Warning Savings protection Warning The AMF and the ACPR warn the public against the activities of several entities offering investments in Forex and in crypto-assets derivatives in France without being authorized to do so

1.3 Wed 30/09/2020 - 12:00 Reference texts Articles 318-44, 321-77, 321-81 and 323-39 of the General Regulation Articles 47, 48 and 92 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 231/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2012 …

Following the recent news that Sony will end support for physical discs for its PlayStation consoles beginning in Jan. 2028 and the attendant fan backlash (Forbes called it "Sony's Biggest Scandal in 20 Years"), Microsoft's Xbox team is taking proactive steps to get ahead of the negative publicity for its own next-gen console, the Xbox Helix, which is every bit as unlikely to have a physical disc drive as the rumored PS6.  Last month, details about a new Xbox program code-named "Positron" were leaked, hinting at a potential disc-to-digital program, but the details were relegated to spare snippets of code labeled Disc2Digital. Now, a new report obtained by Windows Insider gives us better insight into what Microsoft hopes to achieve with Positron. SEE ALSO: Leaker claims the PlayStation 6 costs Sony $960 to manufacture Most of the fan backlash has focused on the second-hand market, which would be effectively killed off if all games became digital products, but there's another valid issue raised by the loss of physical disc drives: backward compatibility. What are the millions of gamers with vast libraries of physical games supposed to do if future consoles no longer support a disc drive? Thankfully, Microsoft has already emphasized the importance of backward compatibility in previous iterations of its Xbox gaming consoles, and Positron seems like a continuation of this same commitment. According to reporting by The Verge, Microsoft plans to allow gamers to digitize their physical media libraries without third-party hardware. All that will be required is the disc, a compatible game console, and a Microsoft account, though be forewarned: this feature will only apply to Xbox One and Series X discs — neither the original Xbox nor the Xbox 360 is supported by Positron. Of course, as we're still in the testing phases for this technology, and as neither the Xbox Helix nor PS6 has been officially announced, all of this is still subject to change. Maybe, just maybe, the fan backlash will be loud and convincing enough to force these major gaming companies to change course. Unfortunately, we'll likely have to rely on projects like Positron to keep our physical media alive and functioning in the future all-digital era.

Visualizing Every El Niño and La Niña Since 1979 This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources. Key Takeaways The ENSO record since 1979 includes 17 El Niño, 19 La Niña, and 12 neutral winter seasons. NOAA says a new El Niño developed in June 2026 and is expected to strengthen through the 2026-27 winter. The strongest El Niño events have coincided with major droughts, floods, marine heat stress, and record global temperatures. El Niño is one of Earth’s most closely watched climate patterns because even modest changes in Pacific Ocean temperatures can reshape weather around the world. This visualization tracks every Northern Hemisphere winter ENSO phase from 1979-80 through the forecast 2026-27 season, highlighting nearly five decades of alternating El Niño, La Niña, and neutral conditions. Created by Julie R. Peasley using data from Golden Gate Weather Services, the National Centers for Environmental Information, and NOAA, the graphic places the developing 2026 El Niño into historical context alongside some of the strongest events on record. Nearly Five Decades of El Niño and La Niña Cycles From 1979-80 through the forecast 2026-27 season, the Pacific has alternated between warmer, cooler, and neutral conditions. The full winter-by-winter dataset is shown below. Year (Winter Season)TypeIntensity 2026-27El NiñoUnknown but forecasted to be Strong 2025-26La NiñaWeak 2024-25La NiñaWeak 2023-24El NiñoModerate 2022-23La NiñaModerate 2021-22La NiñaModerate 2020-21La NiñaModerate 2019-20Neutral- 2018-19El NiñoWeak 2017-18La NiñaModerate 2016-17La NiñaModerate 2015-16El NiñoVery Strong 2014-15El NiñoWeak 2013-14Neutral- 2012-13Neutral- 2011-12La NiñaWeak 2010-11La NiñaStrong 2009-10El NiñoModerate 2008-09La NiñaWeak 2007-08La NiñaStrong 2006-07El NiñoWeak 2005-06La NiñaWeak 2004-05El NiñoWeak 2003-04Neutral- 2002-03El NiñoModerate 2001-02Neutral- 2000-01La NiñaWeak 1999-00La NiñaStrong 1998-99La NiñaStrong 1997-98El NiñoVery Strong 1996-97Neutral- 1995-96La NiñaWeak 1994-95El NiñoModerate 1993-94Neutral- 1992-93El NiñoWeak 1991-92El NiñoVery Strong 1990-91Neutral- 1989-90Neutral- 1988-89La NiñaStrong 1987-88El NiñoModerate 1986-87El NiñoModerate 1985-86Neutral- 1984-85La NiñaWeak 1983-84La NiñaWeak 1982-83El NiñoVery Strong 1981-82Neutral- 1980-81Neutral- 1979-80El NiñoWeak Although La Niña has occurred slightly more often since 1979, the strongest El Niño episodes have generally produced the most widespread global impacts. This highlights that an event’s intensity often matters more than how frequently it occurs. The ENSO phases shown in the visualization are based on tropical Pacific sea surface temperature anomalies. Neutral conditions range from roughly -0.4°C to +0.4°C, while El Niño begins above +0.5°C and reaches the “very strong” category at +2.0°C or higher. The El Niño Events Shaping Modern Climate History Several El Niño episodes stand out for their global consequences. The 1982-83 event brought severe drought across Australia and Indonesia while triggering flooding across parts of the southern United States. It also fueled Hawaii’s strongest hurricane on record at the time. The 1997-98 “super” El Niño became one of the strongest ever observed, contributing to floods, droughts, and wildfires across multiple continents. Record ocean heat during that event is estimated to have killed roughly 16% of the world’s coral reefs. More recently, the powerful 2015-16 El Niño coincided with record global temperatures, destructive North Pacific hurricanes, Indonesian wildfires, drought in Ethiopia and parts of the Caribbean, and the largest annual increase in atmospheric CO₂ measured at the time. These climate swings also help explain longer-term shifts in global emissions. What Is Happening in 2026? According to NOAA, a new El Niño officially developed during June 2026 after tropical Pacific waters warmed beyond the threshold for El Niño conditions. Forecasters expect the event to strengthen through the 2026-27 Northern Hemisphere winter, although its ultimate intensity remains uncertain. El Niño does not cause the same weather everywhere, but it raises the likelihood of climate extremes across many regions. NOAA and the World Meteorological Organization say the developing 2026 event could influence heat, rainfall, and storm patterns through the coming Northern Hemisphere winter, with impacts varying by location. With oceans already experiencing exceptional warmth, scientists are watching closely to see whether this latest El Niño amplifies global temperatures further during late 2026 and into 2027. Learn More on the Voronoi App If you’re interested in how climate patterns translate into real-world economic impacts, check out U.S. Climate Disasters Have Cost Nearly $1 Trillion So Far This Decade on the Voronoi app, where you’ll find more data-driven visualizations covering weather, climate, and the environment.

