Crypto World
What is a stablecoin? USDC, USDT, RLUSD, and how they hold a dollar
A stablecoin is crypto that is supposed to be worth exactly one dollar, always. That sounds simple, but how a token holds a steady value, and whether it actually can, is one of the most important and misunderstood questions in crypto. Here is the complete answer.
Summary
- Stablecoins are designed to maintain a $1 value, giving users a way to move and hold funds on blockchains without the price swings common in cryptocurrencies.
- USDT, USDC, and RLUSD use dollar backed reserves to maintain their peg, while other stablecoins rely on crypto collateral or algorithmic mechanisms.
- A stablecoin’s reliability depends on the quality of its backing, with depegs, issuer risks, and regulatory requirements remaining key factors for users to consider.
A stablecoin is a cryptocurrency designed to hold a steady value, almost always pegged to one US dollar, so that one unit is meant to always be worth one dollar regardless of what the rest of the crypto market is doing.
If Bitcoin is like a stock that swings every day, a stablecoin is meant to behave like the cash in your wallet, a digital dollar that moves on blockchain rails. This stability is what makes stablecoins quietly essential: they are the bridge between volatile crypto and stable money, the safe harbor traders move into when markets crash, the dollars that flow through decentralized finance, and increasingly a payment rail that moves enormous volumes of money around the world.
As of 2026, stablecoins represent a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars and, by some measures, already move more annual volume than major card networks.
This guide explains stablecoins in plain English: what they are and why they matter, the three fundamentally different ways a stablecoin can hold its peg to a dollar, the major stablecoins including USDT, USDC, and RLUSD and how they differ, the mechanisms that keep the value steady, the real risks including the depegs that have destroyed billions, the regulation now taking shape around them, and how to use them sensibly.
It assumes no prior knowledge, and it takes the risks seriously instead of treating stablecoins as the risk-free digital cash they are sometimes presented as, because the single most important thing to understand about a stablecoin is that its stability is only as good as whatever is backing it, and not all stablecoins are backed equally.
What a stablecoin is, and why it matters
To understand why stablecoins exist, you have to understand the problem they solve, which is the central inconvenience of cryptocurrency.
Most cryptocurrencies are volatile, swinging in value by large percentages in short periods, and that volatility, while attractive to speculators, makes them impractical for many everyday purposes. You cannot easily price a coffee in an asset that might be worth ten percent less by the afternoon, you cannot comfortably hold your savings in something that swings wildly, and you cannot smoothly trade in and out of positions if the only alternative to a volatile coin is another volatile coin.
A stablecoin solves this by offering the benefits of cryptocurrency, fast, borderless, programmable digital money that moves on a blockchain, without the volatility, because its value is anchored to a stable asset, almost always the dollar. It is digital cash that lives on the same rails as the rest of crypto.
This stability makes stablecoins useful in several distinct ways, which is why they have become foundational. For traders, a stablecoin is where capital waits: when a trader wants to exit a volatile position without converting back to traditional banking, they move into a stablecoin, locking in their value in dollar terms while staying inside the crypto ecosystem, ready to redeploy instantly.
For decentralized finance, stablecoins are the essential unit of account and the most important form of collateral and liquidity, because lending, borrowing, and trading protocols need a stable value to function, and a volatile token would make them unworkable. For payments and transfers, stablecoins enable fast, low-cost movement of dollar value across borders without the delays and fees of traditional banking, which is why they are increasingly used for remittances, settlement, and cross-border commerce.
A stablecoin, in short, is the dollar made native to crypto, and that simple capability turns out to be one of the most important things in the entire ecosystem, the stable foundation on which much of the rest is built.
The three ways a stablecoin holds its peg
Not all stablecoins work the same way, and the differences are the single most important thing to understand, because how a stablecoin maintains its dollar peg determines how safe it is. There are three fundamentally different mechanisms.
The first and largest category is fiat-backed stablecoins, which hold their value through real-world reserves. The idea is simple: for every stablecoin in circulation, the issuing company holds one dollar, or a dollar’s worth of safe assets like cash and short-term government bonds, in reserve. When you want to redeem your stablecoin, you can exchange it for an actual dollar from those reserves, and it is this redeemability, the promise that each token is backed one-to-one by a real dollar you can claim, that keeps the price anchored at a dollar.
USDT and USDC are the dominant examples, and they work this way: a regulated or semi-regulated entity holds the dollars, issues tokens against them, and redeems them on demand. The strength of this model is simplicity and directness, real dollars backing real tokens; the tradeoff is centralization, because you must trust the issuer to actually hold the reserves it claims and to honor redemptions, which is why reserve transparency matters so much for these coins.
The second category is crypto-collateralized stablecoins, which back their value with other cryptocurrencies instead of dollars. Because crypto is volatile, these stablecoins use overcollateralization: to mint a dollar’s worth of the stablecoin, you must lock up more than a dollar’s worth of crypto, often around a hundred and fifty dollars of an asset like Ether for a hundred dollars of stablecoin, in a smart contract.
That extra cushion absorbs the price swings of the underlying crypto, and if the value of the locked collateral falls too far, the system automatically sells some of it to keep the stablecoin fully backed. DAI is the classic example. The strength of this model is decentralization, since it runs on smart contracts instead of relying on a company holding bank reserves; the tradeoff is capital inefficiency, because you must lock up more value than you receive, and exposure to the volatility of the crypto collateral if markets crash sharply.
The third category is algorithmic stablecoins, which try to hold their peg through code instead of through any reserves at all, using algorithms that automatically expand or contract the token’s supply to push its price toward a dollar. These are the riskiest and least proven, and the category suffered a catastrophic failure in 2022 when a major algorithmic stablecoin called TerraUSD collapsed, losing its peg and destroying tens of billions of dollars in value in days, because the algorithmic mechanism could not hold under stress and unraveled in a death spiral.
That collapse is why most people today prefer fiat-backed or crypto-collateralized stablecoins, and why algorithmic models are treated with deep suspicion. The three mechanisms, real dollars in reserve, overcollateralized crypto, and algorithmic supply adjustment, represent a spectrum from simplest and most centralized to most experimental and most dangerous, and knowing which mechanism a stablecoin uses is the first thing to check before trusting it to hold a dollar.
The major stablecoins: USDT, USDC, RLUSD, and more
With the mechanisms understood, the specific major stablecoins become easy to place, and knowing the differences among them helps you choose which to trust.
USDT, issued by Tether, is the largest stablecoin by far, with a market value well over a hundred billion dollars, and it is used in a large share of all crypto trades, making it the dominant medium of exchange across global exchanges. It is fiat-backed, holding reserves of cash, government bonds, and other assets, and it publishes periodic attestations of those reserves. USDT’s strength is its enormous liquidity and ubiquity, it is accepted nearly everywhere in crypto, while its history of questions about the exact composition and transparency of its reserves has made it the most debated stablecoin, even as it continues to dominate.
