Why Is Visa Testing SBC on Canton? Visa and Brale have started a proof-of-concept to test stablecoin-based institutional settlement using SBC, a U.S. dollar-backed token issued by Brale, on the Canton Network. The collaboration is designed to evaluate whether privacy-enabled blockchain infrastructure can support institutional payment flows while giving financial institutions and payment companies more control over what transaction data is visible. That matters because settlement between regulated firms often requires speed and automation without exposing sensitive commercial details across a shared network. Visa plans to assess SBC as another stablecoin option for institutional settlement use cases. Native support on Canton will allow the companies to test the token across payment flows that require programmability, privacy controls, and operational reliability. The project reflects a wider shift in stablecoin usage. Dollar-backed tokens are no longer being assessed only as crypto trading instruments. Large payment companies are now examining whether they can function as settlement assets inside regulated financial infrastructure, especially where traditional settlement systems remain slow, fragmented, or costly across borders. Why Do Privacy Controls Matter for Settlement? Institutional settlement has different requirements from public crypto transfers. Banks, payment firms, asset managers, and corporate treasury teams may need shared settlement rails, but they also need to limit visibility into counterparties, transaction amounts, liquidity movements, and commercial relationships. The Canton Network is built around privacy-enabled blockchain infrastructure, making it relevant for tests where institutions want programmability without fully public transaction exposure. For Visa and Brale, the proof-of-concept will test whether SBC can support faster and programmable settlement while preserving tighter control over sensitive data. "Through our work with Brale, we’re exploring how SBC on the Canton Network can support institutional settlement use cases that require both programmability and privacy controls," Cuy Sheffield, Visa's Head of Crypto, said in the release. "This collaboration helps us evaluate what it takes to bring these capabilities into production environments." The wording is important because the test is not being framed as a retail payment experiment. It is aimed at production-grade institutional settlement, where compliance, privacy, and reliability are central requirements before any broader rollout. Investor Takeaway Visa’s SBC test shows stablecoin settlement is moving deeper into institutional infrastructure. The key issue is not only whether stablecoins can move funds faster, but whether they can do so with privacy controls and compliance features large financial firms require. How Does This Fit Visa’s Stablecoin Strategy? Visa has been expanding its stablecoin settlement work since first enabling stablecoin settlement in 2021. The company said its stablecoin settlement pilot reached a $7 billion annualized run rate as of April, up 50% from the prior quarter. The pilot now spans 9 blockchains, including Arc, Base, Canton, Polygon, Tempo, Avalanche, Ethereum, Solana, and Stellar. That range shows Visa is not placing its stablecoin strategy on a single network. Instead, the company is testing how different blockchain environments can support settlement across varied institutional and payment use cases. SBC adds another layer to that strategy because it brings Brale’s dollar-backed token into a network designed for privacy-sensitive financial activity. For Visa, the test can help determine whether stablecoins can support settlement flows that require both programmable payments and restricted data visibility. Visa said it believes stablecoins can become a scalable next-generation settlement layer for global payments. The proof-of-concept with Brale is one step in testing what that claim looks like inside regulated payment infrastructure rather than in crypto-native markets alone. What Are the Market Implications? The broader stablecoin market is approaching $300 billion in total dollar-pegged token supply. USDT accounts for roughly $188 billion of that total, while USDC ranks second at about $76 billion. That concentration shows that most stablecoin liquidity remains dominated by a small number of issuers. Smaller tokens such as SBC need institutional use cases, network support, and trusted settlement partners to gain relevance. A Visa-backed proof-of-concept does not guarantee adoption, but it gives SBC a clearer role in the institutional settlement discussion. For Brale, the collaboration offers a chance to place SBC in payment infrastructure rather than compete only on exchange liquidity or retail usage. For Canton, the test adds another institutional settlement use case at a time when privacy-enabled blockchain networks are trying to prove they can serve regulated finance. For the wider market, the project points to a more selective stablecoin phase. Institutions are unlikely to treat all dollar-backed tokens the same. Liquidity, issuer controls, network compatibility, privacy features, and compliance design will determine which stablecoins are considered suitable for settlement. The test also shows that payment firms are still building stablecoin capacity even as regulation and issuer competition remain unsettled. Visa’s approach suggests stablecoins are being evaluated less as a standalone crypto product and more as a settlement technology that may sit behind payment flows, treasury operations, and institutional transfer networks.

