Research, said the market is pricing a post-CPI swing of just 1.3%, which is nothing out of the ordinary.

Data tracking website Laevitas made a similar observation: “7d ATM IV [implied volatility] has compressed to 29.1v on BTC and 41.2v on ETH even as a binary July print lands inside the weekly window, so the term structure is declining to price the event risk that sits directly on the tape,” Laevitas said on X.

The fact that expectations remain low could be just the setup for markets to be surprised into action by a potential big beat or miss in the inflation figures. Stay alert!

FlightAware, the real-time aviation tracking company, moved quickly to end its lawsuit against prediction markets platform Kalshi—less than a week after the case was filed and one day after a court ordered Kalshi to explain why a temporary restraining order should not be issued.

According to a Tuesday filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, FlightAware’s attorneys notified the court that they voluntarily dismissed the action against Kalshi. The original lawsuit, filed the day before, alleged Kalshi used FlightAware’s name and data to run markets tied to flight cancellations.

Key takeaways

• FlightAware voluntarily dismissed its case against Kalshi in the Southern District of New York shortly after Kalshi was ordered to respond on restraining-order grounds.
• Kalshi’s event contract language appears to have shifted from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency,” including an added disclaimer meant to avoid implying affiliation.
• The dismissal does not remove the broader legal pressure on prediction market operators facing challenges from U.S. states and regulators.
• Federal-state jurisdiction fights remain central, with the CFTC citing “exclusive jurisdiction” positions in related matters involving Kalshi.

A rapid procedural reversal in federal court

In its Tuesday submission, FlightAware’s legal team stated that it had voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit against Kalshi. The notice was filed after Kalshi had been ordered by a judge to show cause as to why the court should not issue a temporary restraining order involving FlightAware’s trademark and data claims.

The timeline is notable for its speed: the dispute was initiated with FlightAware’s complaint alleging trademark infringement, breach of contract, harm to reputation, and unfair competition. Less than a day later, the case was withdrawn.

Although such abrupt turnarounds can sometimes indicate settlement discussions, neither FlightAware nor Kalshi had publicly commented on the litigation as of Wednesday, according to the reporting context provided in the source.

Contract language changed—from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency”

The lawsuit’s core allegation centered on Kalshi’s use of FlightAware branding and information to structure event markets related to flight cancellations. In at least one public-facing event contract, however, the wording appears to have been altered.

At minimum, the language describing the entity responsible for verifying outcomes shifted from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency.” That same contract also included a disclaimer indicating that the market listing does not “indicate an endorsement of this product or any affiliation” between FlightAware and Kalshi. The “Primary Source Agency” label was linked to FlightAware’s website, aligning the verification reference with FlightAware while avoiding direct brand positioning.

Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to the companies for comment but did not receive an immediate response, leaving the reason for FlightAware’s dismissal unclear. What is clear for market participants is that these labeling and attribution details are not just branding choices—they can directly affect legal exposure when they imply relationships between data providers and market operators.

Prediction market legal pressure continues beyond this dispute

FlightAware’s withdrawal from the case comes amid an ongoing wave of litigation and regulatory conflict targeting prediction markets in the U.S. As outlined in the source material, Kalshi and other prediction platforms such as Polymarket have faced legal action from multiple U.S. state gaming authorities and regulators over alleged unlicensed or illicit sports betting offered to residents.

These cases have been shaped by a key tension: whether prediction markets fall under federal oversight—particularly the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—or instead are primarily governed by state gaming and gambling laws.

In a separate matter involving New York, the CFTC invoked what it described as “emergency authority” to block state officials from seeking a temporary restraining order that would have prohibited Kalshi from offering event contracts nationwide. The move followed New York authorities filing suit in July, alleging that Kalshi was operating an unlicensed gambling platform through its contracts on sports and other events.

Federal vs. state jurisdiction remains the central battleground

The CFTC’s stance is tied to assertions made repeatedly by its chair, Michael Selig, that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets. In the New York fight, that position was used to counter state efforts to impose a nationwide restraining order.

The source also points to a Michigan case with similar themes. In June, a Michigan judge ordered Kalshi to stop offering sports betting contracts to residents until the civil case concluded. The CFTC—again under Selig—then ordered Kalshi not to comply with the state ruling, according to the referenced reporting. Kalshi’s leadership, including its head of enforcement and legal counsel as described in the source, characterized the situation as creating an “impossible position” between competing state and federal orders.

