Crypto World
US Senators Push to End CFTC ‘Assault’ on State Oversight of Prediction Markets
A group of 17 Democratic US senators is pressing leadership in a key committee to address the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) using federal funds in lawsuits against state-level authorities cracking down on prediction markets.
In a Wednesday letter to the chair and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Jeff Merkley and 15 other Democrats urged the committee leadership to block the CFTC from using federal funds in Chair Michael Selig’s legal fights against state gaming authorities. Selig has defended the agency’s position that the CFTC has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by claiming that the event contracts on the platforms qualify as “swaps” under its purview.
“Through engaging in this campaign of litigation and intimidation, the CFTC risks becoming an instrument and enabler of online prediction markets’ efforts to bypass states’ consumer protections and oversight, creating a race-to-the-bottom in gambling,” said the senators.
Source: Senator Richard Blumenthal
The CFTC has engaged in legal fights involving prediction markets in Connecticut, Illinois, Arizona, Kentucky, Wisconsin, New York, Minnesota, Rhode Island and New Mexico as of June. Some of the companies involved, including Kalshi and Polymarket, have filed their own lawsuits against state authorities, backing the CFTC’s position.
Related: 21shares trims 2026 crypto forecasts despite institutional adoption gains
The ongoing legal battles have led some experts to expect that one of the cases involving the CFTC and state gaming regulators could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court. In its 2018 ruling in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Court held that individual states have the authority to regulate sports betting. If the justices grant a writ of certiorari in one of the current cases, they could revisit questions about the scope of that authority.
Selig steers CFTC alone amid broader debate over the agency’s authority
As the sole commissioner and chair of the CFTC, Selig has unilaterally led the agency’s policy agenda under US President Donald Trump, vowing to go after state authorities that crack down on prediction markets. While the CFTC’s leadership is expected to consist of a bipartisan group of five commissioners, Trump has not announced any intention of filling the seats as of Friday.
Selig’s actions come as the US Senate is expected to soon vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, which would establish separate regulatory roles for the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission over digital assets. Last week, gaming organizations petitioned the Senate to add language barring sports event contracts in the CLARITY Act, arguing that the CFTC wasn’t created to regulate such wagers.
Magazine: Bitcoin slides to $58K, XRP hits $1 but onchain data promising: Market Moves
Mark Zuckerberg has urged Meta's senior leadership to explore partnerships with Polymarket and Kalshi, according to a New York Times report cited by The Block on Friday, days after the paper revealed Meta was building its own competing prediction-market app codenamed Arena. The new reporting adds a… Read the full story at The Defiant
Australia’s securities regulator has extended temporary licensing relief for crypto firms until Sept. 30, giving businesses three more months to comply with updated digital asset rules.
Summary
- ASIC has extended temporary crypto licensing relief until Sept. 30, delaying enforcement by three months.
- The regulator expanded the relief to cover more firms while licence applications continue under INFO 225.
- The extension follows the High Court’s Block Earner ruling and comes ahead of Australia’s 2027 digital asset framework.
According to ASIC, the extension replaces the previous June 30 deadline and applies to businesses seeking an Australian Financial Services (AFS) licence, as well as companies that may require market or clearing and settlement licences.
The regulator also expanded the relief to include digital asset firms operating through authorized representatives or intermediary arrangements with licensed entities.
ASIC said it has received around 30 licence applications since updating its digital asset guidance in October 2025, when it clarified that many crypto-related products fall within Australia’s existing financial services laws.
Extension gives firms more time to comply
Following the October guidance update, ASIC introduced a no-action position so eligible businesses could continue operating while preparing licence applications. Through Information Sheet 225 (INFO 225), the regulator stated that many digital asset products qualify as financial products under Australia’s technology-neutral legal framework, meaning providers often require an AFS licence.
According to ASIC, the temporary relief is intended to support businesses transitioning into the licensing regime while applications continue to be assessed. The regulator added that companies relying on authorized representatives or similar arrangements will now also remain covered during the extended transition period.
The latest decision comes days after Australia’s High Court unanimously ruled 7-0 in ASIC’s favor in its long-running case against Block Earner. As previously reported by crypto.news, the court found that the former fixed-yield crypto product offered by Web3 Ventures Pty Ltd, which operates as Block Earner, functioned as both a financial investment facility and a derivative under the Corporations Act.
The High Court determined that investor returns depended on movements in underlying digital asset prices and exchange rates, supporting ASIC’s interpretation that certain crypto products fall within existing financial services legislation. The case will now return to the Full Federal Court, which will consider ASIC’s appeal regarding penalties.
More regulatory changes remain ahead
While the licensing relief has been extended, ASIC noted that the temporary arrangement remains separate from Australia’s Digital Asset Framework, which Parliament passed in April and is scheduled to take effect on April 9, 2027.
Under that framework, digital asset platforms and tokenized custody platforms will formally enter Australia’s financial services licensing regime. ASIC warned in a May announcement that firms obtaining licences under INFO 225 may still need to add Digital Asset Platform (DAP) and Tokenized Custody Platform (TCP) authorisations once the new framework begins.
The licensing changes also arrive as Australia considers broader reforms affecting digital asset investors. As previously reported by crypto.news, the government has proposed replacing the current 50% capital gains tax discount with an inflation-indexed model from July 1, 2027.
Under the proposal, taxable gains would be adjusted for inflation rather than automatically receiving the existing discount after a one-year holding period, a change that could increase tax bills for many long-term crypto investors during strong market cycles.
Bitcoin sits near $60,000, down more than half from its October peak, with traders in extreme fear and institutions pulling money out for six straight weeks. The single question that decides where it goes next is whether the famous four-year cycle still governs Bitcoin, or whether institutions have broken it for good.
Summary
- Bitcoin trades near $60,000, roughly 52% below its $126,000 October 2025 peak, sitting on its 200-week moving average with the Fear and Greed Index in extreme fear.