USDC, issued by Circle, is the second largest, also fiat-backed, and is generally regarded as the more transparency-focused and regulation-friendly option, backed by cash and short-term US government bonds with regular reserve reporting from major accounting firms. USDC is often preferred by institutions and in the United States precisely for that transparency and regulatory posture, trading some of USDT’s raw ubiquity for a stronger reputation on reserves.
RLUSD, issued by Ripple, is a newer entrant that has grown into a significant stablecoin, reaching well over a billion dollars in value and ranking among the larger stablecoins. It is a dollar-backed stablecoin built with a focus on regulatory compliance and institutional and payment use, live across many networks and integrated into payment infrastructure, including a notable integration with a major card network’s settlement system.
RLUSD represents the wave of newer, compliance-first stablecoins entering as the sector matures and as regulation takes shape, positioning itself for institutional settlement and payments rather than primarily for trading. Beyond these three, the landscape includes DAI and similar crypto-collateralized coins, other fiat-backed entrants from payment companies and exchanges, and yield-bearing stablecoins that pass through returns from their reserves to holders.
The pattern across the major stablecoins is that the largest and safest tend to be fiat-backed with transparent reserves, that USDT leads on liquidity while USDC leads on transparency, and that newer compliance-focused coins like RLUSD are entering to serve institutional and payment needs as the regulated era arrives.
How the peg actually holds
It is worth understanding the mechanism that keeps a fiat-backed stablecoin at a dollar, because it is more dynamic than simply holding reserves and it explains both the stability and the fragility.
The core of the peg is redeemability and arbitrage. For a fiat-backed stablecoin, the issuer promises to redeem each token for a dollar, and this promise creates a powerful market force that holds the price near a dollar even as the token trades freely. If the stablecoin’s market price drifts below a dollar, traders can buy it cheaply and redeem it with the issuer for a full dollar, pocketing the difference, and this buying pushes the price back up toward a dollar; if the price drifts above a dollar, the issuer can mint and sell new tokens, or traders can, increasing supply and pushing the price back down.
This arbitrage, the profit opportunity that appears whenever the price strays from the peg, is what continuously pulls the price back to a dollar, as long as the underlying promise of redeemability is credible. The peg is held not by magic but by the constant economic incentive for traders to profit from any deviation, which only works if everyone believes the tokens are truly backed and redeemable.
This is precisely why the credibility of the backing is everything. The arbitrage that holds the peg depends on the belief that each token can actually be redeemed for a real dollar, so the moment that belief weakens, if people doubt the reserves exist or fear the issuer cannot honor redemptions, the mechanism can break down, because no one will pay a dollar for a token they fear is not actually backed. A stablecoin’s peg, in other words, rests on confidence in its backing, and that confidence is the thing that can evaporate in a crisis.
For crypto-collateralized stablecoins, a similar dynamic holds, maintained by the overcollateralization and automatic liquidation in the smart contract, while for algorithmic stablecoins the peg rests entirely on the algorithm and on market confidence in it, with no hard asset backing to fall back on, which is why they are the most fragile. Understanding that the peg is a confidence-and-arbitrage mechanism rather than a guarantee is the key to understanding why stablecoins can fail.
The real risks: depegs and what they teach
Stablecoins are often treated as the safe, boring corner of crypto, but they carry genuine risks, and the history of depegs, moments when a stablecoin loses its dollar peg, is the most important thing to study before trusting one.
A depeg happens when a stablecoin’s price falls away from its intended dollar value, and depegs range from brief, minor wobbles to total, permanent collapses. The most catastrophic was the 2022 failure of TerraUSD, an algorithmic stablecoin that lost its peg and spiraled to near zero, destroying tens of billions of dollars in days, a collapse that showed how an algorithmic peg with no hard backing can unravel completely under stress.
But even backed stablecoins can depeg temporarily: a major fiat-backed stablecoin briefly lost its peg in 2023 when some of its cash reserves were caught in a collapsing bank, and the price dropped meaningfully until confidence was restored when the funds proved safe, showing that even well-backed coins are exposed to the quality and accessibility of their reserves. These episodes teach a clear lesson: a stablecoin is only as stable as its backing, and the safety of that backing, what it consists of, whether it truly exists, whether it can be accessed, is the real determinant of a stablecoin’s reliability.
The specific risks worth understanding flow from this. Reserve risk is the danger that a fiat-backed stablecoin’s reserves are not what they claim, are of poor quality, or cannot be accessed when needed, which is why transparency and the quality of reserves matter so much. Counterparty and centralization risk is the danger that the issuing company fails, freezes redemptions, or acts against holders, since with a centralized stablecoin you are trusting that company. Smart-contract risk affects crypto-collateralized stablecoins, where a flaw in the protocol’s code could undermine the system.
Algorithmic risk is the danger, proven catastrophic, that a code-based peg simply fails under stress. And regulatory risk is the possibility that changing rules affect a stablecoin’s operation or availability. The practical takeaway is that stablecoins are not uniformly safe, that fiat-backed coins with transparent, high-quality reserves are generally the most reliable, that crypto-collateralized coins carry smart-contract and collateral risk, and that algorithmic coins carry the gravest risk of all.
Treating any stablecoin as guaranteed to hold a dollar is a mistake the depeg history exists to correct.
The regulation taking shape
Stablecoins have grown large enough that governments are now regulating them seriously, and this regulatory wave is reshaping the sector in ways worth understanding.
As stablecoins became a significant part of the financial system, moving enormous volumes and holding large reserves, regulators recognized that a stablecoin failure could harm many people and even pose risks to financial stability, and they began building frameworks to govern them. In the United States, legislation has moved to set rules for stablecoin issuers, including requirements around reserves, redemption, and oversight, aiming to ensure that stablecoins are truly backed and that issuers operate responsibly.
In Europe, a comprehensive framework has set rules for stablecoins as part of a broader crypto regulation. The general thrust of this regulation is to require that stablecoins, especially the large fiat-backed ones used for payments, hold high-quality reserves, honor redemptions, disclose their backing, and operate under supervision, which is intended to make them safer and more trustworthy as they become part of mainstream finance.
This regulatory shift matters for users in concrete ways. Regulation tends to favor the transparent, well-backed stablecoins and to pressure or exclude the opaque or riskier ones, which over time should make the stablecoins available to ordinary users safer, because the ones that survive regulation will be those that truly hold the reserves they claim. It also drives the emergence of compliance-focused stablecoins built specifically to meet the new rules, part of why newer entrants emphasize regulatory alignment.
The tradeoff is that regulation brings more oversight, more identity requirements, and a more controlled experience than the early, lightly governed days of stablecoins. For most users, the regulatory wave is a net positive for safety, pushing the sector toward truly backed, transparent, redeemable stablecoins and away from the opaque and the experimental, even as it brings the compliance overhead that regulated financial products carry.
Understanding that regulation is actively reshaping which stablecoins are trustworthy is part of understanding the sector as it stands in 2026.
How to use stablecoins sensibly
For anyone using stablecoins, a few principles drawn from everything above turn the theory into practical safety.
