The World Series of Poker (WSOP) is bringing cryptocurrency payments to its global tournament circuit by teaming up with the Solana Foundation.

The world’s largest and most prestigious poker tournament series will allow players to use Solana-based payments, powered by MoonPay, to buy into tournaments with no processing fees, starting at the WSOP in Las Vegas.

Blockchain-based payments will then expand at WSOP Paradise in the Bahamas this December, where winners will have the option to receive payouts in stablecoins on Solana.

The move marks a noteworthy integration of blockchain-based payments into a major live sporting and gaming event, potentially streamlining cross-border transactions for the WSOP’s international player base.

WSOP CEO Ty Stewart said this aims to modernize payments for players. “We are incredibly proud to bring such an innovative and passionate community into the fold,” Stewart said. “Solana’s ecosystem, like the WSOP, constantly challenges conventions and remains laser-focused on the consumer experience.”

Read more: Solana is shedding its memecoin reputation as big banks move billions into its ecosystem

Tempers are flaring as the bitcoin BTC$60,930.61 bear market deepens.

Strategy’s (MSTR) latest bitcoin purchase has sparked a public debate on X between Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and bitcoin advocate Matthew Kratter over whether the company’s most recent capital raise was accretive or dilutive for shareholders.

The disagreement centers on Strategy’s own bitcoin performance metric, BTC Yield, which is designed to track changes in bitcoin holdings per assumed diluted share. According to Strategy’s latest figures, BTC Yield fell from 13.0% on June 1 to 12.8% on June 8, after the company acquired an additional 1,550 BTC.

Kratter argued that the decline shows the transaction was dilutive on a bitcoin-per-share basis. Over the same period, Strategy’s bitcoin holdings rose from 843,706 BTC to 845,256 BTC, while assumed diluted shares outstanding increased from 382.756 million to 384.180 million. BTC Gain YTD also fell from 87,754 BTC to 86,328 BTC.

Saylor pushed back, saying BTC Yield is a narrow KPI that measures only bitcoin per share, not total shareholder accretion. Saylor said the transaction also added approximately $100 million of U.S. dollar reserves, taking the total USD reserve to $1 billion, making the deal accretive when both bitcoin and cash are included.

If viewed strictly through BTC Yield, the latest raise appears dilutive. But if cash reserves and broader balance-sheet effects are included, Saylor argues that the transaction improved shareholder value.

Others jumped in. “Notice they keep changing the rules to fit the financial alchemy they’re doing,” sniped Wazz. “First $BTC yield was boasted everywhere and plastered accross every buy announcement as the standard accretive metric. Now it’s a ‘narrow KPI’ which is irrelevant.”

“As a short seller, I’ve watched innumerable companies ‘move the goalposts,’ and try and focus the market on new metrics when old ones aren’t showing the story they want them to anymore,” wrote Quoth the Raven. “Sometimes, companies outright delete key performance indicators (KPIs) and use new ones.”

US-based equipment finance platform Trad.Fi announced plans to bring up to $650 million in private credit onchain over the next 48 months. 

The initiative targets one of the largest and least digitized credit markets in the US, the trillion-dollar industry funding manufacturing equipment, industrial systems and residential solar installations, according to an announcement shared with Cointelegraph.

Trad.Fi said the $650 million is not deployed capital but a credit pipeline that will be minted onchain, backed by committed senior credit facilities and signed Letters of Intent from anchor borrowers. The company said it currently has about $85 million in signed term sheets and about $40 million expected to close imminently.

The initiative seeks to address the financing chokepoint in the manufacturing industry by reducing digital credit approval to a single business day, compared with weeks or months of approval time for traditional lines of credit.

Related: JPMorgan, Citi-backed Clearing House plans tokenized deposit network in 2027: WSJ

US equipment financing is a fast-growing industry that still relies on paperwork, making credit approval slower and costing businesses, said Alexander Szul, CEO of Trad.Fi.

He added:

“Small businesses lose deals waiting for financing, and the only way to fix that is to move the capital, the records and the workflow onto programmable rails.”

Investors to gain exposure through tokenized credit pool

The initiative will also include an onchain investment pool that gives investors exposure to the equipment-finance loans originated through the platform. The pool will be operated by a third party that has not yet been named and is expected to launch in the coming weeks. US-based investors will not be eligible during the initial phase.

W3 will provide the infrastructure for tokenizing the loans and managing the associated credit records across the Base, Arc and Avalanche blockchains. Legal agreements tied to the loans, including UCC-1 filings and borrower documentation, will remain offchain.

Other companies that offer similar tokenized credit products include Centrifuge, Tradable, Maple Finance, Figure Technologies and Credix.

The initiative would add to the growing market for tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), although the sector has cooled in recent weeks, with total value falling 4.4% over the past 30 days to $31.3 billion.