- The central debate is whether the four-year halving cycle is still in control, which would make this a textbook post-peak correction, or whether institutional demand has broken that cycle.
- The cycle-alive case fits the timing almost perfectly: Bitcoin peaked about 18 months after the 2024 halving and is now in the correction phase, the pattern predicts.
- The cycle-dead case argues that exchange-traded funds, corporate treasuries, and structural institutional demand have overridden the old retail-driven rhythm, pointing to a slow grind rather than a deep bear market.
- The crash is the test: a new low below the prior cycle bottom would vindicate the cycle, while holding here and grinding higher would suggest the pattern is broken. The outcome hinges on flows and the macro environment, not on any single price target.
Bitcoin is trading near $60,000, and depending on which framework you believe, that number is either the early stage of a painful but normal correction that ends with a familiar recovery, or the beginning of something the old playbook cannot explain.
The price is down roughly 52% from the all-time high near $126,000 set in October 2025. It is resting on a long-term technical line that traders watch closely. The sentiment gauge known as the Fear and Greed Index is buried in extreme fear, and institutions have pulled money out of Bitcoin exchange-traded funds for six consecutive weeks.
Every one of those facts can be read two ways, and the reading you choose depends almost entirely on a single question that now hangs over the entire market: is Bitcoin still governed by its famous four-year cycle, in which case this is the correction the cycle always brings, or have institutions broken that cycle, in which case the old rules no longer tell you what comes next.
This piece is built around that question, because it is the one that actually decides Bitcoin’s path through the rest of 2026, far more than any individual price level does.
The reason to frame a price prediction this way, rather than as a list of targets, is that the targets themselves flow from which thesis turns out to be right.
If the four-year cycle is alive, history points toward a deeper drawdown and a multi-quarter trough before the next halving-driven recovery. If the cycle is dead, the structural demand from funds and corporate treasuries could put a floor under the price well above where the old pattern would take it, turning a crash into a correction.
The honest work of a prediction, then, is not to pretend to know the number, but to lay out both frameworks clearly, weigh what the current evidence says about each, identify the levels and catalysts that would tip the balance, and translate all of it into concrete bull, bear, and base scenarios.
That is what follows: the cycle explained, the case for each side, what the crash is really signaling, the levels that matter, the scenarios, and the specific developments that would settle the debate.
Bitcoin at a crossroads
Start with where things actually stand, because the current picture is genuinely tense. Bitcoin fell hard through June, breaking down toward the $60,000 area in one of its worst stretches in months, with a single brutal session wiping out around $700 million in leveraged positions, the great majority of them bullish bets that were forced to close.
The drop brought Bitcoin to its 200-week moving average, a long-term trend line near $62,000 that has historically marked deep-cycle support, the kind of level that in past bear markets has roughly coincided with major bottoms.
Just below it, analysts flag the $59,000 area as the next test, and below that, the psychological $60,000 line gives way to genuine uncertainty about how far a breakdown could run.
The mood matches the chart. The Fear and Greed Index, which measures market sentiment on a scale from extreme fear to extreme greed, sits near the bottom of its range in extreme fear, a reading that reflects how thoroughly the recent decline has shaken confidence.
Institutional behavior tells a similarly cautious story, with spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds posting six straight weeks of net outflows totaling close to $6 billion, described by analysts as the largest sustained institutional redemption wave since these funds launched.
Futures positioning has contracted sharply as traders cut leverage, a sign of de-risking rather than fresh conviction. And yet, woven through the gloom, are countervailing signals: a single day of positive fund flows late in the month, continued buying by corporate treasuries that view these levels as attractive, and the historical tendency of extreme fear to precede rebounds.
Bitcoin, in other words, is at a genuine crossroads, with the bearish evidence and the contrarian signals roughly balanced, and the cycle question is what tips the interpretation one way or the other.
The four-year cycle, explained
To weigh whether the cycle is alive or dead, you have to understand what the four-year cycle actually is, because it has been the dominant framework for understanding Bitcoin’s price for over a decade.
At the center of it sits the halving, a programmed event that occurs roughly every four years and cuts in half the rate at which new Bitcoin is created. Because Bitcoin’s supply growth slows abruptly at each halving while demand continues or grows, the halving has historically acted as a supply shock that, with a lag, drives the price upward.
The pattern that emerged across the first three cycles was remarkably consistent: in the 12-18 months following each halving, Bitcoin entered a powerful bull market and reached a new all-time high, after which it suffered a severe bear market, often falling seventy to 80% from the peak, before grinding through a recovery into the next halving and repeating the sequence.
This rhythm became almost a law in the minds of many investors. The halvings of 2012, 2016, and 2020 were each followed by a major price peak roughly a year to a year and a half later, and each peak was followed by a brutal drawdown and a multi-year trough.
The framework gave Bitcoin holders a kind of map: accumulate in the bear market, hold through the halving, ride the bull market to a new high, and brace for the crash that follows. The most recent halving occurred in April 2024, which places the present moment about 26 months into the current cycle, in what the framework would call the late-cycle or post-peak phase.
If the four-year cycle still governs Bitcoin, then the timing of the recent peak and the subsequent decline should look familiar, and the path ahead should rhyme with what happened after the previous three halvings. Whether it does is exactly what is now in dispute.
The case that the cycle is playing out exactly as it should
The argument that the four-year cycle is alive and well is, on the timing alone, strikingly persuasive. Bitcoin reached its all-time high near $126,000 in October 2025, which is roughly 18 months after the April 2024 halving, landing squarely inside the 12-18-month window in which the previous three cycles each topped out.
From the cycle’s perspective, that peak was the natural climax of the post-halving bull market, right on schedule. What has followed, a sharp decline that has now erased more than half the price, is precisely the kind of post-peak correction the pattern predicts, the opening phase of the bear market that historically arrives after each cycle high.