The first principle is to favor transparent, fiat-backed stablecoins with high-quality, well-disclosed reserves for most purposes, because they are the most reliable, and to understand the backing of any stablecoin before trusting it with significant value. Knowing whether a stablecoin is fiat-backed, crypto-collateralized, or algorithmic, and how transparent its reserves are, is the single most useful thing you can know about it, because that mechanism is what determines whether it will hold its dollar when stressed.
The second principle is to remember that no stablecoin is entirely risk-free, that even backed coins can depeg temporarily and centralized ones carry counterparty risk, so holding very large amounts in a single stablecoin, or treating any stablecoin as identical to insured bank money, overstates their safety. Spreading exposure and staying aware of the issuer’s reserves and reputation is sensible for larger holdings.
The third principle is to use stablecoins for what they are genuinely good at, parking value out of volatility, moving money across borders, transacting in DeFi, and serving as a stable unit within crypto, while recognizing they are not an investment that grows, since a stablecoin is designed to stay at a dollar, not to appreciate.
Yield-bearing stablecoins that pass through reserve returns exist, but any yield carries its own risks that should be understood rather than assumed safe. And whatever stablecoin you use, the same crypto security basics apply: protect your wallet and keys, since a stablecoin is still a crypto asset that can be stolen if your security fails. Used with these principles, favoring transparent backing, respecting the risks, using them for their real purpose, and securing them properly, stablecoins are a useful tool, the stable dollar layer of crypto.
None of this is financial advice; it is a frame for using stablecoins with an accurate understanding of what they are and what can go wrong.
The dollar, made native to crypto
A stablecoin is, at its simplest, a cryptocurrency built to be worth one dollar, always, bringing the stability of cash to the speed and reach of blockchain. That capability, a stable digital dollar that moves on crypto rails, turns out to be foundational: it is where traders shelter from volatility, the unit that makes decentralized finance work, and a payment rail moving enormous sums across borders.
The largest stablecoins, USDT and USDC, hold their value with real dollar reserves, newer entrants like RLUSD bring a compliance-first approach for institutional and payment use, and together they have grown into a market worth hundreds of billions that increasingly touches mainstream finance.
But the central lesson is that a stablecoin is only as stable as whatever backs it, and the three mechanisms, real reserves, overcollateralized crypto, and algorithms, are not equally safe. Fiat-backed coins with transparent, high-quality reserves are the most reliable; crypto-collateralized coins add smart-contract and collateral risk; and algorithmic coins, as the 2022 collapse of TerraUSD proved by destroying tens of billions, carry the gravest danger of all. The peg holds through redeemability and arbitrage as long as confidence in the backing survives, and it can break when that confidence fails.
Regulation is now reshaping the sector toward the transparent and well-backed, which should make the surviving stablecoins safer over time. Used with an understanding of what backs them and respect for their real risks, stablecoins are one of crypto’s most useful inventions, the dollar made native to the blockchain, valuable precisely because, when they are built right, they are boring.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a stablecoin in simple terms?
A stablecoin is a cryptocurrency designed to hold a steady value, almost always pegged to one US dollar, so one unit is meant to always be worth a dollar regardless of crypto market swings. It brings the speed, reach, and programmability of crypto to a stable, dollar-like value, functioning as digital cash on blockchain rails. Stablecoins are used to shelter from volatility, power decentralized finance, and move money across borders, and the market is worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
How do stablecoins hold their value at a dollar?
Through one of three mechanisms. Fiat-backed stablecoins like USDT and USDC hold real dollar reserves, redeemable one-to-one, and arbitrage keeps the price near a dollar. Crypto-collateralized stablecoins like DAI lock up more than a dollar of crypto per token, with automatic liquidation maintaining the backing. Algorithmic stablecoins use code to expand or contract supply, with no hard reserves, which makes them the riskiest. The peg ultimately depends on confidence that the backing is real and redeemable.
What is the difference between USDT, USDC, and RLUSD?
USDT (Tether) is the largest and most liquid stablecoin, used in a large share of crypto trades, fiat-backed but historically the most debated over reserve transparency. USDC (Circle) is the second largest, also fiat-backed, and generally regarded as more transparency-focused and regulation-friendly, often preferred by institutions. RLUSD (Ripple) is a newer, compliance-first dollar-backed stablecoin focused on institutional and payment use, integrated into payment infrastructure. All three are fiat-backed; they differ mainly in liquidity, transparency, and focus.
Can a stablecoin lose its value?
Yes. A stablecoin can “depeg,” losing its dollar value, ranging from brief wobbles to total collapse. The 2022 failure of the algorithmic stablecoin TerraUSD destroyed tens of billions of dollars as its peg spiraled to near zero. Even backed stablecoins can depeg temporarily, as one major coin did in 2023 when some reserves were caught in a failing bank. A stablecoin is only as stable as its backing, so the quality and credibility of its reserves determine its reliability.
Are stablecoins safe?
Not uniformly. Fiat-backed stablecoins with transparent, high-quality reserves are generally the most reliable, but no stablecoin is entirely risk-free. Risks include reserves not being what they claim, the issuing company failing or freezing redemptions, smart-contract flaws in crypto-collateralized coins, the proven danger of algorithmic models failing, and regulatory changes. Treating any stablecoin as identical to insured bank money overstates their safety. Understanding what backs a given stablecoin is the key to judging it.
Why are stablecoins being regulated?
Because they have grown large enough that a failure could harm many people and affect financial stability. Governments are building frameworks, including US legislation and Europe’s comprehensive crypto rules, requiring stablecoin issuers to hold high-quality reserves, honor redemptions, disclose backing, and operate under supervision. The aim is to ensure stablecoins are truly backed and responsibly run. This tends to favor transparent, well-backed coins and pressure opaque or risky ones, making the surviving stablecoins safer over time.
This guide is educational information, not financial advice. Stablecoins carry real risks, including depegs and issuer failure. Understand what backs any stablecoin and secure your assets before relying on it.
U.S. Representative Bryan Steil, chair of the House subcommittee on digital assets, has introduced legislation aimed at preventing members of Congress—and certain family members—from profiting through prediction markets tied to public-policy decisions and “political outcomes.” The proposal, described in a Thursday notice from Steil’s office, would create a narrowly tailored restriction focused on event contracts that reference government action rather than all forms of political or market participation.
The bill reflects ongoing legislative efforts to address concerns that prediction markets could be used to translate privileged information into financial gain. It also adds a new compliance layer for platforms operating in the United States, particularly those marketing policy-relevant event contracts to U.S. users and institutions.
Key takeaways
- Steil’s proposed “Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act” would bar members of Congress, along with spouses and dependent children, from placing bets on policy-aligned event contracts.
- The restriction targets wagers tied to specific government policies, government actions, and “political outcomes,” with no blanket ban on all prediction-market activity.
- Violations would trigger a financial penalty of either a $2,000 fee or 10% of the prohibited bet’s value, depending on the bill’s enforcement mechanism.