OverviewThis curated collection features beginner-to-advanced books covering quantum computing fundamentals, programming techniques, cryptography, machine learning, and industry developments.Readers can select titles based on experience level, professional goals, and preferred learning style, from conceptual introductions to rigorous technical references.Together, these recommended books provide a practical roadmap for understanding quantum information, emerging technologies, and real-world quantum computing applications across industries.Quantum computing is shifting from scientific laboratories to the commercial sector. There is substantial investment in this technology by educational institutions and government organizations, and new software tools are also making quantum computing easy to program. As more people develop an interest in the subject, there are many books available on the market to guide people through theory and practice.These include books that discuss fundamental principles without requiring any mathematical knowledge, as well as books dedicated to programming, algorithms, cybersecurity, or machine learning. This list contains 10 of the most helpful books available on the topic.Best Quantum Computing Books at a GlanceFrom beginner guides to advanced technical references, these books explain quantum computing clearly and practically.Also Read: Best Quantum Computing Predictions for the Next Decade1. Quantum Computing for Everyone – Chris BernhardtDifficulty: BeginnerThis book is probably one of the easiest books to begin with. Chris Bernhardt uses simple English to explain concepts like qubits, superposition, and entanglement. The mathematics involved in the book is kept to an elementary level to make it easy for even beginners to comprehend. It would be useful to both students and businessmen, and everybody else interested in the concept of quantum computing.Buy Now 2. Dancing with Qubits – Robert SutorDifficulty: Beginner to IntermediateThis book is authored by Robert Sutor, an ex-IBM employee. This book develops knowledge gradually, starting from classical computation, proceeding to quantum mechanics, circuits, and algorithms. The recent edition of this book also discusses the aspects of quantum machine learning and quantum computation. People with some technical knowledge will find this book more relevant.Buy Now 3. Quantum Computing: An Applied Approach – Jack HidaryDifficulty: IntermediateJack Hidary blends theoretical knowledge with hands-on programming. This book teaches the reader about Google’s Cirq software and delves into issues such as quantum computer hardware, optimization algorithms, and real-life uses. It is suitable for programmers, engineers, and anyone else wishing to learn more about quantum computing.Buy Now4. Programming Quantum Computers – Eric Johnston, Nic Harrigan and Mercedes Gimeno-SegoviaDifficulty: IntermediateThe central theme of this book is learning through code. The reader gets to design quantum circuits, experiment with quantum teleportation, the Quantum Fourier Transform, and Shor’s algorithm through real-world scenarios. Any individual who knows how to program can benefit from this book to learn quantum computing.Buy Now5. Quantum Computer Science – N. David MerminDifficulty: AdvancedThis book on quantum computing is targeted at the university level. The book discusses quantum computing concepts using a computer science approach and explains topics such as quantum circuits, algorithms, and quantum information with rigorous mathematics.Buy Now6. Introduction to Classical and Quantum Computing – Thomas WongDifficulty: Beginner to IntermediateThomas Wong compares classical and quantum computing throughout the book, helping readers understand how the two systems differ. Exercises and worked examples make it suitable for classroom learning as well as self-study. Its recent publication also reflects many developments in the field.Buy Now7. Learn Quantum Computing with Python and IBM Quantum – Robert LoredoDifficulty: Beginner to IntermediateReaders who prefer learning by doing may enjoy this guide. Using Python and IBM's Qiskit platform, Robert Loredo explains circuit design, quantum algorithms, and cloud-based quantum computers through practical coding exercises. The book works well for developers who want to write and test quantum programs.Buy Now8. Quantum Machine Learning – Peter WittekDifficulty: AdvancedThe book highlights the relationship between quantum computing and artificial intelligence. The book discusses topics such as quantum neural networks, feature spaces and machine learning algorithms. This book will appeal to those who have an understanding of both machine learning and quantum mechanics.Buy Now9. Post-Quantum Cryptography – Daniel J. Bernstein, Johannes Buchmann, and Erik DahmenDifficulty: AdvancedQuantum computers have the capacity to break today’s cryptography algorithms. This book will describe cryptography techniques that are resistant to quantum attacks and also discuss post-quantum concepts. This book is suitable for cybersecurity practitioners and researchers interested in the emerging area of quantum computing.Buy Now10. Understanding Quantum Technologies (2025 Edition) – Olivier EzrattyDifficulty: Intermediate to AdvancedThis is an open-access guide that addresses almost all aspects of the industry of quantum technologies. Computing, communications, sensors, hardware, software, startups, and public policy issues are addressed in more than 1,500 pages. Instead of being read cover to cover, the guide functions as a reference for those interested in certain topics.Buy NowWhich Book Should You Choose?Your choice depends on your experience and learning goals.Beginners: Quantum Computing for Everyone and Introduction to Classical and Quantum Computing.Programmers: Programming Quantum Computers and Learning Quantum Computing with Python and IBM Quantum.Intermediate Learners: Dancing with Qubits and Quantum Computing: An Applied Approach.Researchers: Quantum Computer Science, Quantum Machine Learning, and Post-Quantum Cryptography.Business Professionals: Understanding Quantum Technologies offers a broad view of the industry.Final ThoughtsQuantum computing is still an emerging field; however, educational materials on it have become much better during the last several years. It is always an effective idea to start from basic concepts to comprehend more complicated ones later. Whether your focus is programming, security, artificial intelligence, or business, these books could be an excellent choice for starting.Also Read: How We Selected the Top Quantum Computing Books Worth Reading in 2026FAQ’s:1. What are the best quantum computing books for beginners in 2026?For beginners, Quantum Computing for Everyone by Chris Bernhardt and Introduction to Classical and Quantum Computing by Thomas Wong remain leading choices. They explain qubits, superposition, and quantum algorithms using accessible language with minimal mathematical prerequisites.2. Which quantum computing books are best for programmers?Developers should consider Programming Quantum Computers and Learn Quantum Computing with Python and IBM Quantum. Both emphasize hands-on coding with modern quantum software frameworks, helping readers build, simulate, and test quantum circuits through practical exercises.3. Are there books focused on post-quantum cryptography?Yes. Post-Quantum Cryptography, edited by Daniel J. Bernstein, Johannes Buchmann, and Erik Dahmen, remains a foundational reference. It explains cryptographic methods designed to resist attacks from future quantum computers and is valuable for cybersecurity professionals and researchers.4. Which book offers the most comprehensive overview of the quantum technology industry?Understanding Quantum Technologies (2025 Edition) by Olivier Ezratty provides one of the most comprehensive industry references. It covers quantum computing, communications, sensing, hardware, software, startups, market trends, and policy, making it valuable for technology professionals and decision-makers.5. Why is learning quantum computing important in 2026?Quantum computing is gaining momentum through advances in hardware, software, cloud-based quantum platforms, and enterprise research. Understanding its principles helps students, developers, researchers, and business leaders prepare for emerging applications in optimization, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and scientific discovery.Join our WhatsApp Channel to get the latest news, exclusives and videos on WhatsApp