Continuing expectations of a treaty in the Gulf have been somewhat negative for the greenback. News on 4 June that Israel and Lebanon had agreed a ceasefire seemed to be positive for progress between the USA and Iran with participants in financial markets remaining generally confident that the conflicts will be resolved within the next few weeks. The key data for CFDs on 5 June is the American job report. This article summarises recent news and the context of the American job market then looks briefly at the charts of EURUSD and USDJPY. The latest financial news has been dominated by speculation about SpaceX’s IPO announced late GMT on 3 June. However, for CFDs specifically, oil retreated somewhat while gold bounced on 4 June as participants continued to see the light at the end of the tunnel for the Gulf conflict. With Israel and Lebanon having agreed a ceasefire, one primary sticking block between the USA and Iran might have been removed. However, Hizballah wasn’t consulted about the Israeli-Lebanese agreement and it didn’t give a timeline for the end of Israel’s current occupation of border areas in southern Lebanon.  While traders will continue to monitor major news from the Middle East and the Gulf, they’re also gearing up for 5 June’s NFP. There’s some variation in expectations but overall the consensus is for a somewhat weaker release than last month’s strong data: May’s NFP covering April was the first consecutive positive NFP in more than a year and indicated that the labour market in the USA might be resilient. March’s figure was also revised slightly up to 185,000. The consensus on 4 June was for about 85,000 for the next NFP but the actual release is almost certain to diverge from that one way or the other. While the NFP proper has been more positive in the last couple of months, unemployment has remained more-or-less stable for some time: Unemployment has clearly risen from the average in 2022 and 2023 but doesn’t show any immediate sign of pushing consistently much higher when considered with recent NFPs and demographic factors. A relatively decent job market – or at least certainly not as negative as had been expected in some quarters six months ago – is a positive factor for the Fed, giving it flexibility to hike rates if inflation continues to rise. So far, there’s no immediate urgency for tighter monetary policy given that the worst effects of the Gulf conflict on American inflation now seem unlikely at least for now. The economic pressure on the American government to end the war even with less favourable terms is high. Expectations for the funds rate at the end of the year are about evenly divided between hold (46% according to CME FedWatch) and at least one hike (52%). Between the NFP on 5 June and American inflation the following Wednesday, traders will have plenty to chew on both for short-term movements and where the Fed’s heading. Euro-dollar bounces from support as the NFP approaches Apart from continuing intrigue about a potential agreement in the Gulf, the focus for the euro recently has been on monetary policy. The ECB is nearly certain to hike its main refinancing rate to 2.4% on 11 June. Current expectations suggest a total of 2-3 hikes by the ECB before the end of 2026 while there’s still considerable uncertainty over whether the Fed will hold or hike once. The price bounced again on 4 June from the likely support around $1.16 which coincides with the 23.6% weekly Fibonacci retracement. Volume has been significantly lower in the last few days, which is normal in the context of the upcoming NFP, American inflation and meeting of the ECB. The 50 SMA from Bands around $1.17 is likely to cap gains in the immediate future but each of the other moving averages between there and the current price could also be important. There’s no indication of saturation, so the strength so far of the bounce might suggest further limited gains to come although these would be unlikely to continue if the NFP is again clearly stronger than the consensus. Dollar-yen nearing intervention area again Dollar-yen’s recovery from last month’s intervention has continued in June so far with the price holding around ¥160. The latest intervention by the Japanese authorities was worth over ¥11 trillion but didn’t have any clear, lasting effect in shoring up the struggling yen. Divergence in monetary policy remains a key factor in the yen’s weakness while the Japanese economy’s dependence on imported raw materials also seems to make it more vulnerable to an extension or possible escalation of the Gulf conflict. Participants expect the BoJ to hike to 1% on 16 June despite inflation significantly below target. ‘The trend is (usually) your friend’ but the ongoing direction for dollar-yen seems less certain: another, maybe even larger,  intervention certainly seems possible if the price holds around ¥160 for more than a few days. ¥156.50 is a possible support given that the price failed to break through there in late April and early May amid very long tails of several periods. Although the golden cross of the 20 SMA above the 50 SMA from Bands can probably be ignored in the context, overall a significant retracement without a fundamental narrative remains questionable. Some technical retracement lower is quite likely sooner or later, though, especially if the NFP is weaker than expected, given the strong overbought signal from the slow stochastic, low volume accompanying the bounce over the last month and significantly lower volatility. For the latest analysis, ideas for trading and more, follow Michael on X: @MStarkExness. The opinions in this article are personal to the writer; they do not represent those of Exness. This is not a recommendation to trade.