Seen this way, nothing about the current crash is surprising or anomalous; it is the cycle doing exactly what it has always done.
Respected voices in traditional finance hold this view. Some analysts have described 2026 as a likely correction year, the down phase of the cycle, pointing to support zones in the $60,000-$75,000 range as the kind of levels a cycle correction might test or breach.
Prominent cycle analysts have argued that the cycle bottom still lies ahead, with base cases placing a potential new low later in 2026, consistent with the historical pattern in which the trough comes well after the peak.
Under this framework, the extreme fear, the institutional outflows, and the technical breakdown are all expected features of the post-peak phase, not signs that something unprecedented is happening.
The cycle-alive case, therefore, implies real further downside: if Bitcoin follows the template of prior cycles, the current decline could deepen toward a trough materially below current levels before the next halving-driven recovery begins. It is a sobering view, but it has history and timing firmly on its side, which is what makes it so hard to dismiss.
The case that the cycle is dead
The opposing argument is that the four-year cycle was a feature of a Bitcoin market that no longer exists, and that the forces which created the cycle have been overwhelmed by something new.
The cycle, in this view, was largely a product of retail-driven speculation amplified by the halving narrative, a self-fulfilling rhythm that worked when Bitcoin was a small, speculative asset, moved mainly by individual traders and the four-year supply story.
What has changed is the arrival of institutions at scale. Spot exchange-traded funds have brought enormous, structural pools of capital into Bitcoin, corporate treasuries have adopted it as a reserve asset and accumulate it continuously, and large financial institutions now treat it as a portfolio allocation instead of a speculative flyer.
These holders do not buy and sell on the halving narrative; they respond to macro conditions, portfolio strategy, and long-term conviction, and their presence changes the market’s fundamental behavior.
Proponents of this view, including some prominent research shops, argue that Bitcoin has entered a slow bull phase more akin to a mature asset like gold than to its old boom-and-bust cycles, in which persistent institutional demand smooths out the violent four-year swings and replaces them with a steadier, longer grind higher.
In this framework, the halving still matters as a supply event, but it no longer dictates the price the way it once did, because the marginal buyer is now an institution instead of a retail speculator chasing the cycle.
The implication is that the deep, 70-80% bear markets of the past may not repeat, because structural demand provides a floor that did not exist before, turning what would once have been a cycle-ending crash into a more contained correction.
If this thesis is right, then the current decline, however painful, is a drawdown within an ongoing structural bull market instead of the start of a multi-year winter, and the $60,000 area could prove closer to a bottom than to a way station on the road down. The cycle-dead case, in short, says the old map no longer describes the territory.
What the crash is actually telling us
The natural question is whether the current crash settles the debate, and the honest answer is that it does not, because the evidence cuts both ways, which is itself revealing.
On the bearish side, the six straight weeks of exchange-traded fund outflows, totaling close to $6 billion, complicate the cycle-dead thesis, because they show that institutional demand, far from providing an unshakable floor, can reverse hard and become a source of selling pressure.
The slow-bull argument rests on institutions being steady, structural buyers, and a sustained redemption wave of this size shows that institutional money can flee risk just as retail money does, dragging the price down instead of cushioning it.
The extreme fear, the forced liquidations, and the breakdown to long-term support all fit comfortably within the cycle-alive interpretation of a post-peak correction gathering momentum.
On the other side, several signals support the cycle-dead reading. Even amid the outflows, corporate treasuries kept buying through the decline, with major holders adding to their positions at current levels and explicitly framing them as attractive entry points, behavior that reflects exactly the structural, conviction-driven demand the slow-bull thesis describes.
Late in the month, fund flows turned positive for a day, a tentative hint that the institutional selling may be exhausting itself. And the very depth of the extreme-fear reading, historically, has often preceded rebounds instead of further collapse, because it tends to mark the point of maximum pessimism where selling pressure runs out.
The takeaway is that the crash is genuinely ambiguous: it has features that fit both frameworks, and it has not yet produced the one piece of evidence that would be decisive, which is whether Bitcoin makes a new cycle low or holds here and recovers. Until that resolves, the data refuses to declare a winner, which is precisely why the cycle question remains open and why the next few months matter so much.
The levels that matter
While the big-picture debate plays out, the technical levels provide the concrete map traders are watching, and they are worth knowing because they will mark, in real time, which thesis is gaining the upper hand.
The most important support is the 200-week moving average near $62,000, the long-term trend line that has historically tracked deep-cycle bottoms; a decisive, sustained break below it would be a meaningful signal that the bearish, cycle-alive scenario is taking hold, because losing that level has in the past preceded extended declines.
Just beneath sit the $59,000 area and the round $60,000 psychological level, the latter being the line that prediction-market traders have heavily wagered Bitcoin will break to set a new yearly low, with a smaller but real probability assigned to a fall under $50,000.
On the upside, the levels that would suggest the decline is stabilizing run through the $64,000-$65,000 zone as immediate resistance, with the broader trading range capped near $66,000-$67,000. Reclaiming those levels with conviction would weaken the bearish case and lend support to the idea that structural demand is putting in a floor, while repeated rejection there would keep sellers in control.
The key point is that these levels are not just numbers but markers in the larger argument: holding the 200-week moving average and pushing back above resistance would be evidence for the cycle-dead, floor-is-holding thesis, whereas breaking down through support toward the fifties would be evidence for the cycle-alive, correction-deepening thesis.
The chart, in this sense, is where the abstract debate becomes concrete, and the next decisive move through one of these levels will tell observers a great deal about which framework is winning.
The bull, base, and bear cases for 2026
Translating all of this into scenarios means tying each outcome to the cycle question and to the levels and flows that would drive it. These are conditional ranges, not predictions, and each depends on which forces win out.