- The legislation would not explicitly extend to White House officials; the proposal instead focuses on elected members of Congress.
- The move comes amid an active regulatory jurisdiction dispute in which the CFTC has sought federal control over prediction market oversight.
What the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act would change
According to Steil’s announcement, the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act is designed to prevent public officials from “wagering on public policy issues and political outcomes.” The bill’s stated focus is not on whether lawmakers may use prediction markets as participants broadly, but on whether they may place event-contract bets that map directly onto governmental policies, specific actions by the government, and political developments.
The proposal specifically contemplates restrictions for “members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children.” It would prohibit those individuals from using prediction market platforms—such as Kalshi and Polymarket—for contracts that are aligned with government policy or political results.
Steil’s office outlined a penalty framework for violations. Under the bill, prohibited participants would be subject to either a $2,000 fee or a penalty equal to 10% of the value of the affected bets, depending on the application of the statute. If Congress passes the act and the president signs it, the proposal would reportedly take effect 180 days after enactment.
Why it matters for compliance and institutional oversight
In practice, the bill would require prediction market operators to consider how to identify and restrict access by covered persons. Unlike broad trading prohibitions that target entire classes of market activity, this proposal aims at a defined subset: contracts tied to government actions and policy outcomes.
For compliance teams, that distinction matters. Platforms would need to define contract categories with sufficient specificity to determine which events are “policy-aligned” or concern “political outcomes,” and then implement controls that can flag when a covered person attempts to place a wager. The requirement also creates a compliance question for affiliates, payment processors, and customer due diligence processes: who must be screened, what documentation is necessary, and how sanctions and penalties would be monitored.
For institutional observers, the bill also functions as a legislative attempt to address reputational and governance concerns around the fairness of markets whose payoffs depend on political events. Even when a prediction market is structurally legal, policymakers and regulators frequently assess the risk of insider access, information asymmetry, and conflicts of interest—issues that are closely connected to broader AML/KYC and ethics compliance frameworks.
Limited scope: Congress-focused, not White House officials
Steil’s draft does not specifically establish a blanket prohibition on U.S. lawmakers using prediction market platforms, and it likewise does not broadly outlaw wagers on sporting events. Instead, it targets contracts tied to government policies, government actions, and political outcomes—categories that would likely require platform-specific classification and careful legal interpretation.
The proposed restriction is also notable for who is not included. The legislation does not explicitly bar White House officials, including the president and vice president. Coverage of the issue has also pointed to the involvement of Donald Trump Jr., who has been described as a strategic adviser to Kalshi, and to Polymarket, which has been referenced as having a sponsorship connection to a White House event.
Cointelegraph reported that Steil’s office was contacted for comment but did not receive an immediate response. That incomplete public record underscores an unresolved compliance gap: while Congress-focused restrictions could be implemented relatively directly, questions about broader conflicts of interest and political influence may persist if other officials remain outside the bill’s defined scope.
The broader fight over prediction market jurisdiction
Steil’s proposal arrives during an active federal regulatory dispute over prediction markets. Under the Trump administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and its chair, Michael Selig, have argued that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over regulation and enforcement for prediction market activity.
Cointelegraph has previously reported that the CFTC filed multiple lawsuits against state-level authorities that sought to restrict or ban prediction market platforms. The CFTC’s argument rests on the view that certain event contracts can be regulated as “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act—rather than ordinary bets—placing them within federal oversight.
Some legal experts have suggested that the ongoing jurisdiction battle could escalate further, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. If courts determine that the CFTC’s characterization is controlling, it could reshape the compliance landscape for platforms by centralizing federal enforcement rather than leaving states to impose varying restrictions.
That jurisdictional context is important to the new bill because it highlights a split between two overlapping regulatory aims: (1) enforcing insider-conflict and ethics concerns through legislation aimed at specific public officials, and (2) establishing which regulator has authority over the underlying trading instrument and platform activity. A bill that restricts participation by covered individuals does not automatically resolve instrument classification disputes; similarly, federal jurisdiction rulings do not determine how conflict-of-interest rules apply to lawmakers.
As enforcement frameworks develop, prediction market operators may face multi-layer compliance expectations: platform-level controls for participant eligibility and event-type categorization, alongside ongoing monitoring for activities that regulators might characterize as covered derivatives under federal law.
Closing perspective
While the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act targets a specific conflict-of-interest risk tied to policy and political event contracts, its prospects depend on congressional action and how it is operationalized by exchanges and market operators. The parallel CFTC jurisdiction litigation will likely remain a key driver of regulatory certainty, and the legal outcome may influence how quickly platforms can standardize compliance across states and federal enforcement positions.
Bitcoin mining is increasingly becoming less about pure exposure to BTC price moves and more about building a business around electricity, compute supply chains, and AI-related infrastructure. The change is being reinforced by signals from outside crypto, including a report that Nvidia is seeking to raise $20 billion through a bond sale to fund additional AI expansion.
At the same time, other parts of the industry are showing resilience or momentum. Tokenized real-world assets continue to grow even as the broader crypto market struggles, while Ripple is expanding its payments footprint in Africa through an investment in Flutterwave. Separately, former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried’s attempt to overturn his fraud conviction has failed, according to an appeals panel in Manhattan.
Key takeaways
- A reported $20 billion Nvidia bond offering underscores the scale and durability of the AI investment cycle that some Bitcoin miners are positioning to support.
- Bitcoin mining firms are increasingly targeting AI hosting and high-performance computing opportunities as mining margins tighten.
- Tokenized real-world assets have surpassed $43 billion in total value of onchain financial assets, with Token Terminal citing a 37% increase over six months.
- Ripple’s investment in Flutterwave is another step in expanding stablecoin and payments infrastructure across Africa, where cross-border payments demand is rising.
- Sam Bankman-Fried’s appeal to overturn his fraud conviction was denied by a Manhattan appeals panel.
Nvidia’s bond plan highlights why miners are looking beyond hash rate
According to Bloomberg, Nvidia is pursuing a multi-part bond offering totaling $20 billion to finance future AI-related investments and refinance existing debt. The report also notes that the longest-dated bonds are expected to carry meaningfully higher yields than comparable U.S. Treasury securities, reflecting investor pricing for longer-duration risk and returns.
The relevance for crypto comes from how the economics of mining have been shifting. For years, many miners effectively operated as leveraged vehicles for BTC: mining profitability tended to track Bitcoin’s price and difficulty dynamics, leaving little room for a broader corporate identity. But with mining economics under pressure and power costs remaining a constant constraint, miners have been exploring a new angle—using their energy access and data center capabilities for AI compute workloads.
As Cointelegraph previously reported, the AI and data center trend has created practical opportunities for miners, since many of their facilities already support high-density computing. Companies such as HIVE Digital, Hut 8, CleanSpark, and TeraWulf have been positioning themselves as AI infrastructure providers, effectively treating energy and hosting as primary assets rather than secondary byproducts of mining.