Why Does Tokenization Depend on Policy Choices? Policy decisions on money, market infrastructure, and legal frameworks will determine whether tokenization strengthens or fragments the financial system as assets move onto shared digital ledgers, IMF Monetary and Capital Markets Director Tobias Adrian said. The issue is no longer limited to faster payments or programmable assets. Adrian said the migration of financial assets and liabilities onto common ledgers can compress execution, clearing, and settlement into simultaneous software-driven processes. That shift could make markets faster and more efficient, but it also changes where risk sits inside the financial system. Instead of being concentrated mainly on the balance sheets of traditional intermediaries, risks could shift toward platforms, code, and market infrastructure providers. That makes governance, resilience, cybersecurity, and legal clarity central to the next stage of tokenized finance. The policy challenge is that tokenization can create both integration and fragmentation. Shared ledgers may reduce operational frictions and settlement risk, but weak interoperability or inconsistent legal treatment could trap liquidity across platforms and create new fault lines between markets. What Forms of Money Will Settle Tokenized Assets? Adrian identified 3 main settlement assets emerging in a tokenized economy: tokenized bank deposits, stablecoins, and tokenized central bank reserves. Each carries different implications for banks, regulators, issuers, and market users. Tokenized deposits preserve existing banking frameworks while allowing atomic settlement and more efficient liquidity management. They could help banks connect payments, client settlement, and treasury functions on shared ledgers. But continuous settlement also creates a greater need for real-time liquidity support, especially when markets operate outside traditional business hours. Stablecoins offer programmability and global reach, but their strength depends on reserve quality, liquidity, and issuer resilience. Their role in tokenized markets could expand quickly, especially in cross-border payments and digital asset settlement, but regulators remain focused on whether stablecoin issuers can maintain parity with other forms of money during stress. Tokenized central bank reserves would remove credit risk from settlement assets, but they would also require central banks to operate or oversee programmable infrastructure beyond traditional payment systems. That would place monetary authorities deeper inside the technical layer of financial markets. Investor Takeaway Tokenization is not only a technology upgrade. It changes the structure of settlement, liquidity, and market risk. The key question for investors is whether future systems are built around interoperable, legally clear infrastructure or fragmented platforms with uneven safeguards. How Could Banks and Capital Markets Change? Adrian said tokenization is more likely to alter banks than eliminate them. Tokenized deposits could keep banks central to money creation and settlement while changing how payments, collateral, and treasury operations function. Tokenized lending could also embed interest accrual, collateral requirements, and risk controls directly into smart contracts. Capital markets face a similar transition. Tokenized securities can combine issuance, trading, settlement, custody, and compliance into integrated workflows. That could reduce counterparty risk and shorten settlement cycles, but it would also increase demand for continuous liquidity and automated margin management. “Collateralized markets may be among the earliest beneficiaries,” Adrian wrote. “High-quality assets can be mobilized quickly and across platforms. But when infrastructure becomes the central hub, governance failures become systemic events.” That warning is central to the IMF’s view. Tokenization may improve the speed and efficiency of collateral movement, but it also makes infrastructure providers more important. If a shared ledger, smart contract system, or platform governance process fails, the impact could spread quickly across connected markets. What Are the Main Risks for Regulators? Permissioned shared ledgers could concentrate activity on fewer platforms. That may improve liquidity and operational efficiency, but it also raises the stakes for cybersecurity, operational resilience, crisis management, and oversight of infrastructure providers. Interoperability is another major concern. If tokenized platforms cannot communicate safely and efficiently, liquidity may become trapped in separate systems. That would weaken one of tokenization’s main benefits and could reintroduce settlement and liquidity risks through technical bottlenecks. Instant, around-the-clock settlement also challenges market structures built around business-day cycles. Liquidity backstops may need to operate directly on tokenized infrastructure, while supervisors may need tools that monitor smart contracts and automated settlement processes in real time. Legal systems will also have to clarify ownership rights, settlement finality, and jurisdictional standards. Without clear rules, tokenized assets may move faster than courts, regulators, and market participants can resolve disputes. Investor Takeaway The biggest investment implication is infrastructure risk. Tokenized markets may reduce some traditional frictions, but they can create new dependencies on code, platform governance, and legal recognition across jurisdictions. Why Does This Matter for Emerging Markets? For emerging and developing economies, tokenization could lower cross-border payment costs and improve access to financial markets. Shared ledgers may make it easier to move assets, settle transactions, and connect local markets to global liquidity. But the same technology could also accelerate capital movement and currency substitution. If privately issued global stablecoins become widely used, weaker domestic monetary systems may face pressure as users shift toward digital dollar-linked assets for payments and savings. That makes domestic regulation and international coordination essential. Countries that build clear frameworks for tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and market infrastructure may be better placed to capture efficiency gains while limiting financial stability risks. The IMF’s message is that tokenization is not inherently stabilizing or destabilizing. Its impact depends on policy design. Done carefully, it can improve settlement, collateral mobility, and market access. Done unevenly, it can fragment liquidity, concentrate operational risk, and move systemic stress into infrastructure that regulators are still learning how to supervise.

Silver just spent the first half of 2026 swinging from record highs to a sharp crash. So what happens next?

Trump's affinity for strongmen leaders made him an admirer of Erdogan, who amassed power in Turkey as its prime minister and in his 13th year as president.

The BNB news cycle just shifted from price charts to real adoption numbers. BNB Chain now handles more tokenized stock volume than Solana, Ethereum bounced off its worst quarterly streak in history, and SOL gained 16% in one week. Capital is moving, but the biggest returns will not come from coins already worth billions. This […]Read the full article on TechBullion.