- Bull case: Bitcoin holds the 200-week moving average, the extreme fear marks a local bottom, institutional fund flows turn decisively positive, and a friendlier macro backdrop, such as signals of easier monetary policy, restores risk appetite. In this scenario, the cycle-dead, structural-demand thesis is vindicated, the $60,000 area proves to be a correction low, and Bitcoin recovers back toward and through its prior resistance, with more optimistic institutional targets pointing well into six figures over the following year as the slow bull resumes.
- Base case: the tension persists and Bitcoin chops within a wide range for an extended period, neither breaking down to a new cycle low nor mounting a clean recovery, as steady treasury buying offsets continued fund outflows and the market waits for macro clarity. In this scenario, the cycle question stays unresolved, Bitcoin grinds sideways to modestly lower around current levels, and direction depends on which flow trend wins out over the second half of the year.
- Bear case: Bitcoin loses the 200-week moving average decisively, the institutional outflows continue, and the four-year cycle reasserts itself in textbook fashion, driving a deeper correction toward the $50,000 area or below as the post-peak bear market plays out. In this scenario, the cycle-alive thesis wins, prediction-market bets on a sub-$50,000 print are realized, and Bitcoin works toward a cycle trough later in the year before any halving-driven recovery can begin.
What would settle the debate
For anyone trying to read Bitcoin’s direction over the coming months, the analysis points to a short list of developments that would actually settle the cycle question, and watching them is more useful than fixating on any single price. The first and most decisive is simply whether Bitcoin makes a new cycle low. If it breaks down through the 200-week moving average and the $60,000 area toward a materially lower trough, the four-year cycle will have shown that it still governs the market, and the bearish framework will have won.
If, instead, Bitcoin holds these levels and begins to recover, the case that structural demand has broken the cycle gains powerful support. That single binary, new low, or held floor, is the cleanest test available.
The second thing to watch is the institutional flow trend. The six-week outflow streak is the strongest evidence against the slow-bull thesis, so a durable reversal back to sustained net inflows would suggest the structural demand is reasserting itself, while a continuation or acceleration of outflows would reinforce the bearish, cycle-alive reading.
The behavior of corporate treasuries matters here too: continued accumulation through weakness supports the floor thesis, while any sign of treasuries slowing or reversing would be a serious warning.
The third factor is the macro environment, since Bitcoin now trades heavily as a risk asset, and a shift toward easier monetary policy or renewed risk appetite would support the bullish case, while tighter conditions and risk aversion would deepen the decline.
The honest conclusion is that Bitcoin’s path through 2026 is not yet written, because it depends on a genuine, unresolved question about whether the oldest pattern in crypto still holds. The cycle is either running late or it is dead, and the market is about to find out which, with the 200-week moving average, the flow data, and the macro backdrop serving as the scoreboard. Until those resolve, humility about any specific target is not weakness but accuracy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the four-year Bitcoin cycle?
It is the dominant framework for understanding Bitcoin’s price, built around the halving, a programmed event roughly every four years that cuts the rate of new Bitcoin creation in half. Historically, in the 12-18 months after each halving, Bitcoin entered a bull market and reached a new all-time high, then suffered a severe bear market, often falling 70-80%, before recovering into the next halving. The pattern held across the 2012, 2016, and 2020 halvings, giving investors a map of accumulation, bull run, peak, and crash that has shaped how the market thinks about Bitcoin for over a decade.
Where is Bitcoin in the cycle right now?
The most recent halving was in April 2024, which places the present moment about 26 months into the current cycle, in what the framework calls the late-cycle or post-peak phase. Bitcoin reached its all-time high near $126,000 in October 2025, roughly 18 months after the halving, squarely within the historical window for a cycle peak. The decline since then, now more than 50%, would be the post-peak correction the cycle predicts. If the cycle still governs, the trough would typically come well after the peak, potentially later in 2026.
Why do some analysts think the cycle is dead?
Because the market that created the cycle has changed. The four-year rhythm was largely driven by retail speculation amplified by the halving narrative, when Bitcoin was a small asset moved by individual traders. Now spot exchange-traded funds, corporate treasuries, and large institutions have brought structural capital that responds to macro conditions and portfolio strategy instead of the halving story. Proponents argue this has turned Bitcoin into a slow-bull asset more like gold, with steadier demand smoothing the violent four-year swings and providing a floor that could prevent the deep bear markets of the past from repeating.
What does the current crash tell us about the debate?
It does not resolve it, because the evidence cuts both ways. The six straight weeks of fund outflows show institutional demand can reverse and become selling pressure, undercutting the steady-floor thesis and fitting the cycle-alive correction view. But corporate treasuries kept buying through the decline, fund flows turned positive for a day, and extreme fear has historically preceded rebounds, all of which support the cycle-dead reading. The decisive evidence, whether Bitcoin makes a new cycle low or holds and recovers, has not yet arrived, which is why the debate remains open and the coming months are pivotal.
What price levels matter most?
The key support is the two-hundred-week moving average near $62,000, a long-term line historically tied to deep-cycle bottoms; a decisive break below it would signal the bearish scenario is taking hold. Beneath sit the $59,000 area and the $60,000 psychological level, with prediction markets heavily wagering on a break to new yearly lows and a smaller chance of a fall under $50,000. On the upside, 64,000-$65,000 is immediate resistance, with the range capped near $66,000-$67,000. Holding support and reclaiming resistance favors the bulls; breaking down favors the bears.
Could Bitcoin fall below $50,000?
It is possible, and prediction-market traders assign a real probability to it. In the bearish, cycle-alive scenario, Bitcoin loses its 200-week moving average, institutional outflows continue, and the post-peak bear market drives a deeper correction toward 50,000 or below as the cycle works toward a trough later in the year. This is not a certainty, and the bullish scenario, in which structural demand puts in a floor near current levels, is equally coherent. Which path unfolds depends on the cycle question, the flow data, and the macro environment, none of which has yet been settled, so a fall below $50,000 is a genuine risk instead of a forecast.