Total RWA value by category. Source: RWA.xyz

Tokenized US Treasury debt accounted for $14.8 billion of the total RWA market, while tokenized corporate credit accounted for $1.2 billion as the smallest segment, according to RWA.xyz data.

Magazine: Can Robinhood or Kraken’s tokenized stocks ever be truly decentralized? 

Key Highlights

• VSME shares exploded more than 300% following the conversion of a $3.8 million convertible note into equity with Singapore entity S T Meng Pte. Ltd.
• The transaction increased VS Media’s voting interest in S T Meng to 41.52%, establishing a controlling minority stake.
• The company unveiled intentions to pursue AI Smart Living initiatives, targeting smart home technology, digital healthcare, and intelligent community platforms.
• The AI strategy remains conceptual with no finalized agreements, confirmed partners, or revenue commitments in place.
• As a micro-cap entity with approximately $2.5–$2.9M market capitalization, VSME exhibits extreme volatility in response to corporate developments.

Shares of VS Media Holdings (VSME) captured widespread attention on Wednesday, June 10, skyrocketing more than 300% during early market hours. The stock launched from below $1.00 to highs around the mid-$6 level before settling back into the $3–$4 territory as trading continued.

VS Media Holdings Limited Class A Ordinary Shares, VSME

The dramatic price action stemmed from two concurrent developments: an SEC disclosure filed late Tuesday regarding a debt-to-equity restructuring, and a separate strategic announcement concerning AI Smart Living expansion.

Details of the Debt Restructuring Transaction

On the evening of June 9, VS Media submitted regulatory filings with the SEC revealing the conversion of a US$3.8 million convertible promissory note into equity through a Debt Conversion and Share Subscription Agreement with S T Meng Pte. Ltd., a Singapore-registered trading enterprise.

The arrangement eliminated S T Meng’s outstanding cash repayment requirement entirely. Following completion, VS Media’s cumulative voting stake in S T Meng climbed to 41.52%, representing a significant increase from the initial 21% equity position established in February 2025.

The 41.52% ownership level positions VS Media as a controlling minority shareholder in S T Meng, strengthening its presence within Southeast Asia’s social eCommerce landscape.

No analyst rating changes or insider buying activity were identified as factors behind the rally. Broader market conditions actually worked against the move — the S&P 500 declined 0.3%, the Nasdaq fell 1.0%, and VSME’s explosive gain occurred in isolation from macroeconomic trends.

The stock’s ultra-small capitalization structure amplified the reaction. Trading with a market cap estimated between $2.5–$2.9 million and limited float, even moderate buying interest sparked by significant news can trigger dramatic price volatility.

Strategic Shift Toward AI Smart Living

Concurrent with the debt conversion disclosure, VS Media revealed strategic plans to enter the AI Smart Living sector — an initiative encompassing smart home solutions, digital health applications, and intelligent community infrastructure.

Company leadership indicated plans to leverage its established creator ecosystem, content production expertise, and cross-border distribution channels to support the expansion. The operational framework includes a BVI holding structure and Singapore-based operating platform, maintaining Southeast Asia as a strategic focal point.

However, management emphasized the preliminary nature of these plans. No binding contracts have been executed, no strategic partners have been confirmed, and no revenue generation is assured. The entire initiative remains in conceptual and exploratory phases.

This disconnect between strategic vision and operational reality represents both the opportunity and the risk for investors.

From a financial perspective, VSME recorded approximately $7.52M in revenue with an enterprise value near $3.87M, yielding a price-to-sales ratio around 0.65. Book value per share stands at roughly $1.50, indicating that trading levels below $1.00 prior to this week represented a discount to book value.

The company’s balance sheet reflects approximately $9.33M in total assets offset by $5.20M in liabilities, resulting in shareholder equity of around $4.14M. Capital efficiency metrics remain significantly negative — the business has yet to achieve positive cash flow generation.

Intraday trading patterns illustrated textbook low-float behavior: news-catalyzed spike accompanied by elevated volume, extreme price swings, and rapid profit-taking reversals. Pre-market activity showed gains exceeding 321%. Once regular trading commenced, appreciation remained firmly above the 300% threshold.

As of Wednesday morning trading, VSME posted gains of approximately 305% for the session, with the AI Smart Living strategic announcement and the S T Meng debt conversion serving as the documented catalysts driving investor interest.

A scholarly framework from Stevens Institute of Technology argues for a measured approach to enforcing insider trading rules in prediction markets, rather than pursuing an outright ban. The work suggests that price accuracy in these markets responds to enforcement intensity in a non-linear way, and that policy should aim for a calibrated middle ground to maintain both market integrity and participation.