While Nvidia’s funding plan is not a direct endorsement of Bitcoin mining, it is a reminder that major AI infrastructure buildouts tend to be multi-year investments. That duration matters: investors and operators typically need a longer runway when converting electrical and facilities capability into new revenue streams. The key watchpoint is whether AI hosting demand continues to absorb capacity fast enough to offset ongoing mining margin compression.
Tokenized RWAs keep expanding even as crypto sentiment softens
The tokenized real-world asset market continues to grow despite weakness across wider crypto markets. Token Terminal reports that the total value of onchain financial assets has surpassed $43 billion—an increase of 37% over the past six months—suggesting ongoing institutional and product-level experimentation rather than a purely speculative boom.
Tokenized funds dominate the category, accounting for nearly 80% of all onchain financial assets, though other forms are gaining attention. Commodities and tokenized stocks are gradually strengthening their presence, indicating that issuers are exploring more than one blueprint for bringing traditional asset exposure onchain.
The momentum is also being reinforced by longer-term projections from major banks. Standard Chartered expects tokenization to help drive decentralized finance toward a $2.7 trillion market capitalization by 2030, while Citigroup projects tokenized RWAs could reach $5.5 trillion over the same period. Even if exact outcomes differ, these forecasts point to a consistent theme: large financial institutions see tokenization as a structural opportunity that could eventually scale beyond pilots.
For market participants, the practical implication is that the RWA sector may behave differently from mainstream crypto narratives. Growth appears tied to product distribution and balance-sheet-backed use cases, which can be less correlated with day-to-day volatility than trading-heavy segments.
Ripple doubles down on African payments with Flutterwave investment
Ripple has invested an undisclosed amount in Flutterwave, one of Africa’s fastest-growing remittance and payments firms, in a deal valuing the fintech at $3.3 billion. The investment is expected to connect Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin, Ripple Payments platform, and XRP Ledger infrastructure with Flutterwave’s payments reach.
Flutterwave operates across 35 countries, and this partnership aims to strengthen Ripple’s stablecoin-based rails for cross-border transfers. The pitch aligns with the broader industry demand for faster settlements and lower-cost remittances, especially in regions where traditional correspondent banking can be slow or expensive.
This development also fits Ripple’s continuing strategy to deepen its presence in Africa. In October, Ripple partnered with South Africa’s Absa Bank to provide institutional digital asset custody solutions—another area where regulatory frameworks and institutional adoption tend to matter as much as technology. Taken together, the Flutterwave investment suggests Ripple is seeking both market access and the operational capacity to serve institutional and consumer payment flows.
Manhattan appeals panel rejects Sam Bankman-Fried bid to overturn conviction
Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried failed to overturn his fraud conviction after a three-judge appeals panel in Manhattan upheld the verdict, finding that he received a fair trial. The denial comes after an appeal that challenged the conviction stemming from FTX’s collapse.
In an opinion attributed to Circuit Judge Barrington Parker, the court highlighted a central contradiction in Bankman-Fried’s conduct during the period leading to FTX’s failure: while he was publicly reassuring customers, investors, and regulators that customer funds were safe, the judge wrote that he was simultaneously using FTX funds for personal purposes, including spending on real estate, political contributions, and investments.
Bankman-Fried was convicted on fraud and conspiracy charges tied to the collapse of FTX and sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2024, according to earlier reporting. In addition, Cointelegraph reported that he formally applied for a presidential pardon from U.S. President Donald Trump, with the request appearing on the Pardon Attorney website in early June.
For observers, the outcome means the legal fight does not reset the underlying conviction. While additional post-conviction steps may still be possible in the future, this appeals decision closes a key chapter and keeps attention on the enforcement trajectory following one of crypto’s most consequential corporate failures.
Looking ahead, the most important signal to track is whether the AI infrastructure shift can convert into durable, measurable revenue for mining operators—especially as power and equipment costs remain the real battlefield. Meanwhile, tokenized RWAs will likely remain a key barometer for whether onchain finance can sustain growth through traditional finance’s adoption cycles, even when broader crypto markets cool off.
This article was originally published as AI’s Role in Reshaping Miner Strategy: Is It the Way Out? on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Crypto exchange WhiteBIT has obtained authorization under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) from Austria’s Financial Market Authority, allowing the company to offer regulated crypto services across the European Economic Area through a single license.
Under MiCA, crypto companies authorized in one European Union member state can passport their services across the European Economic Area without obtaining separate licenses in each jurisdiction. WhiteBIT said the authorization will support the launch of a dedicated European platform, whitebit.eu.
WhiteBIT said W Group, its parent company, serves more than 35 million customers globally. Founded in 2018, the exchange has partnerships with Visa, FACEIT, FC Barcelona, Juventus and Ukraine’s national football team.
Austria did not extend grandfathering provisions for virtual asset service providers beyond Dec. 31, 2025, making it one of the first European Union jurisdictions to fully transition to the MiCA framework.
According to comments previously provided to Cointelegraph by Austria’s Financial Market Authority, the regulator has licensed nine crypto-asset service providers under MiCA and described application volume as “significant.”
Related: Polish president vetoes crypto bill for third time ahead of MiCA deadline
MiCA deadline approaches for crypto firms
WhiteBIT’s approval comes less than two weeks before the European Union’s MiCA transition period expires on July 1. After that date, crypto companies operating under legacy national registrations must either hold a MiCA license or stop serving clients in the bloc.
The approaching deadline has increased scrutiny on exchanges that have yet to secure authorization. Earlier this week, Reuters reported that Greece’s market regulator was preparing to reject Binance’s MiCA application, while The Big Whale said France may be the exchange’s last remaining path to a MiCA license before the deadline.
Data shared with Cointelegraph by OKX Europe suggests the MiCA transition could affect a meaningful share of Europe’s crypto market. The company found that roughly 7.6 million of the 18.5 million crypto app downloads recorded in Europe between May 2025 and May 2026 were linked to exchanges that were not listed on public MiCA authorization registers.
Statement on the end of transitional periods. Source: ESMA
The European Securities and Markets Authority has said companies that remain unauthorized after July 1 should implement wind-down and client migration plans rather than continue operating while applications remain under review.
Magazine: The end of anon? AI could unmask crypto’s hidden identities
Key Takeaways
- Advanced Micro Devices delivered $7.4 billion in Q1 2026 revenue, marking a 36% year-over-year increase powered by exceptional data center performance
- The Data Center division at AMD reached an all-time high of $3.7 billion, representing 57% growth driven by EPYC CPUs and Instinct accelerators
- Intel generated $13.6 billion in Q1 2026 revenue with only 7% growth, while posting a GAAP loss of $0.73 per share
- Analysts assign AMD a Moderate Buy rating with an average target of $430.68, compared to Intel’s Hold consensus around $83.35
- Intel’s Q2 guidance projects revenue between $13.8 and $14.8 billion, indicating stabilization without meaningful expansion
The semiconductor sector’s two biggest names—AMD and Intel—are experiencing dramatically different trajectories as we move through 2026.