This article is information, not investment advice. The scenarios described are conditional ranges that depend on unresolved questions, not predictions, and Bitcoin is highly volatile. Prices, flows, and sentiment reflect reporting available as of June 26, 2026, and can change quickly. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell. Verify current data from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.
The stablecoin market has entered a new phase.
Once viewed primarily as a tool for crypto traders seeking protection from market volatility, stablecoins are increasingly becoming part of the broader financial system. Governments are introducing regulatory frameworks, payment companies are exploring blockchain settlement, and financial institutions are investing in infrastructure that connects traditional finance with digital assets.
As adoption expands, the conversation is shifting from speculation to utility. Businesses are beginning to explore stablecoins for treasury management, supplier payments, and international settlements, while consumers are gaining access to faster and more accessible digital payment options.
To better understand where this transformation is heading, Crypto Breaking spoke with Maksym Sakharov, CEO and Co-Founder of WeFi, about the future of stablecoins, the challenges facing mainstream adoption, and why he believes they are becoming a foundational layer of global financial infrastructure.
Crypto Breaking: Stablecoins have evolved far beyond their original role in crypto trading. How do you see their role developing in global payments over the next few years?
Maksym Sakharov: Stablecoins are increasingly becoming a payment layer for both individuals and businesses that need value to move faster, more predictably, and across multiple markets.
“In the early days, stablecoins primarily served crypto traders moving funds between exchanges while avoiding volatility. That use case remains relevant, but today’s strongest growth is coming from real economic activity.”
He believes businesses are beginning to recognize stablecoins as practical tools for treasury operations, vendor payments, and international settlements, while consumers benefit from easier access to stable digital value and faster cross-border transfers.
According to Sakharov, the next stage of adoption will depend less on blockchain technology itself and more on user experience.
“People shouldn’t need to understand the underlying technology. They simply need reliable access, clear balances, fiat connectivity, and payment products that make stable digital value easy to use.”
Crypto Breaking: What are the most compelling real-world use cases for stablecoins today beyond speculation?
Sakharov argues that the strongest use cases emerge wherever users already experience friction in traditional finance.
International freelancers can receive payments faster while avoiding unnecessary currency conversions. Companies paying overseas suppliers can settle transactions more efficiently without waiting through lengthy banking processes. Businesses managing treasury across different regions gain access to liquidity that operates around the clock rather than only during banking hours.
He also highlights another growing trend: individuals in many countries increasingly seek access to stable digital assets as a way to preserve purchasing power while maintaining the flexibility of digital payments.
“The common denominator is solving practical financial problems such as settlement speed, currency friction, value portability, and financial accessibility.”
Crypto Breaking: What remains the biggest obstacle preventing mainstream adoption?
While blockchain settlement has become significantly more efficient, Sakharov believes the surrounding ecosystem still requires substantial improvement.
“The biggest challenge today is fragmentation.”
Users may receive stablecoins quickly, but questions immediately follow. Can they easily spend them? Can they convert them into local currency? Can businesses integrate them into existing financial workflows? Can users trust both the provider and the underlying infrastructure?
According to Sakharov, solving these issues requires more than faster blockchains.
“The industry needs deeper liquidity, stronger fiat connectivity, clearer regulation, better compliance, broader merchant acceptance, and simpler products. None of these alone is sufficient.”
Crypto Breaking: How will regulation shape the future of stablecoins?
Regulation, Sakharov says, is likely to accelerate institutional adoption rather than slow innovation.
“For many years, stablecoins evolved faster than the regulatory frameworks surrounding them. That enabled innovation, but it also created uncertainty.”
As governments establish clearer rules around reserves, redemption, custody, compliance, and disclosure requirements, businesses will gain greater confidence in integrating stablecoins into mainstream financial operations.
At the same time, regulation raises expectations for issuers and infrastructure providers.
“Supporting stablecoins is no longer just a technical challenge. It also requires governance, compliance, risk management, and operational transparency.”
Crypto Breaking: How are stablecoins reshaping cross-border payments?
Traditional international payments often remain dependent on multiple intermediaries, limited banking hours, currency conversion processes, and delayed settlement.
Stablecoins offer an alternative model.
“Value can move digitally with faster settlement, greater transparency, and fewer intermediary steps.”
However, Sakharov emphasizes that blockchain alone is not enough.
Liquidity, regulatory compliance, local banking access, payment acceptance, and customer support all remain essential components of a complete financial ecosystem.
He explains that WeFi is focused on connecting stablecoin rails with fiat access and account-like usability to make cross-border financial services more practical for both businesses and consumers.
Crypto Breaking: What should businesses and investors watch over the next two years?
Rather than focusing exclusively on which stablecoins dominate the market, Sakharov believes attention should shift toward the infrastructure being built around them.
Businesses should monitor how stablecoins integrate into treasury management, supplier payments, and international operations.
Investors should pay close attention to companies developing access layers, payment connectivity, compliance systems, liquidity infrastructure, and products that bridge stablecoins with traditional financial services.
Consumers, meanwhile, may notice stablecoins becoming less visible while becoming more useful.
“The biggest change will be when people use stablecoins without thinking about them. They’ll simply experience clearer balances, easier payments, and better access to financial services.”
Final Thoughts
As stablecoins continue to mature, the conversation is increasingly centered on infrastructure rather than speculation.
While regulatory clarity, user experience, and interoperability remain significant challenges, industry leaders believe the technology is steadily moving toward mainstream financial adoption.
Whether stablecoins ultimately become a standard component of global finance will depend not only on blockchain innovation but also on the ability of infrastructure providers to make digital value as seamless and intuitive as today’s online banking experience.
About Maksym Sakharov
Maksym Sakharov is the CEO and Co-Founder of WeFi, a company focused on building compliant financial infrastructure that connects stablecoin payments, fiat access, and digital financial services. His work centers on improving cross-border payments and accelerating the practical adoption of stablecoin-based financial products.