Why Did Polymarket Resolve The Strategy Market To “No”? Polymarket has finalized a “No” outcome on a disputed market asking whether Strategy would sell any bitcoin by May 31, closing one of the platform’s most closely watched resolution fights after a final review by UMA token holders. The review ended with 98.6% of voting power backing the “No” outcome. The vote upheld previous “No” resolutions that had already been challenged twice, leaving traders divided over whether the market should have been resolved based on when the bitcoin sale occurred or when confirmation became publicly available. The dispute centers on Strategy’s disclosure that it sold 32 BTC for roughly $2.5 million between May 26 and May 31. The sale was revealed in an 8-K filing on June 1 and marked the company’s first bitcoin sale since December 2022. Traders backing a “Yes” resolution argued that the filing confirmed the sale took place before the May 31 deadline. Traders on the other side argued that the confirmation arrived after the market’s time frame, meaning it did not qualify under the platform’s resolution criteria. What Made The Resolution So Controversial? The controversy intensified after Polymarket added a context note on June 1 stating: “Confirmation achieved outside of the market's time frame does not qualify.” That language shifted the dispute from a simple fact question into a rule-interpretation issue. The event did occur before the deadline, according to the later filing. The question was whether the market required the event itself to happen before May 31 or required confirmation to be available within that same window. For prediction markets, that distinction is critical. Event contracts rely on users believing that markets will be resolved according to clear criteria set at listing. If participants think resolution can depend on later clarification, oracle discretion, or timing rules that are not obvious before trading, the market’s pricing function weakens. Trader backlash spread across social media after the repeated “No” outcome. Some users circulated the “PolyScam” hashtag, arguing that the resolution punished traders who correctly predicted the underlying event. Others said UMA voters were bound to follow the rules as written once Polymarket added the clarification. Investor Takeaway The dispute is not only about Strategy’s 32 BTC sale. It exposes a larger risk in prediction markets: traders need to price real-world outcomes, but payouts can depend on wording, oracle process, and the timing of public confirmation. Why Does Oracle Governance Matter For Prediction Markets? Polymarket uses UMA to resolve disputed markets, giving token holders a role in deciding contested outcomes. That structure gives the platform a decentralized review layer, but it also places major responsibility on the wording of each market and the incentives of voters interpreting that wording. One trader known as “willo2” wrote before the final vote that UMA voters had no choice but to honor the platform’s own rules. “Even if UMA voters think that this outcome is ridiculous... they are forced to ratify it,” the trader said. “This is because UMA is forced to respect the rules as written by Polymarket. Polymarket changed the rules, and now the outcome is literally in the rules.” The trader claimed to have lost $500,000 after Polymarket allegedly kept the market open for betting on June 1, prompting large “Yes” bets. Another trader, 0xDinosaur, said the market should resolve based on the actual transaction rather than the timing of disclosure and later issued a legal “notice of dispute and demand for review” to the platform. “My position was aggressive, and maybe I was greedy,” 0xDinosaur wrote. “But risk-taking does not change the facts, and it does not allow a platform to apply an unclear or unwritten rule after real money has already been placed.” The arguments show why oracle governance is becoming a central part of prediction market risk. A market can attract liquidity and still face a trust problem if traders believe the final outcome depends on interpretation rather than a deterministic trigger. What Are The Regulatory Implications? The dispute comes as prediction market platforms face growing regulatory attention in the United States. Event contracts are already under review because they sit between derivatives trading, gambling rules, political markets, and retail speculation. Resolution integrity is likely to become part of that regulatory debate. If platforms want broader institutional acceptance, they will need stronger standards around market wording, evidence sources, cut-off times, dispute windows, and post-listing clarifications. Galaxy Research described the core issue as whether the original event-based rules or the later confirmation-based clarification should govern the market. “Traders correctly predicted the future. The platform is about to tell them they were wrong anyway,” it wrote. The firm also said prediction markets should price what happens rather than how an oracle may reinterpret rules after the fact. It called for clearer fixes, including locked criteria at listing, deterministic resolution for verifiable events, and structural changes before deeper regulatory oversight. For Polymarket and other platforms, the lesson is direct. Liquidity alone is not enough. Prediction markets need rule clarity before trading starts, a consistent approach to public information, and dispute systems that users see as neutral. Without that, even a technically valid resolution can damage confidence in the market structure behind it.