The paper, released on June 2 by Balbinder Singh Gill, assistant professor of finance, develops a formal economic model to explore how strictly insider trading in prediction markets should be policed. According to Cointelegraph, the model reveals that prediction-market price accuracy varies in a “hump-shaped” fashion with enforcement intensity: too little enforcement invites insiders to crowd out participants, while too much enforcement suppresses the insider’s informative contribution.

Gill explains that tougher enforcement can actually enhance participation by limiting insider-driven distortion, yielding an interior optimum where enforcement is neither minimal nor maximal. “Trade-offs matter,” he suggests, and the resulting policy recommendation favors calibrated enforcement aimed at preserving informative trading without stifling legitimate information discovery.

Key takeaways

1. Optimal enforcement for prediction-market insider trading is interior—neither a complete laissez-faire regime nor an outright ban.
2. The appropriate level of enforcement should depend on the provenance of the information driving trades.
3. Hard-won, independently researched edges warrant lower enforcement, while misappropriated information and manipulation risk justify stronger action.
4. Regulatory actions and platform responses are already evolving, with ongoing enforcement warnings and measures to increase disclosure and oversight in sensitive markets.
5. High-profile cases and congressional attention underscore the broader regulatory relevance for platforms, financial institutions, and market participants.

Calibrated enforcement in prediction markets

The central argument of Gill’s model is that price discovery in prediction markets benefits from a balanced enforcement regime. Inadequate enforcement allows insiders to crowd out diverse participation, undermining the informational content of prices. Conversely, excessive enforcement can suppress insider contributions that carry genuine, timely information, thereby degrading market efficiency. The resulting insight is that enforcement should be calibrated to achieve optimal welfare, rather than pursuing maximal crackdowns or laissez-faire tolerance.

Gill emphasizes that the impact of enforcement depends on the nature of the information and its source. Markets should be designed to tolerate the kind of information that participants obtain through legitimate, diligent efforts, while mitigating information flows that are misappropriated or susceptible to manipulation. The nuanced perspective aligns with a broader policy objective: preserve the integrity of price formation without disincentivizing information production and market participation.

Trading on a genuine, independently researched edge is the activity society should be most reluctant to punish […] And trading by those who can move the outcome warrants the stiffest enforcement, because their positions invite manipulation.

Kalshi’s response and enforcement landscape

The academic framing arrives as prediction-market operators increase their regulatory and operational safeguards. Kalshi, for its part, has begun introducing measures intended to curb insider trading by enhancing data collection and risk assessment in sensitive markets. Specifically, Kalshi is requiring users in certain markets—such as those tied to company performance or national security—to disclose their employer via an online form. It has also developed a “specific risk score” to flag markets with heightened insider-trading or manipulation risk.

The timing coincides with governance and regulatory developments following an audit-committee review and heightened scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators. The changes come amid broader enforcement attention on prediction markets: the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) enforcement chief warned in April that insider-trading violators would face enforcement action, and in May U.S. House lawmakers opened a probe into Kalshi and Polymarket over insider trading concerns.

Two recent high-profile cases illustrate ongoing regulatory risk in this space. A Google employee was charged in May for allegedly using insider information about the company’s search trends to trade on Polymarket for substantial gains, and a U.S. soldier faced charges in April for trading on classified knowledge of a military operation. These incidents have fueled calls for stronger controls and more robust AML/KYC frameworks within prediction markets.

Regulatory context and policy implications

Gill’s framework sits amid a dynamic regulatory landscape that spans U.S. authorities and international approaches. In the United States, the CFTC continues to signal a zero-tolerance stance toward market manipulation and insider trading in derivatives-like markets, while lawmakers scrutinize platform conduct and enforcement effectiveness. The evolving oversight has implications for exchanges and liquidity providers, who must balance user privacy, data collection, and regulatory compliance requirements.

Beyond the U.S., the growing attention to stablecoins, cross-border activity, and regulatory harmonization—such as the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) framework—highlights the need for consistent risk-management standards. Institutions engaged with prediction-market activity—banks, asset managers, and corporate treasury teams—face increasing compliance expectations around information governance, employee disclosures, and market manipulation controls. A calibrated enforcement approach that preserves legitimate information production while deterring misuses can help align market design with formal regulatory objectives and cross-border policy coherence.

From a risk-management and compliance perspective, the discussion underscores several practical implications for operators and participants. First, a tiered approach to information provenance—recognizing the difference between hard-earned research and misused confidential data—offers a path to more precise AML/KYC and surveillance requirements. Second, enhanced disclosure and risk-scoring mechanisms may be warranted in markets identified as susceptible to insider trading or manipulation. Finally, ongoing regulatory engagement—through supervisory guidance, enforcement actions, and legislative oversight—will continue to shape how prediction markets are structured and governed.