Attackers exploited a third-party vendor compromise to inject malicious code into Polymarket’s frontend, triggering a phishing flow that ultimately drained funds from at least 11 user wallets, according to blockchain analyst Specter. Specter estimated the stolen amount at $2.94 million, citing activity linked to the compromised user interface.
Polymarket said it has contained the incident, removed the affected dependency, and will fully refund affected users. The case adds to a broader security trend flagged by DefiLlama, which reports that the quarter is now the most-hacked on record by incident count.
Key takeaways
- Specter attributed the Polymarket incident to a third-party vendor compromise that allowed malicious script injection into the platform’s frontend.
- The phishing mechanism reportedly led to an estimated $2.94 million drained from at least 11 Polymarket user wallets.
- Polymarket says containment is complete, the compromised dependency has been removed, and users will be fully refunded.
- DefiLlama data shows crypto security breaches in the second quarter hit a record pace, while June totals climbed to $74.9 million across 29 reported incidents.
- Across the last 30 days, DefiLlama reports private key compromises as the largest share of losses (43%), with “fake proof” exploits (10%) and reverse MEV honeypots (8%) following.
How the Polymarket frontend compromise unfolded
According to Specter, the attackers leveraged a third-party vendor breach to slip malicious scripting into Polymarket’s website experience. Specter said the injected code appeared designed to support a phishing attack—meaning users could be induced to sign or approve actions that transferred funds instead of completing the intended transaction.
Specter’s analysis estimated the theft at roughly $2.94 million, impacting at least 11 Polymarket user wallets. The figure is based on observed drain activity associated with the phishing pattern described by Specter.
Polymarket responded publicly on X, stating that it identified and contained the compromise, removed the affected dependency, and confirmed that affected users would be fully refunded. Cointelegraph sought further comment from Polymarket but did not receive a response before publication.
June exploit losses climb—still below April’s peak
While the Polymarket case is a notable incident, it sits within a wider wave of exploit activity. DefiLlama data cited in the report shows crypto exploit losses in June reached $74.9 million across 29 reported incidents, a rise from May’s $60.5 million total.
Even with the month-over-month increase, June’s total remained far below April’s $644 million figure, underscoring how uneven the exploit landscape has been across the year. The same DefiLlama dataset also marks the second quarter as the most-hacked period on record by incident count, extending the high frequency of breaches reported so far.
Largest June incidents highlight recurring bridge and exploit risk
DefiLlama’s breakdown points to several major June events that drove losses higher. The largest reported incident in June was a $36 million Humanity Protocol exploit. Other large items included a $4.7 million Secret Network bridge exploit and two separate Aztec exploits valued at $2.1 million each.
The list also includes a $1.7 million bridge exploit on Taiko. Together, these events reinforce a familiar theme in crypto security reporting: cross-chain bridge systems and complex protocol integrations continue to concentrate losses when vulnerabilities are discovered or supply-chain components are compromised.
Attack vectors shift: private key compromises lead, phishing cases remain a concern
DefiLlama’s methodology breaks down the last 30 days of reported exploit losses by technique. Private key compromises accounted for 43% of losses, making them the most common category in the period. “Fake proof” exploits represented 10%, while reverse MEV honeypots made up 8% by the same breakdown.
The Polymarket incident is described differently from those categories in the underlying reporting: Specter framed it as a frontend injection leading to phishing, which in practice can overlap with user-level security failures rather than only on-chain vulnerabilities. Regardless of the taxonomy, the operational takeaway is similar—attackers increasingly combine supply-chain weaknesses with user-targeted deception to move funds.
The threat also has a local history on Polymarket. About a month earlier, the prediction market disclosed a separate $600,000 exploit tied to a six-year-old private key used for internal top-up operations. Josh Stevens, Polymarket’s vice president of engineering, said then that contracts and user funds were safe and that permissions tied to the key had been revoked, reflecting a response approach aimed at limiting exposure after discovery.
What to watch next for Polymarket users
With Polymarket stating it has removed the compromised dependency and will refund impacted users, the next signals to monitor are whether any residual scams continue via cached pages, third-party scripts, or follow-on attempts against user approvals. More broadly, investors and users should track whether the second-quarter record pace continues and whether DefiLlama’s technique breakdown shows phishing-style incidents rising alongside private key compromises.
Eight-year-old Ether (ETH) wallets have started moving coins for the first time since 2017, adding fresh supply to the market as Ether trades just above $1,500. Onchain data shows 37,806 ETH from long-dormant addresses became active, while separate whale transactions point to continued accumulation by other large investors.
The mixed positioning comes as total long-term ETH whale profitability has fallen below zero for the first time since 2019, leaving every major whale cohort sitting on unrealized losses.
ETH whale traders are split between accumulation and distribution
According to Lookonchain, four Ethereum wallets that received 37,602 ETH nearly eight years ago at an average price of around $830 became active after years of dormancy. The wallets held through the 2021 and 2025 bull markets, when their unrealized gains exceeded $150 million, sold 33,623 ETH for about $52.5 million at around $1,560 on Thursday. The realized profit now stands near $27.4 million.
OG ETH wallets holding period. Source: Lookonchain/X
Fresh ETH selling has appeared alongside continued buying from other large holders. Blockchain tracker Lookonchain reported that one whale swapped 464 BTC worth $27.6 million for 17,750 ETH, signaling capital rotation into Ether.
Meanwhile, investor Chun Wang also acquired another 9,937 ETH and 147 wrapped Bitcoin. Over the past month, Wang has withdrawn almost 87,000 ETH from Binance at an average purchase price of $1,749.
Institutional ETH trading also remained active. BlackRock transferred 41,996 ETH and 4,577 BTC to Coinbase Prime, a move commonly associated with custody or operational management rather than a confirmed market sale.