Why Is Revolut Removing USDT? Revolut has notified some users that it will delist Tether’s USDt stablecoin in August, citing regulatory and risk considerations as major fintech platforms continue adjusting crypto access under tighter stablecoin rules. According to a customer notice, users will no longer be able to buy USDT from July 6, with full delisting scheduled for Aug. 31, 2026. USDT deposits will stop being supported after July 30, 2026, and any incoming USDT transfers after that date will be rejected. Users who still hold USDT at the end of August will have their balances automatically converted into their base currency at the day’s exchange rate. That structure gives customers a withdrawal or sale window, but it also makes clear that Revolut does not intend to support residual USDT balances after the cutoff. The company did not identify a specific regulatory framework behind the decision. It cited “regulatory and risk considerations” without saying whether the delisting applies globally or only in certain jurisdictions. How Does MiCA Shape The Stablecoin Market? The timing places Revolut’s move inside a broader European shift after the rollout of the Markets in Crypto-Assets framework. Several crypto platforms began removing USDT from European offerings in 2024 as MiCA stablecoin requirements changed the operating environment for issuers and crypto asset service providers. Revolut received a MiCA license as a crypto asset service provider in November 2025, with authorization issued by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission, according to the European Securities and Markets Authority register. That status increases the importance of aligning its crypto product list with European regulatory expectations. The central issue is Tether’s decision not to comply with MiCA. USDT remains the largest stablecoin in global crypto trading, but European service providers face a different calculation: whether continuing to support the token creates regulatory, operational, or customer-risk exposure under the new framework. For platforms such as Revolut, stablecoin access is no longer only a product decision. It is part of licensing, compliance, reserve transparency, and customer protection controls. Removing USDT may reduce legal risk, but it can also affect user choice, liquidity, and the range of dollar-linked instruments available inside the app. Investor Takeaway Revolut’s USDT delisting shows how MiCA is reshaping stablecoin distribution even without a direct ban on the token. The pressure is moving through licensed platforms, which must decide whether supporting non-compliant stablecoins is worth the regulatory risk. What Does This Mean For Tether And USDC? Tether has criticized MiCA’s stablecoin rules, especially reserve requirements that apply to some issuers and require part of their reserves to be held with EU credit institutions. Chief executive Paolo Ardoino has argued that the framework is poorly designed, saying in a May 2025 interview, “I think it’s a very not well thought legislation.” That stance has left USDT exposed to gradual removal from regulated European crypto platforms. The effect is not necessarily a global threat to Tether’s scale, but it could weaken USDT’s position in markets where MiCA-licensed firms become the main distribution channel for retail and fintech users. USDT remains the third-largest crypto asset by market capitalization after bitcoin and ether, with a market value of about $184 billion. Its closest stablecoin rival, Circle’s USDC, has a market capitalization of about $73 billion and ranks as the fifth-largest crypto asset. The market split is important. USDT continues to dominate global offshore liquidity and exchange trading. USDC, by contrast, has benefited from a stronger compliance profile in regulated markets. Revolut’s decision adds to that divide, pushing European-facing fintech users toward stablecoins and fiat rails that fit more easily within the new rulebook. How Could Users And Exchanges Be Affected? For Revolut users, the immediate impact is operational. They must sell, withdraw, or accept automatic conversion of any remaining USDT before the Aug. 31 deadline. Users receiving USDT after July 30 will also need to make other arrangements because Revolut will reject incoming transfers after that date. For exchanges and fintech firms, the move reinforces a broader compliance template. Platforms that hold MiCA authorization or serve European users may face pressure to reassess stablecoin listings, especially where issuers have not aligned with the regulation. The risk for USDT is not a sudden loss of global dominance. It is a gradual narrowing of regulated access points in Europe and other jurisdictions that may use MiCA as a reference model. If large consumer apps, brokers, and exchanges remove USDT, stablecoin liquidity could become more fragmented by region. For institutional adoption, the message is clear. Stablecoins are becoming part of regulated payments and brokerage infrastructure, not just trading tools. That raises the standard for issuer compliance, reserve design, and platform due diligence. Revolut’s delisting shows that in regulated markets, stablecoin scale alone may no longer be enough to keep a token listed.

Child development expert Siggie Cohen, who has worked with over 5,000 families, shares one communication mistake she sees parents make every day. Here's why she says it can backfire, when to set clear boundaries and how to use questions more effectively.

A U.S. government entity paid about $1 million to keep stolen files from being leaked, according to a new case study by Rakesh Krishnan for Ransom-ISAC, built on a leaked negotiation chat and the blockchain trail the payment left. The odd part: the group that took the money calls itself Kairos, but it may not be a ransomware gang at all. Krishnan found no sign that it ever locked a single

EURUSD rose last week, boosted by a softer-than-expected NFP report, which reduced pressure on the Fed to hike rates. Is the pair's 2026 slide over, though? Read in our latest Elliott Wave analysis. To access this article you need to have an active subscription The post Elliott Wave Analysis of EURUSD – July 6th, 2026 appeared first on EWM Interactive.

Macron and Modi are courting tech CEOs as France and India seek AI data center investment and cloud infrastructure.