While FlightAware and Kalshi’s dispute over trademark and data has been dropped, the surrounding environment for prediction market operators has not eased. Instead, the legal focus appears to be shifting toward the broader regulatory framework—who has the authority to regulate these markets, and under what legal definitions.

For users and investors watching prediction markets, the next key question is whether the industry’s ongoing compliance approach—especially around data attribution and product affiliation language—will reduce friction in future disputes, or whether the bigger federal-state jurisdiction conflict will continue to dominate outcomes regardless of how individual contracts are labeled.

According to a Fortune article in July, Kalshi decided to pause flight cancellation contracts, after social media users expressed concerns over malicious actors causing flight cancellations to collect payouts. And according to Kalshi data, retail participation in the niche aviation series has been modest. For the U.S. flight cancellation bet currently open until Aug. 14, the data reveals only 31,412 total contracts traded, representing $1,842.48 in aggregate dollar volume and only 1,120 contracts held in open interest. The low liquidity here stands in stark contrast with Kalshi’s $148 billion in volume this year alone, that same data shows.

The filing does not state whether the companies reached an agreement or whether Kalshi changed its markets or their settlement source.

Kalshi and FlightAware were contacted via email for comment but neither responded immediately.

FlightAware had accused Kalshi of using its flight data and a trademark without permission to run bets on airline cancellations. The flight tracking firm was seeking damages and an injunction over contracts that allowed users to trade on the percentage of flights canceled nationally or at specific airports.

Kalshi had denied violating FlightAware’s license or infringing its trademark, according to the original complaint. It said its references to FlightAware constituted nominative fair use. The platform had also identified U.S. Department of Transportation flight data as an alternative source for settling the contracts, according to FlightAware’s complaint.

On April 14, Goldman registered the Goldman Sachs Bitcoin Premium Income ETF with the SEC, proposing a structurally similar covered-call product. Balchunas was blunt about what Wednesday’s deal means for that filing.

“Nowww I get why GS never launched the BTC covered call product they filed months ago,” Balchunas wrote. “Better to leapfrog BlackRock’s $BITA vs me too?”

One senior ETF analyst, who asked not to be named, said the deal reflects Goldman’s push to build out its ETF business broadly, noting that BTCI is one of almost 20 funds in the NEOS lineup. “If anything, it shows that bitcoin is just part of the financial world, alongside stocks, bonds, etc.” As of June 30, 2026, Goldman Sachs Asset Management, Innovator from Goldman Sachs Asset Management and NEOS manage more than $130 billion in ETF assets under supervision (AUS), according to the Wall Street bank’s statement.

BlackRock released its own bitcoin income ETF, BITA, on Nasdaq on June 16, about two months ahead of Goldmine’s filing. BITA targets a 15-25% annual yield and sells covered calls on 25-35% of its IBIT holdings. Its expense ratio is 0.65%.

BTCI charges 0.99% and is down 42.55% over the past year, with shares falling from a 52-week high of $65.87 to around $28.40, according to Bloomberg terminal data shared by Balchunas on X. According to the fund’s SEC prospectus, BTCI’s distributions may in part represent a return of capital rather than net investment income, a distinction income investors should weigh.

For the second time, TIME will publish a ranking of India’s Fastest-Growing Companies, in partnership with Statista, a leading international provider of market and consumer data and rankings. The list will recognize the country’s leading companies with strong revenue growth between the fiscal years 2023 and 2026.

As part of the research phase, TIME and Statista are now accepting data submissions. While submitting data ensures that eligible companies will be considered for inclusion, it does not guarantee a place on the final list. Additionally, the final ranking will not be limited to companies that submit data.

The Bank of England’s Digital Pound Lab is running a new experiment that tests whether stablecoins—and a notional digital British pound—could work together inside the same cross-border trade payment flow. The project is designed to show how payment and settlement could be connected to trade finance in a way that reduces the delays and cash-flow pressure that small and medium-sized businesses often face.

According to an announcement from the project participants, the trial involves NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs. In the setup, an exporter receives an advance through a stablecoin-based “rail,” while a UK importer completes settlement using simulated digital pounds—without using real customers or real money.

Key takeaways

• The Digital Pound Lab experiment tests stablecoin rails alongside simulated digital pounds in a single cross-border trade settlement flow.
• NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs are collaborating, with Polygon providing smart contract infrastructure.
• A second workstream focuses on generating reusable credit profiles for small businesses using transaction data and open-finance inputs.
• The Bank of England has not committed to issuing a digital pound, and lab tests are not intended as signals of future policy.