Crypto analyst Darkfost noted that Ether whales holding between 1,000 ETH and more than 100,000 ETH are all sitting on negative unrealized profit ratios. This marks the first time since 2019 that every major whale cohort has been underwater.
ETH whales’ unrealized profit ratio. Source: X
The analyst said that periods when whale conviction was tested by ETH prices, it often aligned with long-term bottom zones. The current scenario indicates that large holders are facing greater overall pressure in 2026, even as selective ETH accumulation persists.
Related: Tether stablecoin flips Ether by market cap as ETH routs to $1.5K
$1,500 level for ETH draws trader focus
Ether dropped to $1,510 during Thursday’s sell-off, though it avoided setting a new yearly low even as Bitcoin fell to fresh 2026 lows.
Crypto trader Ardi described $1,500 as Ether’s key long-term support, arguing that daily closes below that level challenge the bullish assumptions built up since the 2022 bear market.
Ether/USD, one-week chart. Source: Ardi/X
Crypto investor Jelle shared a similar view, saying a sustained break would send Ether back into a trading range last seen in early 2023. Weekly price action shows ETH has defended the $1,500 region during several major corrections since mid-2022, making it one of the altcoin’s longest-standing support zones.
However, not all market participants expect a near-term recovery. Popular trader Cyclops identified the $1,070–$1,370 range as a potential accumulation zone, citing it as a key demand area established in early 2023. A move into that range would also see ETH break below its multi-year ascending trendline, a technical development that could further delay a sustained recovery and reinforce the broader bearish market structure.
ETH/USD, one-week chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView
Related: XRP risks drop below $1, but onchain data highlights silver lining
ZachXBT says AscendEX users are experiencing withdrawal delays, with some requests not being processed at all.
Several individuals reported that the transactions have been stalled for days, sometimes even weeks.
AscendEX Users Report Withdrawal Issues
The on-chain sleuth issued a warning in his Telegram group, alerting members to potential liquidity challenges.
“I have observed multiple reports that the centralized exchange AscendEX (formerly Bitmax) is delaying user withdrawals for days/weeks or not processing withdrawals,” he wrote.
After reviewing Arkham and TRM for known hot wallets, ZachXBT has observed that the exchange’s reserves seem to be lacking the large-cap tokens like USDT, ETH, and SOL. This indicates that the platform is quite likely to have some liquidity problems. He also provided some Solana, Tron, and EVM wallet addresses used in the investigation.
According to community reports, users who have tried to move funds out of AscendEX have seen their transactions stuck in “initiating” for over a week.
On Reddit, one user described their experience, stating that the withdrawals don’t even produce a transaction ID. Their funds were debited from their available balance and are now locked without any explanation from the platform, they said.
For its part, the exchange is reportedly yet to offer any meaningful assistance or explanations across its support channels and has also not issued any public response to the concerns.
AscendEX, formerly known as Bitmax, was founded by George Cao and Ariel Ling in 2018. North Korea’s Lazarus Group hacked the platform in December 2021 for $78 million.
ZachXBT Flags JuCoin Reserves Amid Withdrawal Problems
This isn’t the first time an exchange has faced scrutiny over transaction processing delays. ZachXBT recently flagged JuCoin for similar problems, alleging that its reserves are not backed by liquid assets.
The blockchain detective questioned JuCoin’s reported $511 million reserves, saying most of this appeared to be tied to USDC and USDT issued on its JuChain without clear backing. He also challenged the publicly listed team, saying that the project seemed to be out of their control, but the team responded, saying the disruptions had been caused by ongoing upgrades and restructuring.
However, affected users continued to ask for clear timelines, transparency, and assurance that their assets are available for transfer.
Attackers have also exploited JuDAO for $225,000 in April and a $20 million incident last year. Meanwhile, the East Asian exchange has rebranded several times in the past.
The post ZachXBT Warns AscendEX Users of Potential Liquidity Issues and Delayed Withdrawals appeared first on CryptoPotato.
A group of 17 Democratic US senators has asked the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government to stop the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from using federal funds to pursue litigation against state authorities over prediction markets. The push targets CFTC Chair Michael Selig’s defense of the agency’s view that it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such platforms.
In a Wednesday letter to the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Jeff Merkley, and 15 other Democrats urged Congress to block funding that would support Selig’s legal campaign. The senators argue that the CFTC’s courtroom strategy could enable online prediction markets to sidestep state consumer protections, creating what they describe as a “race-to-the-bottom in gambling.”
Key takeaways
- 17 Democratic senators want appropriators to prevent the CFTC from using federal funds for Chair Michael Selig’s lawsuits against state-level prediction market enforcement.
- The letter criticizes the CFTC’s argument of “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets and the agency’s position that event contracts qualify as “swaps.”
- The CFTC is already involved in prediction market litigation across multiple states, while some affected companies have sued state regulators in support of the CFTC’s theory.
- Potential Supreme Court review could hinge on how the Court applies federal authority and state power, building on its 2018 sports betting decision in Murphy v. NCAA.
Senators challenge CFTC funding amid prediction market lawsuits
The senators’ letter focuses on whether appropriations should underwrite the CFTC’s legal fights against state gaming regulators. Blumenthal and Merkley led the effort, warning that using federal resources for Selig’s litigation could shift outcomes in ways the senators view as harmful to consumer safeguards.
They specifically framed the lawsuits as part of a broader “campaign of litigation and intimidation,” contending that it risks positioning the CFTC as an “instrument and enabler” for prediction markets aiming to bypass state oversight. The concern, as laid out in the letter, is that states’ regulatory and consumer-protection frameworks could be weakened if companies conclude they can trigger federal enforcement that overrides state rules.
According to the letter, the senators are asking subcommittee leadership to block the CFTC from drawing on federal funding for these cases.
