A new U.S. Senate bill aims to prohibit betting markets tied to war, assassination, and an individual’s death, a move that could have implications for prediction-market platforms such as Polymarket.

The legislation, introduced by Adam Schiff, is titled the Discouraging Exploitative Assassination, Tragedy, and Harm Betting in Event Trading Systems Act, or the “DEATH BETS Act.”

The proposal would amend the Commodity Exchange Act to prohibit exchanges from listing or clearing event contracts that reference terrorism, assassination, war or similar violent activities.

Under the bill, trading venues registered with the U.S. CFTC would also be barred from offering contracts that relate to an individual’s death or events that could be closely correlated with a person’s death.

What the ‘DEATH BETS Act’ could mean for Polymarket

Prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi have gained traction in recent years, allowing users to speculate on the outcomes of elections, geopolitical events and other real-world developments.

The proposed legislation could tighten regulatory scrutiny around event-trading platforms that speculate on violent or tragic real-world outcomes. If passed, the DEATH BETS Act could also influence how prediction markets design future contracts.

The bill comes amid rising debate on how betting on tragedies or violent acts raises ethical concerns and could create incentives for harmful behavior.

Polymarket faced backlash recently over a controversial prediction market tied to the possibility of a nuclear strike. The platform later archived the market following criticism, highlighting the growing scrutiny surrounding event contracts linked to catastrophic or violent outcomes.

The legislation has been referred to a Senate committee for further consideration, and it remains unclear whether it will advance in Congress.

Stani Kulechov, the founder of decentralized lending platform Aave (CRYPTO: AAVE), argues that the very premise of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) needs rethinking. In the wake of ongoing governance disputes surrounding the future direction of the protocol, Kulechov contends that tokenholder voting should not be the sole mechanism for steering a project, especially when daily operations require decisive leadership. His reflections come as Aave and the broader DAO landscape grapple with how to balance on-chain transparency and accountable decision-making with the friction inherent in collective governance.

Key takeaways

• DAO participation typically runs in the 15%–25% range, raising concerns about power concentration and governance deadlock.
• Kulechov advocates preserving code-based rules and on-chain accountability while ensuring token holders retain influence on major strategic decisions.
• The Aave community has seen governance tensions, including the March 1 temperature check for the “Aave Will Win Framework” proposal and the Aave Chan Initiative’s exit from DAO governance oversight.
• Leaders and dedicated teams are necessary for day-to-day protocol management, with accountability tracked on-chain to avoid the pitfalls of traditional corporate bureaucracy.
• The ongoing debates reflect a broader push to refine DAO structures without sacrificing decentralization’s core benefits.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC, $ETH, $COIN, $AAVE

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The episode underscores a broader trend in crypto governance where communities seek to formalize decision-making processes without sidelining accountability. As DAOs experiment with different models, governance votes, temperature checks, and delegated authority remain central to evaluating how decentralized networks can scale while maintaining trust among participants.

Why it matters

The discussion around Aave’s governance highlights a tension at the heart of decentralized networks: how to reconcile broad participation with effective, timely decision-making. In a model where rules, treasury visibility, and major policy shifts are encoded on a blockchain, the risk of paralysis or capture by the most vocal factions looms large. Kulechov’s critique focuses on the symptoms—lengthy forum threads, multi-stage voting processes, and the politicization of proposals—and points toward a middle path where decentralization does not mean abdication of accountability.

What makes this debate consequential is its potential impact on how future DAOs design their voting systems and governance workflows. If token holders are empowered to influence only high-stakes, long-term decisions, while professional teams handle day-to-day operations, the governance model could become more sustainable and less susceptible to factional infighting. The emphasis on keeping core rules in code, preserving treasury openness, and maintaining on-chain accountability could set a template for other protocols wrestling with similar governance frictions.

Observers note that the most successful experiments may blend on-chain transparency with structured, accountable leadership. In Kulechov’s view, the ultimate objective is to keep what works—transparent decision logs, automatic enforcement of rules via smart contracts, and a mechanism to hold teams to account—while trimming the parts of DAOs that resemble obsolete corporate bureaucracy. The aim is not to abandon decentralization, but to refine it so that it remains responsive, verifiable, and resistant to capture by the loudest voices alone.