Official disclosures show extraordinary crypto income. Reuters estimates at least $2.3 billion in Trump-family crypto profits. Outside investors lost billions. Meanwhile, the same administration reshaped crypto policy, dismantled parts of the enforcement architecture and pardoned prominent crypto figures. This is no longer a “bad optics” story. It is a systemic conflict-of-interest case. By FinTelegram | Financial Intelligence & Compliance Report | 4 July 2026 Executive Warning Let us begin with the distinction that matters. FinTelegram is not alleging that Donald Trump has been convicted of bribery, market manipulation, insider trading or a criminal quid pro quo in connection with his family’s crypto ventures. He has not. The White House denies conflicts of interest. Trump says he is not involved in managing his finances. World Liberty Financial rejects allegations of misconduct in its dispute with major investor Justin Sun. And Trump’s latest annual financial disclosure was certified by an ethics official as compliant with applicable laws and regulations, subject to the filing’s comments. But that is precisely why this case is so disturbing. The Trump crypto story exposes a compliance architecture in which legal formalities, presidential exemptions, private token economics, foreign capital, regulatory discretion and political power coexist inside one extraordinarily profitable ecosystem. From a financial-crime and governance perspective, this is a nightmare. The Hard Number: Crypto Has Become a Presidential Profit Engine On 30 June 2026, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics made President Donald Trump’s certified annual financial disclosure available. The filing covers 2025 and runs to 927 pages. Reuters calculated that Trump reported more than $1.4 billion in income from crypto-related ventures, making digital assets his dominant disclosed income source for the year. Reuters further estimates that the Trump family has generated at least $2.3 billion in profits from crypto ventures since Trump returned to the presidency. The official filing itself contains numbers that would trigger an emergency conflicts review in almost any serious financial institution. Among them: CIC Digital LLC, linked to NFT and meme-coin licensing, disclosed approximately $635.1 million in royalties from a licensing agreement involving Celebration Coins. Trump-linked World Liberty structures disclosed $236.25 million in net proceeds from token-sale distributions in one entry, alongside multiple additional crypto-wallet distributions. A Trump-linked entity disclosed $65.625 million in net proceeds from a sale of equity in WLF Holdco. Another Trump-linked structure disclosed $196.875 million in net proceeds from capital contributions and Class C units connected to Stablecoin Holdco. The disclosure also identifies a wallet holding 15.75 billion World Liberty governance tokens, valued in the filing at more than $50 million. These are not numbers invented by political opponents. They sit inside the President’s own official disclosure architecture. And they produce the central compliance question of this report: How can the head of the U.S. executive branch remain the economic beneficiary of a crypto empire operating in the very sector his administration regulates, supervises, prosecutes, de-prosecutes and politically promotes? 1. The Scandal Is Not One Payment. It Is the Architecture. A conventional corruption investigation looks for a payment and a favor. The Trump crypto ecosystem is more difficult — and, from a compliance perspective, potentially more dangerous — because the conflict is structural. Trump entered his second presidency while retaining economic exposure to business interests placed into trust arrangements. His official disclosure identifies the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust and states that Trump is its sole beneficiary in connection with major holdings. Reuters reported that while Trump’s children oversee the businesses, the President remains the beneficiary of assets receiving income. At the same time, the Trump administration pursued a sweeping pro-crypto agenda. The administration issued its January 2025 digital-assets executive order, created a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile, and Trump signed the GENIUS Act establishing a federal framework for payment stablecoins. The SEC created a dedicated Crypto Task Force and subsequently dismissed multiple inherited crypto-enforcement cases; the Justice Department dismantled its National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team and narrowed crypto-prosecution priorities. None of those actions is automatically improper. A president is entitled to pursue crypto-friendly policy. Regulators are entitled to change enforcement priorities. Congress is entitled to legislate. The compliance problem is the simultaneous private economic exposure. The President was not merely an ideological supporter of an industry benefiting from his policies. His own disclosure now shows that crypto was generating extraordinary income for structures connected to him. That distinction is devastating. A bank would not accept the argument that a senior executive may decide policy affecting a market while remaining the beneficial owner of businesses generating hundreds of millions from that same market because “the strategy is good for the industry.” That is not a control. That is the absence of a control. 2. Reuters Found the Brutal Asymmetry: The Family Wins, Investors Lose A major Reuters investigation published on 9 June 2026 examined four Trump-family crypto complexes: World Liberty Financial, the $TRUMP meme coin, ALT5 Sigma — now AI Financial Corp. — and American Bitcoin. Reuters concluded that the Trump family generated at least $2.3 billion in profit from these ventures while more than one million outside investors had accumulated approximately $2.3 billion in net losses by the end of April 2026. The news agency’s methodology used corporate filings, blockchain data, market prices and transaction analysis. Companies and representatives challenged aspects of the methodology, including the treatment of realized and unrealized losses. That symmetry is almost too extraordinary to believe: Trump family: approximately $2.3 billion profit.Outside investors: approximately $2.3 billion net loss. This does not prove fraud. But it is a screaming investor-fairness red flag. Reuters found a recurring economic pattern: the Trump family often contributed little or no identifiable personal capital to the ventures while receiving exceptionally favorable token-sale economics, licensing income or equity interests. In its World Liberty analysis, Reuters said the disclosed arrangement directed the lion’s share of specified token-sale proceeds toward Trump-linked interests; it estimated Trump-family World Liberty earnings above $1.4 billion under its methodology. World Liberty disputes the characterization of WLFI as a conventional investment and has challenged Reuters’ loss analysis. This is where FinTelegram’s compliance assessment becomes severe. A politically connected sponsor with privileged economics, minimal downside and enormous upside is already a related-party risk. A sponsor whose ultimate beneficiary is the sitting President of the United States is a PEP-risk event of the highest conceivable order. 3. World Liberty Financial: The Ultimate Related-Party Conflict? World Liberty Financial is not merely another crypto startup with a celebrity endorsement. It sits at the intersection of: a sitting U.S. President; his family; token investors; stablecoin economics; foreign counterparties; a regulatory administration controlled by that President; and an application by a related World Liberty entity for a U.S. banking charter. Reuters reported that World Liberty’s disclosed economics allocated 75% of specified net token-sale revenues to a Trump-linked entity under the relevant arrangements. The President’s own 2026 disclosure records hundreds of millions of dollars across World Liberty-related token distributions, equity-sale proceeds and stablecoin-holding structures. From a compliance perspective, three questions follow immediately: First: Who were the ultimate beneficial owners behind the largest token purchases and capital contributions? Second: Which buyers were foreign PEPs, sovereign-linked entities, state-backed funds, sanctioned-risk counterparties or persons with pending regulatory interests before the U.S. government? Third: What controls ensured that presidential policy decisions were insulated from the economic interests of the President as beneficiary? The public record does not provide satisfactory answers to all three. And in compliance, opacity plus political power plus private financial benefit is not neutrality. It is risk concentration. 4. The Justin Sun Case Is More Important Than It Looks Justin Sun is not a conventional retail victim. He is a billionaire crypto entrepreneur, founder of the Tron ecosystem and a sophisticated market participant. That makes the World Liberty dispute more revealing, not less. Sun became one of World Liberty’s most important financial backers. Reuters reported that he initially purchased $45 million of WLFI tokens, later accumulated a portfolio of roughly four billion tokens, and had become publicly associated with the project. Then the relationship exploded. In April 2026, Sun sued World Liberty Financial in federal court in California. He alleged that the venture had illegally frozen his WLFI holdings, stripped voting rights and secretly introduced mechanisms capable of restricting token transfers. His lawsuit also alleged that World Liberty threatened to “burn” his holdings. World Liberty rejected the claims as meritless and alleged misconduct by Sun. In May 2026, World Liberty countersued, accusing Sun of defamation and improper token activity; it said its ability to freeze tokens had been disclosed in the Terms of Sale. The dispute remains contested. FinTelegram makes no finding on which party will prevail. But the compliance issue is brutal: How can a politically connected token venture retain extraordinary economic benefits for insiders while apparently possessing — according to the parties’ own dispute — mechanisms capable of freezing a major investor’s assets? Sun alleges secret and unilateral control. World Liberty says the contractual power was disclosed and that Sun’s conduct justified action. Either way, a sophisticated compliance framework should require: predefined and transparent freeze criteria; independent decision-making; documented evidentiary thresholds; separation between commercial disputes and financial-crime controls; an appeals mechanism; conflict checks; and board-level oversight independent of economically interested insiders. The central point is not that Justin Sun deserves sympathy. Investor fairness is not reserved for sympathetic investors. And the identity of the ultimate politically exposed beneficiary makes arbitrary or selectively enforced restrictions especially dangerous. 5. The Sun Sequence Creates a Separate Regulatory-Integrity Red Flag The Justin Sun story contains another uncomfortable layer. The SEC sued Sun and related entities in 2023, alleging unregistered crypto-asset offerings, manipulative wash trading and undisclosed celebrity promotion. Sun denied wrongdoing. After Trump returned to office, the SEC litigation was paused while the parties explored resolution. In March 2026, the matter was resolved through a settlement involving a $10 million payment, without admissions of wrongdoing. Meanwhile, Sun had become a major financial backer of the Trump family’s World Liberty venture, with his investment reportedly rising to $75 million. Let us be precise. There is no publicly established proof that Sun’s World Liberty investment caused the SEC pause or settlement. FinTelegram does not allege such a quid pro quo as fact. But any competent anti-bribery or public-integrity officer would flag the sequence for enhanced review: Major investment into a sitting President’s family-linked venture → pending federal enforcement exposure → change in administration → enforcement pause → later settlement. The compliance question is not whether a prosecutor can already prove corruption beyond reasonable doubt. The compliance question is whether the arrangement creates an unacceptable appearance of purchased influence. It plainly does. And the later collapse of the Sun–World Liberty relationship makes the architecture even stranger: a major investor whose regulatory position generated enormous conflict concerns ultimately became an adversary alleging unfair treatment by the very venture he helped finance. That is not governance. That is a case study. 6. The $5 Million “Super Node” Problem: When Access Becomes a Product In March 2026, Reuters reported that World Liberty had developed a so-called Super Node structure under which participants locking up approximately $5 million in tokens could receive preferential access to business-development personnel and executives. Reuters reported that earlier materials identified Trump family members on World Liberty’s team page before changes were made; World Liberty said the program did not promise access to government officials or members of the Trump family and rejected suggestions of improper influence. Again, the compliance issue lies in the architecture. Under the relevant revenue economics reported by Reuters, a $5 million token purchase could indirectly generate substantial proceeds for Trump-linked interests. Reuters calculated that, under the 75% arrangement, approximately $3.75 million of such a purchase could flow toward Trump-family-linked economics. Now place that beside the identity of the ultimate beneficiary. The President of the United States. Even without any explicit promise of government access, this structure creates extreme pay-to-play optics. For a PEP-screening team, the question would be obvious: Why is a commercial crypto structure connected to a sitting President selling a premium tier whose attraction includes privileged access while the President remains economically exposed to the ecosystem? “Trust us” is not an adequate answer. 