Senator Cynthia Lummis told journalist Eleanor Terrett that a Senate floor vote on the CLARITY Act is more likely before the August recess than before the July 4 break. The comments came days after the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act was added to the Senate Legislative Calendar, a procedural step that allows the full chamber to consider the bill. Multiple Bills Still Need Merging Lummis explained that several pieces of legislation must be combined before a final text reaches the floor. Lawmakers need to merge the Banking Committee's version, the Agriculture Committee's version, separate ethics provisions, and certain changes tied to the GENIUS Act stablecoin bill. Reaching agreement on the combined text and securing the 60 votes required for cloture could take longer than initially anticipated, she said. The bill was added to the Senate Legislative Calendar in late May. Senate leaders have not yet announced a date for formal debate or a floor vote. Lummis acknowledged that Congress has moved legislation quickly before but noted that completing this process before the July recess may prove difficult given the number of outstanding amendments. Support Builds From Security Officials and Developers "We have several things to deal with," Lummis told Terrett, referring to the scale of remaining work. Outside Congress, support for the legislation has widened.  The Blockchain Association disclosed that 160 former intelligence, defence, and law enforcement officials signed a letter urging Senate leaders John Thune and Chuck Schumer to advance the bill.  A newly launched political action committee called Defend Developers has begun advocating for legal protections for U.S.-based crypto software engineers within the act's final text. Analysis: The August Deadline Raises The Stakes If the Senate misses the August recess window, the CLARITY Act faces a compressed fall calendar crowded by appropriations battles and midterm positioning. The bill's path already narrowed after JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon publicly attacked both the legislation and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong during a CNBC interview this week.  Lummis fired back on the same network, rejecting Dimon's claim that the bill lacks adequate anti-money laundering safeguards. The public clash between a sitting senator and the country's largest bank CEO signals that opposition from traditional finance remains a live risk even as bipartisan support grows. Dimon Criticism Draws Sharp Response Dimon had argued the bill could let crypto firms offer deposit-like products without bank-level protections. He also claimed it failed to address Bank Secrecy Act requirements. Lummis rejected that reading and said AML and BSA obligations already apply to digital assets and are explicitly included in the legislation. Developer protections have also become a significant point of negotiation between Republicans and Democrats as the final text takes shape. What’s Next The next milestone is whether Senate leaders schedule floor debate before the July 4 recess or, as Lummis now expects, after it. The August recess begins in early August, leaving a narrow window for the 60-vote cloture threshold. Passage before that deadline would make the CLARITY Act the first comprehensive U.S. crypto market structure law.