“DAOs also become politicized very quickly and it’s easy for voting to become about attention. Participants take sides, lean toward the loudest voices, and form political alliances to get their own proposals passed later,”

The quote captures a core concern: without a balanced governance design, DAOs can devolve into popularity contests rather than strategic, outcomes-focused organizations. Yet the same on-chain transparency that enables coordination also provides a tool for real accountability. “The difference is that their decisions and performance are all on-chain and transparent, and token holders can fire the team when objectives are not met. Accountability is verifiable, and that is what separates this from a traditional company. There is no vendor lock-in,”

Aave governance in the spotlight

Kulechov’s remarks come amid active governance experiments within Aave. The protocol recently tested a framework called the “Aave Will Win Framework,” which passed a temperature check on March 1, signaling continued experimentation with how votes should be structured and how much weight should be given to different stakeholders. The move followed a chain of governance events, including the departure of a prominent governance delegate, the Aave Chan Initiative (ACI), which announced it would wind down its involvement with the Aave DAO over concerns with governance standards and voting dynamics during the proposal process.

Earlier in the year, another notable governance episode involved a proposal intended to transfer control of Aave’s brand assets and intellectual property to the DAO, a move that ultimately failed. Those debates have rekindled discussions about the protocol’s long-term direction and the governance architecture needed to sustain a large, active ecosystem. The tension reflects a broader pattern across the space: communities seek to preserve decentralization’s core advantages while layering on governance mechanisms that can enforce accountability and clarity around decision-making.

For context, the conversation is not happening in a vacuum. It aligns with a growing set of discussions around AI-assisted governance, executive oversight in decentralized structures, and how best to translate the benefits of on-chain governance into practical outcomes. In related discourse, Vitalik Buterin has explored potential AI-assisted governance approaches, underscoring that the field is actively seeking tools to augment human decision-making in DAOs. The debate has extended to how, if at all, AI could help moderate proposals, synthesize inputs, and highlight trade-offs in complex governance processes.

In parallel, this ongoing discourse continues to influence how creators, developers, and investors view DAO-based ecosystems. While critics worry about dilution of accountability when projects become too automated or too diffuse, proponents argue that the on-chain record and the ability to replace or rematch participants creates a form of governance that is fundamentally different from traditional centralized leadership—and potentially more resilient in the long term.

What to watch next

• March–April: Follow the outcome of subsequent votes and any formal revisions to the Aave governance framework, including how proposals are scoped and how powers are delegated.
• Regulatory and legal developments that may influence DAO structures and on-chain governance transparency.
• New proposals addressing treasury management, asset diversification, and branding/IP control within Aave’s ecosystem.
• Updates to AI-assisted governance experiments and any public pilots or white papers from related projects.

Sources & verification

• Aave Will Win Framework temperature check and governance votes: https://cointelegraph.com/news/aave-temp-check-split-vote-arfc-governance
• Aave Chan Initiative exit from DAO governance: https://cointelegraph.com/news/aave-aci-exit-dao-governance-vote
• Aave governance and branding/IP transfer discussions: https://cointelegraph.com/news/aave-founder-strategy-after-governance-vote
• AI-assisted DAO governance discussions with Vitalik Buterin: https://cointelegraph.com/news/ai-assisted-dao-governance-vitalik-buterin

DAO governance in focus: Aave’s push for accountable decentralization

Stani Kulechov, the founder of decentralized lending platform Aave (CRYPTO: AAVE), has emerged as a prominent voice in the evolving debate over how DAOs should function. In remarks and on-chain discourse, he emphasizes that the current model—where tokenholders vote on a labyrinth of issues—often yields suboptimal outcomes due to slow processes, internal schisms, and the tendency for controversy to eclipse substance. He notes that DAOs, by design, eschew traditional corporate leadership, but the practical reality increasingly mirrors bureaucratic challenges when proposals require extended discussion, a cascade of polls, and multiple rounds of voting. The central question is whether tokenholder input should be scaled down for day-to-day operations while preserving it for high-impact decisions.

In his view, the solution lies in a hybrid approach that preserves what DAOs do well—on-chain rules, transparent treasury management, and public accountability—while ensuring that the leadership layer has the capacity to act swiftly when necessary. “Rules should stay in the code, DAOs typically resolve decisions through smart contracts on a blockchain, the treasury should stay visible to everyone, and token holders should still have input on major decisions,” he argues. Acknowledging that governance will never be perfect, he suggests designing mechanisms to reduce the risk of capture by the most vocal participants while maintaining a high degree of transparency that distinguishes crypto governance from conventional corporate governance.

Proponents of the status quo point to the counter-argument: a fully centralized team could undermine decentralization. The challenge is to strike a balance that preserves broad participation without allowing endless politicking to derail execution. A pivotal part of the conversation is about accountability. If the decisions, performance, and outcomes are recorded on-chain, token holders can evaluate results and potentially replace leadership that underdelivers. The on-chain trail offers a form of verifiability that is not easily replicable in traditional company structures, even as it requires careful governance engineering to prevent fragmentation.