How the trade finance pilot is meant to work

The core concept targets a structural problem in international trade: payment timing. When exporters ship goods before receiving full payment, they may have to wait days to be paid, tying up working capital. That delay can make trade finance harder to access—particularly for smaller firms that may lack established lines of credit.

In the lab’s proposed flow, the exporter receives an advance via a stablecoin pathway, while the importer performs settlement through simulated digital pounds. The pairing is intended to demonstrate how stablecoin-based payment mechanics could coexist with a central-bank-style settlement layer, at least in a controlled testing environment.

The experiment is also designed to be realistic in terms of participants’ roles: it is built around trade finance and settlement processes rather than a generic token transfer scenario. That distinction matters because trade finance depends on paperwork, counterparty assessment and timing—factors that can be difficult to model in simple demonstrations.

Building blocks beyond payments: credit profiles for SMEs

The project does not stop at moving value. It includes a separate workstream intended to improve how small businesses are assessed for credit, by creating reusable credit profiles.

As described in the announcement, that credit-profile effort combines transaction data, open-finance information and Dun & Bradstreet’s commercial risk data. Polygon Labs is contributing smart contract infrastructure for the overall system, which suggests the test may explore whether on-chain logic can help standardize or reuse parts of the credit assessment process rather than rebuilding them from scratch for every transaction.

For investors and builders, the value of this component is that trade finance bottlenecks are often caused by more than settlement latency. Information asymmetry and rigid underwriting cycles can restrict financing even when payment rails are upgraded. By aiming at “reusable” profiles, the project appears to target a way to shorten the time between data availability and a credit decision—though the outcomes of that part of the work are not yet detailed.

Why regulators and central banks are watching stablecoins and tokenized payments

The Bank of England’s experiment lands in the middle of broader regulatory and infrastructure work in the UK. The central bank and other regulators are preparing for stablecoins and tokenized assets, while also modernizing the plumbing behind traditional payment settlement.

Earlier this year, the Bank of England published draft rules for sterling-denominated stablecoins it considers systemic to the UK financial system. According to the central bank’s proposal referenced in the report, issuers could hold up to 70% of their reserves in interest-bearing government debt, and the framework introduces a temporary issuance cap of 40 billion pounds (about $52.8 billion) for each systemic stablecoin.

The policy timeline included in the article points to potential finalization by the end of 2026, ahead of a planned 2027 rollout. Stablecoins deemed “systemic” would fall under the Bank of England’s regulatory regime, while non-systemic stablecoins would remain under the Financial Conduct Authority.

That split between systemic and non-systemic tokens is an important practical detail for market participants. It implies that not every stablecoin would be treated the same way, and that compliance requirements could vary depending on how widely a token is used and how much it matters to financial stability. For developers, it also suggests that designs and reserve structures may need to be aligned with which regulatory lane a token is likely to occupy.

The lab’s trade test is also tied to the UK’s wider push to upgrade settlement speed and flexibility. In May, the Bank of England proposed moving its RTGS and CHAPS systems toward near-24/7 operation, including weekend and extended daily hours—an effort framed as support for cross-border payments and evolving settlement models that could incorporate tokenization.

In July, the central bank also approved HSBC’s Orion platform to operate in the UK’s Digital Securities Sandbox. The article notes that Orion is expected to support digital bond issuance, including the country’s planned Digital Gilt Instrument. While that is separate from stablecoin rules, it reinforces the theme that UK authorities are testing tokenized approaches across multiple asset types, not only payments.

What the Digital Pound Lab trial does—and does not—indicate

Even as the experiment explores stablecoin rails and simulated digital pound settlement, the Bank of England is explicit that the Digital Pound Lab uses no real customers or money and that it has not committed to issuing a digital pound.

The central bank also cautions that participant-designed experiments in the lab should not be interpreted as indications of future policy or as endorsements of the companies or products involved. In practice, that means readers should treat the pilot as proof-of-concept work: useful for identifying technical and process challenges, but not a guarantee of a specific eventual product roadmap.

What to watch next is whether the project can demonstrate measurable improvements—such as reduced settlement delays, more efficient financing workflows, or faster credit assessment cycles—within its controlled environment. Since the announcement does not provide results or performance metrics yet, the most immediate signal will come from any follow-on reporting from the lab on what worked, what failed, and which regulatory assumptions were necessary for the trial design.