Arthur Hayes' investment firm Maelstrom predicted Worldcoin's WLD token could reach $5 by August, roughly 900% above its current price of $0.50.  Maelstrom researcher Lukas Ruppert called WLD the most underpriced crypto proxy for the approaching wave of artificial intelligence IPOs, according to a post on X. AI IPO Filings Set The Backdrop The call arrives as two of the largest private AI companies move toward public markets. OpenAI filed its IPO prospectus with the SEC on May 22, targeting a September 2026 debut with a potential valuation of up to $1 trillion.  Anthropic followed by filing its own draft prospectus, after announcing on May 28 that a fresh $65 billion funding round valued it at $965 billion. U.S. equity markets have reached record highs this week, driven partly by AI and memory-storage stocks. WLD, the native token of Sam Altman's digital identity and financial network, trades at roughly a $2 billion unlocked market capitalisation. Short Overhang Creates a Setup "The AI mega IPOs are coming, and it appears the market has overlooked one of the cleanest proxies," Ruppert wrote. He described WLD's depressed price as partly mechanical. Worldcoin raised $65 million in an over-the-counter token sale in March, with $25 million locked for six months.  Buyers hedged by shorting WLD on perpetual futures markets, creating what Ruppert called a "textbook short overhang." He identified two potential catalysts to unwind that pressure. Eightco, a publicly traded firm that has accumulated 283 million WLD tokens, holds roughly $144 million in cash that could fund further purchases. Separately, Worldcoin's daily token unlock schedule is set to drop by 43% on July 24. Analysis: Valuation Gap Carries Real Asymmetry Maelstrom's thesis rests on a simple comparison. OpenAI and Anthropic aim for valuations measured in hundreds of billions to a trillion dollars. WLD, the only liquid token directly tied to an OpenAI co-founder, trades at a $2 billion unlocked market cap.  If even a fraction of the speculative capital chasing AI exposure rotates into WLD, the impact on a small-cap token would be outsized. The 43% reduction in daily unlocks on July 24 removes a structural selling force at the same time AI IPO excitement is set to peak. That combination of reduced supply and a narrative catalyst is the core of the asymmetric case Maelstrom outlines. WLD Already Moving The token has already responded to the shift in attention. WLD surged roughly 60% over the past week, making it the best-performing asset in the top 100 tokens by market capitalisation. "WLD doesn't move often, but when it does, it moves aggressively," Ruppert noted.  "Capital is aggressively chasing Anthropic and OpenAI exposure," he added, describing WLD's current valuation as an "asymmetric upside" opportunity relative to the scale of the incoming AI listings. What’s Next The next key dates are July 24, when Worldcoin's daily unlock rate drops by 43%, and September, when OpenAI targets its public market debut. Whether WLD sustains its rally depends on continued inflows from traders seeking AI proxy exposure and on whether Eightco deploys its $144 million cash reserve into further accumulation.

Bitcoin has lost its status as the market's preferred momentum trade, according to Jim Ferraioli, Director of Digital Currencies Research and Strategy at Charles Schwab. The asset has fallen more than 16% over the past month while the S&P 500 gained 5% during the same period. AI Stocks and IPOs Pull Capital Away Ferraioli told CoinDesk that Bitcoin has effectively traded in a bear market since reaching its all-time high in October. He argued the asset failed to recapture speculative interest even after spot ETF approvals and growing institutional participation throughout the past year.  "Bitcoin has been in a bear market since October," Ferraioli said. "Not to say it's as simple as that, but it's kind of simple as that." The strategist pointed to artificial intelligence as the dominant narrative now absorbing speculative capital.  Companies tied to AI infrastructure and data centre expansion have posted strong returns. OpenAI filed its IPO prospectus with the SEC on May 22, targeting a September 2026 debut. SpaceX is reportedly preparing an offering that could value it at up to $1.8 trillion. "Crypto investors historically just go wherever the momentum is," Ferraioli noted. "And momentum is out of crypto at the moment." ETF Outflows Confirm Weakening Demand Fund flow data underscored the shift. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $483 million in net outflows on June 2, extending an 11-session withdrawal streak that removed more than $3.4 billion from the products. BlackRock's IBIT ETF saw a $1.26 billion off-exchange block transaction on May 26. Research firm NYDIG described that trade as a large investor rapidly reducing exposure rather than unwinding a hedge-fund basis trade. Separate analysis from Binance Research linked Bitcoin's underperformance to a capital rotation into AI, semiconductor, defence, and energy equities. The firm described those flows as creating a "capital black hole" that leaves fewer funds available for digital assets. Analysis: The Momentum Gap Exposes A Structural Weakness Ferraioli's framing highlights a vulnerability Bitcoin bulls rarely discuss. The asset's value proposition leans heavily on narrative momentum rather than cash flows or earnings. When a competing narrative delivers stronger returns, as AI stocks have in 2026, capital rotates quickly.  Platforms like Hyperliquid now offer synthetic exposure to pre-IPO companies, creating new speculative venues that did not exist in prior Bitcoin cycles. That structural change means Bitcoin competes for attention not just with equities but with an expanding universe of tokenized speculation. Retail Still Drives The Market Ferraioli cautioned against overestimating institutional adoption. "Again, this is primarily a retail asset," he said. That distinction helps explain why positive regulatory developments, including potential progress on the CLARITY Act, have not translated into higher prices. Summer seasonality may add further drag, as trading volumes have historically weakened during the warmer months. What’s Next Bitcoin's near-term trajectory depends on whether AI and IPO narratives continue to dominate speculative flows. Ferraioli acknowledged that regulation, institutional products, and infrastructure growth remain supportive long-term factors.  "There's a lack of reason to be buying here when there are other things you can choose," he said. The next major data point is the June ETF flow series, which will show whether the $3.4 billion withdrawal trend is accelerating or stabilising.