Source: Senator Richard Blumenthal letter to Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
Selig’s “exclusive jurisdiction” stance and the “swap” theory
At the center of the senators’ complaint is the CFTC’s legal position. Selig has argued that prediction-market event contracts on certain platforms fall within the CFTC’s mandate because they function as “swaps,” giving the agency what it describes as “exclusive jurisdiction” over the market.
That approach has been controversial because it directly collides with how state regulators view gambling and consumer protection. Several platforms and companies have responded by contesting state actions, and at least some of them have supported the CFTC’s framing by pursuing their own legal challenges.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the CFTC has engaged in legal fights tied to prediction markets involving regulators in Connecticut, Illinois, Arizona, Kentucky, Wisconsin, New York, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and New Mexico as of June. Companies mentioned in the reporting include Kalshi and Polymarket, both of which have filed lawsuits against state authorities.
Cointelegraph: CFTC litigation involving multiple state regulators
Cointelegraph: Kalshi lawsuit supporting the CFTC’s position
What could happen in the courts: from state authority to possible Supreme Court review
The senators’ intervention comes as the prediction market enforcement battle continues at the state and federal levels. The stakes are heightened by commentary from legal analysts that one of the disputes involving the CFTC and state gaming regulators could eventually reach the US Supreme Court.
A key benchmark is the Court’s 2018 decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, in which the justices held that states have authority to regulate sports betting. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case from the current wave of prediction-market litigation, it could revisit the boundaries of state regulatory power in situations involving federal agencies and market structure questions.
Still, readers should note what remains uncertain: Supreme Court review is not guaranteed, and the eventual scope of any high-court ruling would depend on how the legal issues are framed in the case that reaches the docket.
Congress is debating broader regulatory lines as CLARITY advances
The letter also lands in the middle of an active policy debate over how digital assets should be regulated. The senators’ concerns about the CFTC’s role in prediction markets intersect with the Senate’s anticipated vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a bill that would establish separate regulatory responsibilities for the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission over digital assets.
Cointelegraph previously reported that gaming organizations petitioned the Senate to include language barring sports event contracts in the CLARITY Act, arguing the CFTC was not created to regulate such wagers. That political push underscores a core tension: whether certain categories of event-based contracts should be treated as commodities and swaps under CFTC authority, or instead handled through state gaming rules.
Cointelegraph: Gaming organizations petition Congress on CLARITY language
Meanwhile, Selig leads the CFTC as its sole commissioner and chair, directing the agency’s policy agenda. While the CFTC is expected to ultimately include a bipartisan group of five commissioners, Trump had not announced any plan to fill vacancies as of Friday, according to the reporting referenced in the source.
That governance context matters because it affects how quickly any policy disagreements might be reconciled at the agency level. For market participants, it also means that enforcement posture can be closely tied to the leadership structure at the time of litigation.
For now, the most immediate watch item is whether the appropriations subcommittee actually blocks federal funding tied to Selig’s legal campaign, and how courts respond in the active state cases. Separately, the progress of the CLARITY Act—and how lawmakers choose to define the boundary between CFTC jurisdiction and state authority—could determine whether these disputes are narrowed by statute or continue to play out room by room in court.
Base, the Ethereum Layer 2 network incubated by Coinbase, halted block production for the second time in two days on Friday, arriving hours before a scheduled activation of its new B20 token standard on mainnet. The second stall began at 15:33 UTC Friday when Base's status page flagged block… Read the full story at The Defiant
Growth in the value of tokenized real-world assets has stalled. The total value of distributed real-world assets (RWAs), meaning tokenized assets that can be freely transferred between wallets, slipped about 1.4% over the past 30 days to roughly $31.5 billion, according to data from rwa.xyz, the… Read the full story at The Defiant
Artur Beterbiev says world champion is ‘ducking’ him: “You can see he doesn’t want to fight”
13 companies recruiting experts in the Industry 4.0 space
Dj Maphorisa, DJ Tunez, Wizkid, Mavo – MONEY CONSTANT (Official Audio)
-
Entertainment6 days agoRenter of Home in Anne Heche Crash Denies Settlement With Son
-
Sports3 days agoTwo goals and an assist by sheer aura: Cristiano Ronaldo just entered the World Cup chat
-
Tech4 days agoMicrosoft accidentally kills epic Outlook email threads
-
Business6 days agoSoccer-U.S. defends Iran World Cup travel restrictions, says discussions ongoing
-
Fashion6 hours agoWeekend Open Thread: Staud – Corporette.com
-
Politics17 hours agoThe House | Manchesterism won’t survive the painful trade-offs unless it gets citizens on board
-
Politics7 days agoAndy Burnham and the meaning of Makerfield
-
Politics21 hours agoPotential 2028er World Cup attendee leaderboard
-
Tech1 day agoA Look At A Gaggle Of Transputer Boards
-
Crypto World3 days ago
Bitcoin (BTC) Dips Below $62K, Ethereum (ETH) Plunges 6% Daily: Market Watch
-
Business16 hours agoAsia stock markets slide as tech shares slump
-
Crypto World3 days agoSecuritize Wraps Roubini's SEC-Registered ETF as Dubai VARA Digital Security
-
Crypto World1 day agoDell (DELL) Shares Tumble Over 5% Following Analyst Downgrade to Hold
-
Business3 days ago
Entergy settles forward sale agreements, raises $672 million in cash proceeds
-
Crypto World7 days agoCan Charles Hoskinson Really Rescue Cardano?
-
Business7 days agoWall Street Week Ahead: Investors see Micron earnings as pulse check of AI rally momentum
-
Entertainment7 days agoJose Alvarado Wants Taylor Swift at More Knicks Games
-
Sports3 hours agoFIH Pro League: India defeat Pakistan 7-1, register biggest win of campaign | Other Sports News
-
Crypto World6 hours agoRTX holders must register wallets before token distribution begins
-
Crypto World7 days agoHIVE shares jump as $220M AI deal speeds Bitcoin mining pivot
You must be logged in to post a comment Login