As this debate unfolds, the Aave governance experiments, including the temperature checks and the strategic assessments around IP and branding, will likely influence other DAOs exploring efficient governance models. The dialogue underscores a broader industry trend: builders and communities are actively seeking to reshape governance to be both more accountable and more scalable, without sacrificing the decentralized ethos that attracted many participants to Web3 in the first place. The path forward, as Kulechov and others suggest, may lie in blending codified rules with pragmatic leadership, all while maintaining the transparency that crypto enthusiasts regard as its defining strength.

Ripple is on its way to obtain an Australian financial license, further expanding its international presence.

Ripple – the firm behind one of the world’s leading cryptocurrencies, XRP, announced plans to secure an Australian Financial Services License.

The move aims to further enable the company to expand its payments offering in the country, allowing financial institutions, fintech businesses, and enterprises to move value more efficiently and quickly across borders while working within established regulatory frameworks.

Speaking on the matter was Fiona Murray, Managing Director at Ripple for the Asia Pacific region, who said:

“Licensing is fundamental to Ripple’s strategy, ensuring we can deliver secure, compliant solutions to customers worldwide. […] Australia is a key market for Ripple, and an AFSL strengthens our ability to scale Ripple Payments across the region. By leveraging blockchain technology and digital assets, we enable customers to move value globally with greater speed, transparency, and reliability. We remain focused on working closely with regulators to support the next phase of growth for digital asset infrastructure.”

Ripple’s Plan Regarding the AFSL

The goal is to obtain the license by acquiring BC Payments Australia Pty Ltd., subject to finalizing the standard completion process. The move will supposedly strengthen Ripple’s capabilities to offer a licensed platform for moving funds across the globe.

Once obtained, the license will allow the company to manage the full lifecycle of a transaction – from onboarding and compliance through funding, forex, liquidity management, as well as the final payout.

Additionally, Ripple will be able to directly oversee settlement, connect customers to local payout partners, and optimize transaction routing, resulting in quicker settlement, more transparency, and reduced counterparty risk, according to the official blog post.

International Licensing Underway

Obtaining the Australian Financial Services License will be just the last in a series of similar moves for Ripple, which is evidently seeking international licensing. As CryptoPotato reported earlier this year, the firm secured a preliminary electronic money institution license in Luxembourg, which allows it to issue digital cash and provide digital payment services within jurisdictions regulated by the CSSF (Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier in Luxembourg).

You may also like:

With that, the US-based firm now holds licenses in several jurisdictions, including but not limited to the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Ireland, New York, Japan, and more.

Bitcoin needs to make up just one-sixth of the global “store of value” market, currently dominated by gold, to reach $1 million per coin, argues Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan.

In a blog post on Tuesday, Hougan said that most dismiss the lofty forecast for Bitcoin, as it would require Bitcoin to muscle into 50% of gold’s current market value.

However, Hougan said the “mistake” most people are making is ignoring the growth of gold and the broader “store of value” market.

Gold’s market cap has grown at around 13% annually since 2004, from $2.5 trillion to around $38 trillion, driven by “rising concerns about government debt, geopolitical uncertainty, easy monetary policy, and other factors.”

“If this growth rate continues, the global ‘store of value’ market will be [around] $121 trillion in 10 years. At that level, Bitcoin only needs to take 17% of the market to be worth $1 million a coin.”

Related: Bitcoin undervalued relative to gold signals potential rally: Analyst

Hougan cited the growth of institutional investment, such as exchange-traded funds, sovereign wealth funds, and increasing portfolio allocations as potential catalysts.

“There are still miles to go, but with these undercurrents, capturing one-sixth of the store-of-value market in 10 years doesn’t seem extreme,” he said, adding:

“As I see it, the base case — that the store-of-value market will continue to grow as it has, and Bitcoin will continue to gain market share as it has — leads you to much, much higher prices than we have today.”

Bitcoin and gold divergence deepens

Hougan’s million-dollar Bitcoin (BTC) thesis depends on the asset continuing to converge with gold; however, the last several months have shown that Bitcoin hasn’t been moving in lockstep with gold.

The price of gold hit an all-time high of $5,327 per ounce in late January, and it is just 2.2% away from that today, whereas Bitcoin is currently trading down 44% from its October peak.

Billionaire investor Ray Dalio cautioned against Bitcoin as a long-term store-of-value and safe-haven asset in early March, stating that gold was much better.

He argued that central banks are not buying BTC, which he said behaves more like a tech stock.

Greg Cipolaro, global head of research at NYDIG, said on March 6 that it appears Bitcoin is “not currently being priced as a macro hedge, a sovereign risk hedge, or a real-rate or inflation trade.”

“That dynamic helps explain the ongoing frustration around Bitcoin’s failure to ‘act like gold’ despite the digital gold label.”

Magazine: China’s ‘50x’ blockchain boost, Alibaba-linked AI mines Bitcoin: Asia Express