7. The $TRUMP Dinner: A Global, Pseudonymous Access Market The $TRUMP meme coin added an even more spectacular conflict. In 2025, top holders of the token were offered access to a dinner involving Trump. Reuters reported that investors spent roughly $148 million acquiring the coin in pursuit of attendance and that the top 25 participants accounted for more than $111 million in holdings under its analysis. Justin Sun emerged as the largest publicly identified holder associated with the event. This was not a normal campaign fundraiser operating under ordinary donor-disclosure rules. It was a globally tradable crypto asset. That distinction creates an extraordinary AML and foreign-influence problem because token holders can participate through wallets, intermediaries and exchanges across multiple jurisdictions. Reporting at the time identified substantial international participation and raised questions about the identities behind major positions. The compliance nightmare is obvious: A financial asset linked to presidential private economics can simultaneously function as a mechanism through which large holders compete for proximity to the President. Whether technically lawful or not, this is precisely the kind of structure a serious institution would classify as critical PEP, influence-trading and source-of-funds risk. 8. Foreign Money: The UAE–MGX–USD1–Binance Triangle The foreign-influence dimension may be the most dangerous part of the entire case. In May 2025, the Abu Dhabi-backed investment firm MGX announced that it would use World Liberty’s USD1 stablecoin for a $2 billion investment in Binance. MGX later said it selected USD1 after evaluating relevant factors and that Binance had requested the use of crypto. Reuters reported that the transaction placed a Trump-linked stablecoin at the center of one of the largest crypto deals of the period. The surrounding context is extraordinary. Binance had previously pleaded guilty in the United States to failures involving anti-money-laundering controls and paid approximately $4.3 billion in penalties and forfeiture. Founder Changpeng Zhao, known as CZ, pleaded guilty to violating U.S. anti-money-laundering requirements, served a prison sentence and later received a presidential pardon from Trump in October 2025. Binance, CZ’s lawyers and MGX denied that the USD1 transaction was connected to the pardon, and Reuters said it could not establish such a connection. That denial matters. So does the sequence. A Trump-family-linked stablecoin facilitates a $2 billion transaction involving Binance. The Trump administration controls federal executive power. The President later pardons Binance’s convicted founder. No proven quid pro quo has been established. But from a compliance perspective, that is not the end of the analysis. It is the beginning. Any bank seeing such a sequence involving an ordinary foreign PEP would launch an enhanced review covering: ultimate beneficial ownership; source and destination of funds; sovereign links; regulatory requests; pending criminal matters; lobbying contacts; intermediary relationships; and any direct or indirect benefit to the PEP. Why should the standard be lower because the PEP is the President of the United States? 9. The Reported UAE Equity Deal Raises the Stakes Again The Wall Street Journal reported in early 2026 that a UAE-linked investor group had agreed to invest $500 million for a 49% interest in World Liberty, with the transaction linked to Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s orbit. The Washington Post also reported on the transaction and its conflict implications. U.S. lawmakers subsequently called for scrutiny, including a CFIUS review. The White House and World Liberty rejected suggestions of improper conduct. Trump’s official 2026 disclosure does not publicly identify the counterparty in the relevant entries, but it records $196.875 million in proceeds connected to capital contributions and Class C units in Stablecoin Holdco and $65.625 million in net proceeds from an equity sale involving WLF Holdco structures. Those figures are noteworthy, although FinTelegram does not claim the public filing alone proves the identity of the payer. This is exactly why beneficial-ownership transparency is indispensable. When foreign sovereign-linked money can enter a venture economically benefiting a sitting President, the absence of full counterparty transparency becomes a national compliance problem. 10. The Pardon Pattern Cannot Be Ignored Trump did not merely promise the crypto community a friendlier regulatory environment. He delivered symbolic and concrete interventions. On 21 January 2025, Trump granted a full and unconditional pardon to Ross Ulbricht, founder of the Silk Road marketplace. The pardon fulfilled a prominent campaign commitment to parts of the crypto and libertarian communities. In March 2025, Trump pardoned BitMEX figures including Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo, Samuel Reed and Gregory Dwyer following criminal cases involving Bank Secrecy Act and AML-control failures. In October 2025, he pardoned Changpeng Zhao, the Binance founder whose conviction arose from failures to maintain an effective anti-money-laundering program. A President has constitutional pardon power. Exercising it is not automatically corrupt. But the compliance context is unprecedented: the same President and his family were simultaneously building a multi-billion-dollar private crypto fortune. That creates a profound problem of regulatory moral hazard. When the political authority promoting an industry, changing enforcement priorities and pardoning major industry figures is also the economic beneficiary of a crypto empire, every discretionary act becomes contaminated by the conflict question. That is not partisan rhetoric. That is basic governance analysis. 11. The OGE Certification Does Not Solve the Problem — It Exposes It Here is perhaps the most intellectually important point. Trump’s 2026 financial disclosure contains an ethics certification stating that, based on the information in the report, the filer was in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, subject to comments. The filing also records a 45-day extension and late filing fees relating to transactions not previously reported on periodic transaction reports. Critics should not hide that certification. FinTelegram highlights it. Because it reveals the real scandal: The American legal framework may be too weak to treat the President like the conflicted PEP he plainly is. Reuters quoted former acting OGE head Don Fox explaining that presidents and vice presidents are outside the ordinary statutory conflict regime that applies to executive-branch employees, and that previous presidents generally managed conflicts as though they were constrained by such norms. This produces what FinTelegram calls the Presidential Compliance Paradox: A structure can be formally disclosed and survive existing legal rules while remaining completely unacceptable under serious financial-sector conflict-of-interest standards. That distinction is essential. Legal compliance is a floor. It is not proof of ethical integrity. It is not proof of investor fairness. It is not proof of regulatory independence. And it certainly is not proof that a conflict does not exist. FinTelegram Compliance Risk Matrix Risk DimensionRatingFinTelegram AssessmentConflict of Interest10/10 – CriticalPresident remains economically exposed to an industry directly affected by executive policyPEP / Foreign Influence Risk10/10 – CriticalForeign and sovereign-linked counterparties interact with Trump-linked crypto structuresRegulatory Independence10/10 – CriticalPolicy, enforcement priorities and private economic exposure coexistInvestor Fairness9/10 – CriticalReuters identified extraordinary sponsor/investor asymmetry; Justin Sun dispute intensifies concernRelated-Party Governance10/10 – CriticalFamily structures receive exceptional economics while ultimate beneficiary holds public powerAML / Source-of-Funds Transparency9/10 – CriticalGlobal token purchases and wallet structures complicate beneficial-owner visibilityPay-to-Play / Access Risk10/10 – CriticalMeme-coin dinner and premium-access structures create unprecedented monetized-access opticsMarket-Conduct Risk9/10 – CriticalPolitically branded tokens, asymmetric economics and massive investor losses demand independent reviewAnti-Bribery / Quid-Pro-Quo Appearance10/10 – CriticalMultiple sequences would trigger EDD in any serious PEP environmentProven Criminal LiabilityNot EstablishedPublic evidence reviewed does not prove a criminal quid pro quo by Trump Overall FinTelegram Rating: RED / CRITICAL — 9.7 out of 10 This rating is an analytical compliance judgment, not a criminal verdict. The FinTelegram Verdict: This Structure Is Indefensible Our conclusion is severe. Donald Trump’s crypto empire represents one of the most extreme conflict-of-interest structures ever attached to a modern democratic head of government. The problem is not that Trump supports crypto. The problem is not that his children do business. The problem is not even that he is rich. The problem is the closed loop: Private crypto profit → presidential policy power → weakened enforcement pressure → pardons and regulatory discretion → foreign and industry money → token appreciation and transaction income → more private crypto profit. Not every arrow in that loop proves causation. But together they create an architecture no serious compliance officer should approve. Reuters’ June 2026 investigation places the economic asymmetry in brutal numerical terms: at least $2.3 billion in estimated Trump-family crypto profits against approximately $2.3 billion in net losses among more than one million outside investors at the examined date. Three weeks later, Trump’s own official disclosure confirmed that crypto-related ventures had generated more than $1.4 billion in reported 2025 income for the President. This is no longer about “optics.” It is about whether a democracy can permit its head of government to remain economically exposed to a speculative financial ecosystem while his own administration determines that ecosystem’s regulatory weather. A compliance officer approving an equivalent structure for a bank CEO would likely be called before the board within hours. The President of the United States should not be held to a lower standard. What a Serious Compliance Remediation Would Require FinTelegram believes a credible remediation framework would require, at minimum: First, genuine divestment or a genuinely independent qualified blind trust. A revocable family trust in which the officeholder remains the economic beneficiary is not equivalent to economic separation. Second, mandatory documented recusals. Decisions materially affecting crypto regulation, enforcement targets, stablecoins, banking charters or counterparties with business links to Trump-family ventures should be subject to an independently published conflict process. Third, complete beneficial-owner transparency for major token buyers and strategic investors. Particularly for foreign PEPs, sovereign-linked entities and persons with matters pending before U.S. authorities. Fourth, an independent World Liberty conflicts committee. No token freeze, burn, restriction or exceptional investor action involving a major holder should be controlled solely by economically interested insiders. Fifth, forensic disclosure of related-party economics. Token-sale allocations, licensing arrangements, stablecoin reserve economics, equity transfers and promotional compensation should be independently audited. Sixth, a regulator firewall. Any agency action involving a material Trump-family counterparty should receive independent ethics review. Without such controls, the system rests on personal assurances. And personal assurances are not compliance. Call for Information Do you have information about Trump-linked crypto ventures, World Liberty Financial, USD1 reserve economics, major WLFI buyers, foreign investors, beneficial owners behind strategic transactions, token-freeze mechanisms, regulatory contacts or related payment flows? FinTelegram welcomes confidential information from insiders, compliance officers, financial institutions, investors, regulators and counterparties. Submit information securely through Whistle42. Documents, wallet addresses, transaction records, internal emails, contracts and compliance assessments are particularly valuable. Share Information via Whistle42 Editorial note: This report is based on official U.S. financial disclosures, regulatory and government records, court-related reporting and investigations by established news organizations, including Reuters. Allegations are identified as allegations. Analytical conclusions are FinTelegram’s own.