While AMD continues its ascent as a growth powerhouse, Intel remains mired in proving its turnaround strategy can deliver tangible results.
AMD Demonstrates Powerful Momentum
Advanced Micro Devices announced first-quarter 2026 revenue of $7.4 billion, representing a robust 36% increase compared to the prior-year period.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., AMD
The company achieved GAAP net income of $709 million. The headline achievement came from the Data Center business, which posted unprecedented revenue of $3.7 billion—a 57% year-over-year jump.
This impressive performance was fueled by escalating demand for EPYC server chips and Instinct GPU solutions. Meanwhile, the Client division also delivered impressive results, climbing 68% to reach $2.3 billion.
These financial results demonstrate that AMD has successfully transformed from a traditional processor manufacturer into a major force in data center infrastructure and artificial intelligence hardware.
Analyst community response has been overwhelmingly positive. MarketBeat data reveals 44 analysts tracking AMD, with consensus landing at Moderate Buy—comprising 30 Buy recommendations, 12 Hold ratings, and only 1 Sell. The average price target over the next 12 months stands at $430.68.
Intel Continues Its Turnaround Journey
Intel reported Q1 2026 revenue of $13.6 billion, reflecting modest 7% year-over-year growth. However, the company recorded a GAAP loss of $0.73 per share.
Adjusted for non-GAAP items, the company posted earnings of $0.29 per share. For the second quarter, management provided guidance of $13.8 billion to $14.8 billion, suggesting the business is stabilizing but not experiencing meaningful growth.
Intel maintains significant advantages including substantial scale, an extensive customer base spanning personal computers, servers, and manufacturing operations. Yet the company hasn’t demonstrated the operational momentum visible at AMD.
The company’s recovery hinges on improved processor competitiveness, advancement in its foundry operations, and development of competitive AI solutions. These critical improvements haven’t yet materialized in financial performance.
Analyst opinion mirrors this cautious outlook. According to MarketBeat, Intel carries a Hold consensus from 41 analysts, with 10 Buy ratings, 26 Hold recommendations, and 4 Sell ratings. The average 12-month price target hovers around $83.35.
Investment Implications
The choice between these semiconductor giants ultimately depends on growth visibility. AMD demonstrates undeniable traction in data centers and AI infrastructure, supported by strong profitability.
Intel presents potential upside if its restructuring succeeds. However, that opportunity remains contingent on execution improvements that haven’t yet materialized.
AMD represents the proven growth play. Intel represents the speculative turnaround opportunity. Your choice depends on your risk tolerance and patience for uncertainty.
Charles Schwab has entered the prediction markets business through a partnership with Cboe Global Markets, introducing new contracts tied to the performance of the S&P 500.
Summary
- Charles Schwab is partnering with Cboe to launch S&P 500 prediction-style options contracts in the coming months.
- The new product will use options contracts, differing from the futures-based markets offered by Kalshi and Polymarket.
- Schwab’s prediction market push comes as the firm expands crypto services for both retail investors and financial advisors.
According to a Wall Street Journal report, the brokerage firm is working with Cboe to launch all-or-nothing options contracts that allow investors to take positions on where the benchmark U.S. stock index will finish. The product places Schwab alongside firms such as CME Group and Interactive Brokers, which have already expanded into prediction-style trading products.
People familiar with the matter told the Journal that the contracts are expected to become available to Schwab customers in the coming months. Unlike platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, which primarily offer futures-based event contracts, Schwab’s product will be structured as options.
The launch comes as competition intensifies among firms seeking to capitalize on growing demand for event-driven trading products. Recent activity has pushed prediction markets beyond political and sports outcomes into financial markets, where traders increasingly use contracts tied to economic and market events.
Schwab is focusing on stock market outcomes
Details reported by the Wall Street Journal indicate that Schwab’s initial offering will concentrate on measurable financial outcomes rather than the wider range of events available on platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket. Discussions between Schwab and Cboe have also included the possibility of introducing contracts linked to other market indexes.
In addition to the all-or-nothing contracts, the Journal reported that Schwab plans to introduce an options product designed to provide partial payouts when traders come close to predicting an index’s closing level. The feature would use a Cboe mechanism known as the “plus zone,” allowing participants to receive some compensation even when their forecast is not exact.
Institutional interest in prediction markets has accelerated in recent months. Kalshi recently disclosed that institutional trading volume increased 800% over a six-month period as the company expanded its Wall Street presence and product lineup.
Meanwhile, data from DefiLlama shows Polymarket generated approximately $1.5 million in fees over the previous 24 hours and around $10 million during the last seven days, highlighting continued activity across crypto-native prediction platforms.
Crypto expansion continues alongside new market products
Schwab’s move into prediction-style contracts arrives as the firm continues building out its digital asset business.
As reported by crypto.news earlier in June, Schwab revealed plans to extend direct crypto services from retail investors to registered financial advisors. The company is targeting 2027 for spot cryptocurrency trading, transfers, and custody capabilities on its advisor platform, bringing crypto-related account management and asset servicing into its wealth management operations.
The advisor initiative follows the rollout of Schwab Crypto, the company’s spot Bitcoin and Ethereum trading service for retail customers. Schwab previously confirmed a phased launch of direct access to Bitcoin and Ethereum, with select U.S. clients already gaining access this year.
Taken together, the firm’s expansion into prediction-style contracts and cryptocurrency services adds new trading and investment products as established brokerages compete for a larger share of retail and advisor activity.
Charles Schwab is working with Cboe Global Markets to launch a new type of options contract that would allow customers to make yes-or-no wagers on the performance of the S&P 500, marking the brokerage’s first move into prediction markets, according to a Wall Street Journal report.
The feature is expected to roll out to Schwab customers in the coming months, the Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.
Unlike traditional prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi, which typically offer futures-style contracts tied to the outcome of events, Schwab’s product would function more like a binary option, in which the contract would pay a fixed cash amount or expire worthless depending on whether the S&P 500 closes above or below a specified target price.
Schwab and Cboe are also in talks to offer a similar product tied to a Cboe feature known as the “Plus Zone,” which would allow traders to receive a partial payout when their prediction is close to the final outcome, even if the index does not finish exactly at the target level.
Bitcoin has climbed back above $63,000 after reports of an Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire have renewed expectations that stalled diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran could resume before the end of June.
Summary
- Bitcoin briefly reclaimed $63,000 after reports of an Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire improved market sentiment.
- Polymarket traders continue to expect U.S.-Iran talks before month-end despite recent disruptions.
- Analysts and on-chain data suggest downside risks remain despite the geopolitical relief rally.
According to Reuters, Israel and Hezbollah have agreed to a ceasefire that is set to take effect on Friday, citing a senior U.S. official. The development comes days after Israeli strikes in Lebanon raised tensions across the region and disrupted plans for U.S.-Iran discussions that had been scheduled to take place in Switzerland.
According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) briefly climbed above $63,000 and reached an intraday high of $63,300 on June 19 after reports of an Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire boosted market sentiment. The cryptocurrency later pared some gains and settled at $63,000 at press time.