Closing perspective

As enforcement expectations evolve, the emphasis on calibrated, provenance-aware policies could refine how prediction-market platforms balance innovation with integrity. In the near term, continued regulatory scrutiny, platform-adjusted controls, and further empirical research will determine whether interior enforcement can reliably sustain price informativeness without stifling legitimate information discovery.

Bitcoin (BTC) faced renewed risks of a breakdown toward $30,000, according to a new analysis, as institutional demand turned deeply negative.

Key takeaways:

• Data shows institutions are offloading around 450% of the daily BTC supply.
• Bitcoin risks slipping below $30,000 if supply absorption remains weak.

Institutions are selling almost 2,000 BTC per day

Capriole Investments’ institutional buying model, which tracks Bitcoin demand from ETFs, corporate treasuries, and miner issuance, shows net institutional selling at around 450% of daily mined supply, equivalent to about 2,000 BTC per day.

BTC/USD vs institutional buying market cap. Source: Capriole Investments

In other words, large holders are selling 4-5x more Bitcoin than is mined each day.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs appear to be the biggest drag. Their flow line has fallen sharply below zero, suggesting ETF outflows are now overwhelming other sources of demand.

In the past month, for instance, these funds have witnessed nearly $27 billion in withdrawals, according to data resource Glassnode.

US Bitcoin Spot ETFs net balances vs. BTC price. Source: Glassnode

That marks a sharp reversal from the 2024–2025 trend, when ETF inflows helped push Bitcoin toward record highs.

Strategy’s slowdown is a weak spot

Michael Saylor’s Strategy helped anchor Bitcoin’s institutional demand earlier in 2026, buying 89,599 BTC in Q1 alone.

The company kept buying into Q2, adding roughly 62,300 BTC through late May, including a major 24,869 BTC purchase in mid-May. That lifted its holdings above 843,000 BTC.

Bitcoin price with Strategy purchases. Source: StrategyTracker.COM

The accumulation coincided with BTC’s roughly 40% rebound from its 2026 low of $59,930, reinforcing the view that corporate treasury demand remained one of the market’s strongest pillars during the recovery.

However, its latest buying has slowed sharply, with only a 1,550 BTC purchase in early June after a small 32 BTC sale to fund preferred-stock dividends.

Related: Why Strategy’s 32 Bitcoin sale became a bigger crypto debate

Strategy’s latest purchases are running well below its Q1 and early Q2 pace, and they barely cover ETF-led selling pressure, which Capriole’s model estimates at roughly 2,000 BTC per day.

Bitcoin may slip toward $30,000 or lower, analyst warns

BTC’s latest leg down could match its previous 36%–39% declines, putting the next downside target in the $49,000–$53,000 range, according to analyst CryptoBullet.

BTC/USD three-day chart. Source: TradingView/CryptoBullet

That zone may act as initial support, but analyst Jelle’s Fibonacci model suggests it may not mark the final bear-market floor.

In a Wednesday post, he noted that every BTC bear market has dropped well below its 0.618 Fibonacci retracement before bottoming. Previously, BTC fell 65% below the 0.618 level in 2014–2015, 59% in 2018 and 44% in 2022.

BTC/USD all-time performance chart. Source: TradingView/Jelle

With Bitcoin’s current 0.618 retracement near $57,000–$58,000, even a repeat of the shallower 2022 drawdown would imply a potential bottom near $32,000.

Deeper 2018-style and 2015-style drawdowns would point toward $23,000–$24,000 and $20,000, respectively.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposed its first prediction markets regulation on Wednesday, pitching an approach to how it can make widespread evaluations of whether contracts trip the federal standard for what’s off-limits.

The agency that regulates U.S. derivatives has been a defender of prediction markets such as those run by Kalshi, Polymarket and Crypto.com, with Chairman Mike Selig making them a top legal and regulatory priority for the CFTC. He’s been promising a new, tailored regulatory regime for the industry, and the new proposal addresses part of what may be multiple rules pursued by the regulator.

“The CFTC will protect the integrity of our regulated markets without standing in the way of responsible innovation,” Selig said in a statement. “This proposal gives the commission a durable, transparent framework to identify the contracts Congress directed us to scrutinize while letting legitimate markets move forward.”

Federal law holds that contracts involving war, terrorism, assassination, illegal activity and gaming can be deemed outside of the public interest and not allowed. In practice and in its recent embrace of data-sharing agreements with professional sports leagues, the CFTC has embraced the massively growing field of sports betting as an apparent public interest.

The platforms on which event contracts are traded are regulated exchanges under the CFTC, and the agency has said that exchanges are the first line of defence in determining whether contracts are legal and markets aren’t manipulated or abused.

The proposal weighs a 90-day review process on public-interest determinations for individual contracts.

President Donald Trump has recently expressed support for the track Selig has been on, saying in a social-media post that “Other Countries are after this new form of Financial Market, and we want to remain at the top.”