Prediction Markets Still Count as Binary OptionsThe European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) said on 3 July that products marketed as “event contracts” may still fall under the EU’s ban on binary options for retail clients, regardless of how they are branded. The statement was directed at both firms and national competent authorities and comes amid growing global interest in prediction markets and increased retail participation.ESMA describes event contracts as agreements with a binary outcome, offering either a fixed payout or nothing depending on the result of a future yes-or-no event. However, the regulator noted that not all event contracts qualify as financial instruments. Their classification depends on whether the underlying question relates to areas covered under MiFID II.Meanwhile, prediction markets exceeded $50 billion in monthly trading volume for the first time in June, a 75% jump from May, according to Artemis data, driven in part by event-based demand during the FIFA World Cup. Kalshi led the market with about $33 billion in volume, while Polymarket handled $14 billion across its international platform and newly launched US-regulated exchange. Rothera, backed by Robinhood, contributed approximately $2 billion.Plus500 targets prediction marketsStill with the prediction markets, Plus500 expanded its US prediction markets offering by adding CFTC-regulated sports event contracts. It marked another step in its broader push into the fast-growing retail trading segment. The London-listed firm has been steadily building its presence in this space, positioning itself as part of the infrastructure supporting the category’s growth. The broker now offers Kalshi’s sports-based contracts, including markets on the NFL, NBA, and MLB, through its Plus500 Futures platform, its US retail brand. The rollout follows its February launch of prediction market contracts covering economic, financial, and geopolitical events, also powered by Kalshi.ASIC warns crypto perps evade CFD rulesAustralia’s corporate regulator has warned that crypto perpetual futures are expanding faster than the country’s regulatory framework. These leveraged contracts, which have no expiry date, offer exposure similar to contracts for difference (CFDs) but are typically sold to Australian users through offshore platforms beyond the regulator’s direct oversight. ASIC said perpetual futures and CFDs are increasingly similar in structure, as both provide leveraged exposure to assets without ownership and operate on margin. The key difference lies in how they are structured: CFDs are over-the-counter products where providers set terms such as fees and margin, while perpetual futures use a funding rate mechanism exchanged between long and short positions.cTrader restricts US prop firm access after reviewSeveral US retail prop trading firms have recently revised their onboarding policies to stop offering cTrader accounts to new clients in the country. The changes have been introduced gradually over the past few months, effectively limiting access to the platform for US-based traders. Firms including The5ers, FundedNext, and Goat Funded Trader have implemented such restrictions. The5ers updated its guidelines in June to make cTrader available only to non-US clients, while FundedNext has blocked new cTrader accounts for US users since March and now directs them to Match-Trader. Goat Funded Trader made a similar move in April, offering alternatives such as Match-Trader, TradeLocker, and Volumetrica to its US clients.South Africa’s ODP rules drive out foreign brokersElsewhere, South Africa’s Over-the-Counter Derivatives Providers (ODP) license registry shows a notable shift among non-bank firms. Of the 70 entities listed, four have surrendered their licences, while 26 withdrew their applications altogether. IG Group, one of the more prominent entrants, established operations in the country but later exited completely, highlighting a broader trend of foreign brokers pulling back from the market.Industry participants point to the Financial Sector Conduct Authority’s (FSCA) strict regulatory framework as a key factor. ODP licence holders face high operating costs, tighter supervision, and increased audit and compliance obligations. According to SALVUS Funds Managing Director Nikolas Xenofontos, the cost of maintaining an ODP licence has become significantly elevated. Requirements include maintaining a physical office with staff, dedicated compliance and accounting functions, appointed key individuals, and at least three locally based executive directors.FCA eases stablecoin rules after backlashThe UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has revised its proposed stablecoin rules, cutting the capital requirement for issuers from 2% to 1%. The change follows sustained industry criticism, with David Geale, the FCA’s head of payments and digital finance, acknowledging that the original threshold may have been too high for current market conditions. In addition to lowering the capital buffer, the FCA has eased its approach to redemption timelines and public disclosure requirements. The updated framework is scheduled to come into force in October 2027.CMC Markets lands Everton shirt sponsorshipCMC Markets has signed a multi-year agreement to become the main partner of Everton Football Club. As part of the deal, the company will serve as the front-of-shirt sponsor for Everton’s senior men’s, women’s, and under-21 teams. Its branding will also be displayed at Hill Dickinson Stadium, Goodison Park, and Finch Farm, as well as across the club’s matchday and digital platforms. The partnership is part of CMC Markets’ broader strategy to expand awareness of its financial services beyond traditional trading. The company said it aims to reach long-term investors, active traders, and institutional clients through its investing, trading, and wealth offerings.Shares in CMC Markets surged about 23% to around 570 pence on Wednesday, hitting a record high after the London-listed broker upgraded its annual profit forecast. The rally pushed the stock above its previous peak of 559 pence, set in April 2021 during the pandemic-driven trading boom.Brokers rethink engagement in post-bonus marketBrokers have long relied on aggressive marketing and bonus-driven incentives to attract new clients, a strategy that delivered strong growth but left them exposed to regulatory and market shifts. That approach is now becoming less viable as stricter regulations, increased scrutiny, and ongoing margin pressure reshape the industry, forcing firms to move away from many of their traditional growth tactics. At the same time, acquiring new clients has become more difficult and expensive due to tighter rules and advertising restrictions on major online platforms. In response, brokers are shifting their focus from rapid acquisition to long-term client retention. Success in the current environment depends more on building meaningful relationships and delivering consistent value, rather than relying on short-term incentives. This has led firms to rethink their engagement strategies, placing greater emphasis on relevance, trust, and sustainable growth.Autochartist evolves into oneZero’s engagement layer after acquisitionLastly, more than a year after oneZero completed its acquisition of Autochartist, the integration is beginning to show clear results. While the two firms initially appeared to operate in different parts of the capital markets technology stack, their combined offering is proving complementary, strengthening the overall product suite as integration progresses. Autochartist brings over 15 years of experience in automated analytics and signal generation, transforming real-time market data into actionable insights for financial institutions. oneZero, in contrast, has built its position as an enterprise-grade trading infrastructure provider, offering pricing, connectivity, liquidity distribution, and risk management solutions at the core of operations for brokers, banks, and liquidity providers worldwide.Fed’s new test, SpaceX’s biggest betFinancial markets reacted cautiously earlier this year when Donald Trump nominated Kevin Warsh to succeed Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve chair. Warsh, a former Fed governor, had long been on Trump’s radar and was widely expected to align more closely with the administration’s views on interest rates—unlike Powell, who had faced public criticism from Trump for not cutting rates quickly enough. Warsh has been a vocal critic of the central banking system, calling for what he described as a “regime change” and arguing that inflation risks had not been taken seriously enough. However, his reputation as a policy hawk—typically associated with higher interest rates—appears to contrast with Trump’s preference for lower rates, creating some uncertainty over the direction of future monetary policy.Executive moves of the week: Pepperstone, IG, and Crypto.comPepperstone appointed Reed Sayer as its new Head of UK, where he will be responsible for leading growth strategy, managing client relationships, and supporting the company’s expansion in the region.At IG Group, Chief Operating Officer Jody Dunn will step down later this year after nearly 24 years with the company. Her departure marks the end of a long tenure that saw her rise from the sales desk to one of the firm’s most senior operational roles.Meanwhile, Crypto.com executive Karl Mohan left the exchange after almost five years. He most recently served as Executive Vice President of Financial Services and General Manager International. This article was written by Jared Kirui at www.financemagnates.com.