The ceasefire carries significance beyond Lebanon because it reduces pressure on a U.S.-Iran peace framework signed earlier this week. Reports surrounding the agreement had helped support risk assets, while concerns over renewed regional conflict weighed on sentiment after talks between Washington and Tehran were postponed.
Earlier reports cited by crypto.news indicated that Iran had threatened retaliatory action against Israel following the strikes in Lebanon and warned that escalating tensions could affect shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
With the ceasefire now in place, the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran remains active, removing one source of uncertainty that had emerged in recent days.
Traders continue pricing in a diplomatic meeting
Prediction market data suggests traders still expect negotiations between the U.S. and Iran to take place before the end of the month despite the disruption.
According to Polymarket data, the single most likely outcome is that no meeting takes place before June 30, with traders assigning that scenario a 38.6% probability. A meeting in Switzerland remains the second-most likely outcome at 31.4%.
Market participants have closely tracked developments surrounding the peace process because the conflict has influenced energy prices and inflation expectations since fighting began earlier this year. Any progress toward a diplomatic resolution could reduce concerns about supply disruptions and additional economic pressure.
Technical and on-chain signals remain cautious
Even as geopolitical tensions eased, Bitcoin continued to face headwinds from U.S. monetary policy.
Following this week’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates steady at 3.50%–3.75% and signaled that additional rate hikes could still be considered later this year. The central bank’s hawkish stance has continued to pressure risk assets, with Bitcoin remaining below levels seen before the recent selloff.
Commenting on Bitcoin’s market structure, analyst Ted Pillows argued that the cryptocurrency has not yet established a bottom. He suggested that another lower high could form before the market reaches a capitulation phase.
“IMO, this lower high could be around the $74,000 level, which has been a key level since Q1 2024. After that, Bitcoin will have its final dump.”
On-chain activity has also pointed to continued stress among some investors. Blockchain tracking platform Lookonchain reported that a whale identified as wallet sold 800 BTC worth about $50.24 million after holding the position for seven months.
Notably, the investor originally purchased the coins at an average price of $106,866 and realized an estimated loss of roughly $35.3 million when exiting the trade.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
U.S. Representative Bryan Steil, who chairs the House subcommittee on digital assets, has introduced a bill aimed at curbing how elected officials participate in politically focused prediction market contracts. The proposal—called the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act—would restrict certain officeholders, along with their spouses and dependent children, from placing bets tied to specific government policies or political outcomes on platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
Steil’s announcement, made in a Thursday notice, outlines a financial penalty structure for violations: officials who fall under the ban would have to pay either a $2,000 fee or an amount equal to 10% of the value of the prohibited bets placed on participating prediction market platforms.
Key takeaways
- Steil’s bill targets prediction market wagers tied to “government policies,” “government actions,” and broader political outcomes.
- The restriction applies to members of Congress plus their spouses and dependent children, but does not broadly prohibit all event betting.
- If enacted, the law would impose penalties ranging from a $2,000 fee to 10% of the bet value.
- The legislation does not extend to White House officials, which may keep political questions around insider influence in the spotlight.
- The bill lands amid ongoing federal-versus-state regulatory conflict over prediction markets led by the CFTC.
What the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act would bar
According to Steil’s notice, the bill is designed to prevent public officials from profiting from policy questions and political results. It does not attempt to shut down prediction markets entirely, and it does not frame the issue as a ban on lawmakers participating in all types of event contracts.
Instead, the proposed law focuses on the content of the wager: it would bar bets aligned with specific government policies, government actions, and “political outcomes.” In practical terms, that framing appears intended to cover politically sensitive contracts, which could include contracts reflecting election results or other outcomes closely tied to governmental decisions.
The bill also specifies timing. If passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, it would take effect 180 days after enactment.
Why lawmakers are targeting politically aligned event contracts
Steil’s proposal is the latest attempt to address concerns that lawmakers—or others with privileged access to information—could benefit from prediction markets before key developments become public. The push has gained public attention after widely reported claims surrounding political event betting.
Earlier coverage highlighted a case involving a U.S. soldier who allegedly placed more than $400,000 in bets related to the removal of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro on Polymarket. Maduro was reported to have been ousted by U.S. forces in January, according to earlier reporting from Cointelegraph. The incident became a focal point for broader questions about whether market participants may exploit privileged knowledge connected to government activity.
While Steil’s bill is not described as a direct response to that single case, it reflects a similar policy concern: when contracts are tied to governmental actions or political results, the potential for unfair advantage becomes a central political issue.
Limits of the bill—and the unanswered White House question
Although the bill is aimed at members of Congress, it does not specifically place the same restrictions on White House officials. That omission has practical relevance because prediction markets regulation and compliance debates often extend beyond Capitol Hill.
Cointelegraph previously reported that lawmakers have moved to address insider trading and related concerns in prediction markets, but Steil’s legislation—based on the description in the notice—does not explicitly cover White House figures, including President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Earlier reporting also noted that Donald Trump Jr. has served as a strategic adviser to Kalshi, while another adviser role was reported in connection with Polymarket.
Additionally, Cointelegraph noted Polymarket’s sponsorship of the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House on Sunday. While those details do not by themselves establish any wrongdoing, they help explain why critics may view the bill’s scope as incomplete—particularly if the objective is to reduce perceived conflicts of interest across the political ecosystem.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to Steil’s office for comment but did not receive an immediate response.
Prediction markets regulation is already a federal-state battleground
Steil’s bill enters a landscape where federal regulators have been asserting strong authority over prediction market activity. Under the Trump administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and its chair, Michael Selig, have maintained that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over regulation and enforcement related to prediction markets.
According to Cointelegraph, the CFTC has already filed multiple lawsuits against state-level authorities that attempted to restrict or ban prediction market platforms. The agency’s legal position, as described in earlier coverage, is that event contracts can be treated as “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act rather than as traditional bets subject to different regulatory frameworks.
Cointelegraph also reported that legal disputes over prediction markets could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, referencing the potential for continued appeals related to Kalshi. That federal litigation matters to investors and platform operators because it can determine whether prediction markets can expand nationally without being met by a patchwork of conflicting state rules.
In that context, Steil’s bill may function as a separate track—targeting conflicts of interest involving federal officeholders—while the broader question of regulatory classification and jurisdiction remains tied to ongoing court fights.
For market participants, the key next step is to watch whether the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act gains traction in Congress and how its political scope is debated—especially given the law’s apparent focus on members of Congress rather than the broader executive branch. Meanwhile, developments in the CFTC’s court strategy could still reshape the operational rules for prediction markets regardless of any new federal conflict-of-interest legislation.
Crypto World
Republican Lawmaker Proposes Prediction Markets Insider Trading Ban, Not Including White House Officials
Wisconsin Representative Bryan Steil, who chairs the House subcommittee on digital assets, introduced a law to prevent certain public officials from “wagering on public policy issues and political outcomes,” notably without mentioning lawmakers in the White House.
In a Thursday notice, Steil said he had introduced the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act, which could bar “members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children” from using policy-aligned event contracts on prediction markets platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket. The bill proposed that elected officials in violation pay a $2,000 fee or 10% of the value of the prohibited bets on the platforms.
Source: Committee on House Administration
The proposed law did not specifically bar US lawmakers from using prediction markets platforms or making bets on sporting events, but prohibited wagers on specific government policies, government actions and “political outcomes,” presumably including election results. If passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, the law could take effect in 180 days after enactment.
Steil’s bill was the latest attempt by members of Congress to address lawmakers potentially using insider information to profit on event contracts. The issue drew attention from many in the public after an incident involving a soldier who allegedly made more than $400,000 betting on the removal of Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro, who was ousted by US forces in January.
Related: Polymarket weighs KYC requirements amid global crackdown on prediction markets
Although the proposed law follows attempts from other lawmakers to crack down on insider trading on prediction markets, Steil’s legislation did not extend to White House officials, including President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., is a strategic adviser to Kalshi and an adviser to Polymarket, which was also a sponsor of the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House on Sunday.
Cointelegraph reached out to Steil’s office for comment but did not receive an immediate response.
Federal regulator still fighting for control of prediction markets
Under Trump, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and its chair Michael Selig have claimed that the federal agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” in the regulation and enforcement around prediction markets. The CFTC has already filed multiple lawsuits against state-level authorities restricting or banning the platforms, claiming that under the Commodity Exchange Act, event contracts can be regulated as “swaps” and not bets.
Some experts believe that the legal fight could be headed to the Supreme Court next.
Magazine: The end of anon? AI could unmask crypto’s hidden identities
Ethereum faced renewed pressure after a major transaction involving BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes entered the market. Hayes sold 6,000 ETH at a loss, while Ethereum continued trading near the $1,700 level. At the same time, several large holders increased their exposure to the asset, creating mixed signals across the market.
Arthur Hayes Exits Ethereum Position at a Loss
Arthur Hayes completed a large Ethereum sale after accumulating the asset over recent days. Blockchain data showed that he purchased nearly 5,900 ETH at an average price of $1,793. However, he later sold 6,000 ETH at around $1,690 per coin.
The transaction carried an estimated value of $10.14 million. As a result, Hayes recorded a loss of roughly $606,000 on the position. The move attracted attention because he typically executes trades that target profitable exits.
Market participants linked the sale to the ongoing weakness in Ethereum’s price action. Selling activity increased across the broader crypto sector, and several major digital assets moved lower. Consequently, Ethereum struggled to maintain support near the $1,700 level.
Whales Continue Accumulating Ethereum
Despite Hayes’ sale, other large holders continued purchasing Ethereum. Recent on-chain data showed strong accumulation from several whale wallets. These purchases occurred while Ethereum traded near recent lows.
K3 Capital acquired 10,000 ETH from Binance in a transaction worth approximately $16.92 million. The purchase represented one of the largest single acquisitions recorded during the latest trading session. Furthermore, the transaction suggested continued institutional-level interest in Ethereum.
Another wallet linked to Chun Wang acquired 7,650 ETH valued at about $12.93 million. The purchase added to a series of recent accumulation activities by large holders. Therefore, whale activity continued to provide a contrasting signal against recent selling pressure.
Ethereum Faces Key Price Levels Amid Market Weakness
Ethereum remained under pressure throughout the latest trading session. The asset touched a low near $1,670 before recovering slightly toward $1,700. However, sellers maintained control of short-term market direction.
Analysts identified several important price levels for Ethereum. Some market observers highlighted the possibility of a move toward $1,900 if buying momentum improves. Meanwhile, weaker conditions could expose the asset to additional downside near the $1,500 support zone.
Recent actions from Hayes added another layer of discussion around market sentiment. Earlier this month, he also reduced exposure to Worldcoin before the highly anticipated SpaceX IPO. In addition, he exited positions in Hyperliquid’s HYPE token and NEAR Protocol assets.
Ethereum remains the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalisation. The network supports decentralised finance applications, tokenised assets, and smart contract activity across the digital asset sector. Because of its role within the industry, major transactions involving prominent traders often attract significant attention.
Current market conditions continue to reflect competing forces. On one side, high-profile sales have increased discussions about short-term weakness. On the other side, sustained whale accumulation signals that some large holders still view current price levels as attractive entry points.
The coming sessions may provide greater clarity regarding Ethereum’s next direction. Until then, market participants will likely focus on support levels, whale activity, and broader crypto market performance. These factors could influence whether Ethereum stabilises above current levels or extends its recent decline.
Financial Profes sir. Harley #puppy #cutedog #funny #stockmarket #spcx #btc #investment #investor
Socceroos Face USA in World Cup 2026 With Group D Top Spot on the Line
Republican Bill Targets Insider Trading in Prediction Markets
-
Business5 days agoNo Jackpot Winner as $257 Million Prize Rolls Over to $269 Million Monday Draw
-
Crypto World5 days agoZimbabwe Requires Crypto Businesses to Register Annually Under New FIU Regulations
-
Crypto World7 days agoBitget enters Argentina’s regulated crypto market through PSAV registration
-
Tech7 days agoNanoClaw integrates JFrog registries to secure AI agent downloads
-
Entertainment5 days agoMatt Damon’s Viral Sci-Fi Thriller Has Taken Over HBO Max
-
Business5 days agoAnthropic staff to meet White House officials next week, Axios reports
-
Tech5 days agoAs AI companies race to go public, who else is along for the ride?
-
Crypto World5 days agoBitcoin could crash to $48,000, if this historical pattern is triggered
-
Politics5 days ago“Israel’s” ban on ICRC visits ruled illegal, but Knesset moves to stop them permanently
-
NewsBeat5 days agoWarning of disruption as Cardiff Crossrail works to start
-
News Videos5 days agoFinancial Accounting | Last Day Revision Strategy and Booster | CMA Inter – June 2026
-
NewsBeat5 days agoTributes to former deputy head teacher at Cambridge school among death and funeral notices
-
NewsBeat5 days agowhat doctors are seeing in ebike crashes
-
Entertainment6 days agoDeion Sanders Shares Powerful Post After Viral Advice To Deiondra
-
Entertainment5 days agoKate Middleton Glare Goes Viral After Kids Booed At Royal Event
-
Crypto World5 days agoXRP ETFs Outperform As Bitcoin And Ethereum Funds Extend Outflow Trend
-
Crypto World5 days agoMarket Preview: SpaceX (SPCX) IPO Record, Federal Reserve Meeting, and Iran Nuclear Agreement
-
Business5 days agoInvesco Quality Income Fund Q1 2026 Commentary
-
Tech5 days agoOver 400 Arch Linux packages compromised to push rootkit, infostealer
-
Entertainment7 days ago44 Years Later, This Is the Greatest Star Trek Quote in Sci-Fi History
You must be logged in to post a comment Login