The upcoming week will bring a fresh test for major currency pairs as investors return from the US Independence Day holiday and continue to digest weaker US labor market data.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has filed an application under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) to obtain a bankruptcy order against Mr. Harry Stinson and appoint a trustee over his assets. This application follows Mr. Stinson’s failure to pay the financial sanctions and costs ordered by the Capital Markets Tribunal on December 15, 2023, which includes over $13 million in disgorgement and $600,000 in administrative penalties. Mr. Stinson was sanctioned by the Tribunal after the OSC proved he, and his companies, failed to comply with Ontario securities law when raising funds from investors for a hotel renovation project in Buffalo, New York. Since the 2023 ruling, the OSC has provided Mr. Stinson with reasonable opportunities to comply with the order after he claimed funds may become available to repay investors if he were able to refinance and then restore, re-open, and potentially sell the Buffalo Grand Hotel. The refinancing for the hotel never materialized. In 2025, Mr. Stinson applied to vary the sanctions and costs order, but the Tribunal dismissed his application. In December 2025, the City of Buffalo commenced a process to have the Buffalo Grand Hotel deemed abandoned, based on the property being subject to an order to vacate, overdue real property taxes, and zoning and safety code violations. Following the news in May 2026 that the City of Buffalo is continuing the process to have the hotel deemed abandoned after a further financing deal proposed by Mr. Stinson fell through, the plan to reopen the hotel remains incomplete and uncertain. Mr. Stinson has been unable to demonstrate a viable path toward making investors whole, and addressing the sanctions ordered against him. As such, today’s application for a bankruptcy order is necessary to try to resolve this long running case and potentially obtain disgorgement amounts that could be distributed to harmed investors. A public hearing is scheduled for September 23, 2026. A court will decide whether to appoint a trustee to assume control of Mr. Stinson’s assets. The mandate of the OSC is to provide protection to investors from unfair, improper or fraudulent practices, to foster fair, efficient and competitive capital markets and confidence in the capital markets, to foster capital formation, and to contribute to the stability of the financial system and the reduction of systemic risk. Investors are urged to check the registration of any persons or company offering an investment opportunity and to review the OSC investor materials available at www.osc.ca. Background: Mr. Harry Stinson is a resident of Hamilton, Ontario and a real estate broker and property developer. In 2023, the Capital Markets Tribunal ordered sanctions   against Stinson and corporate respondents, including disgorgement of over $13 million and a $600,000 administrative penalty. The Tribunal found that Mr. Stinson illegally distributed securities by not filing a prospectus, while also failing to segregate investor funds, failing to maintain accurate records of funds received from investors, and failing to properly record the use of investors’ funds. Mr. Stinson also admitted to making false or misleading statements to investors. In 2025, Mr. Stinson brought an application   to vary the sanctions order which was dismissed by the Capital Markets Tribunal. In December 2025, as reported in the media, the City of Buffalo announced its plans to seize the hotel due to the property being subject to an order to vacate, unpaid taxes and fees, and other violations. In April 2026, Mr. Stinson said he had secured financing for the sale of the hotel – this financing arrangement then collapsed, as reported on in May 2026. The OSC’s website contains a public list of individuals or companies with unpaid administrative penalties, disgorgement orders and costs, and any applicable interest, ordered against them in enforcement proceedings.