Large XRP holders sold or redistributed 60 million tokens over the past week, according to on-chain data tracked by analyst Ali Martinez. The sell-off landed as XRP traded near $1.18 on June 4, down more than 5% in 24 hours and sitting at a fresh four-month low. Whale Exits Meet Cooling ETF Demand Martinez cited Santiment data showing the 60 million XRP movement from whale-tier wallets during the first week of June. XRP's 24-hour trading range stretched between $1.14 and $1.24, with volume near $2.9 billion. The token had failed to reclaim the $1.55 resistance zone three weeks earlier and has trended lower since. Spot XRP exchange-traded funds added $131.94 million in net inflows during May, outpacing both Bitcoin and Ethereum products for the month. That streak ended on June 3, when SoSoValue data showed U.S. spot XRP ETFs recorded $5.34 million in net outflows. Bitwise's XRP ETF accounted for roughly $4.06 million of the exit. Grayscale's XRP Trust ETF followed with about $699,400 in withdrawals. Technical Signals Favour Sellers Analyst ChartNerd noted that XRP had printed a two-week 20/50 EMA death cross, a bearish signal that often precedes extended downside moves. "Above the EMA's = uptrend. Beneath the EMA's = downtrend," ChartNerd wrote on X. He flagged $1.32 as the level whose weekly close would mark the lowest of 2026. A break of the Upper Regression Band near $1.35 could open the path toward the Middle Regression Band near $0.84, he added. Analysis: Selling Pressure Compounds at Every Level The convergence of whale distribution, ETF outflows, and a technical death cross creates a rare triple headwind for XRP. May's strong ETF inflows masked weakening spot demand; the token fell throughout the month even as regulated products attracted fresh capital.  That disconnect suggests institutional ETF buyers were hedging or building positions at lower cost bases rather than providing a floor for spot prices. Whale withdrawal volumes from Binance had already dropped to roughly 978 million XRP over 30 days, the lowest reading since 2021. Lower withdrawals typically signal weaker accumulation by large holders. When whales remove fewer tokens from exchanges, it reduces a key demand signal that shorter-term traders watch closely for directional conviction. Broader Market Adds Pressure XRP's decline came alongside a sharp selloff across major crypto assets. Bitcoin dropped toward $61,000 on the same day, while Ethereum traded near its lowest levels since April 2025. The broad risk-off move reduced demand across major altcoins and left XRP tracking the same direction as the wider market. The latest drop pushed XRP close to levels last visited during the early February crash, when the token briefly fell near $1.11 before buyers returned. What’s Next Traders now watch $1.14 and $1.10 as the next major support levels. A rebound above $1.24 would ease immediate bearish pressure. A weekly close below $1.10 could open the path toward $0.84, where the Middle Regression Band sits. XRP remains more than 16% below its price 30 days ago and far from its July 2025 all-time high of $3.65.

Why Did Arthur Hayes Exit HYPE and NEAR? Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX and chief investment officer at Maelstrom, said he has sold his full positions in Hyperliquid and Near Protocol’s native cryptocurrencies, citing macro pressure, energy costs, and expected AI-related initial public offerings. The sales cover 2 tokens Hayes had recently promoted publicly. Hyperliquid’s HYPE token and Near Protocol’s NEAR had both been part of his public market commentary before Thursday’s announcement, making the exits a point of controversy among crypto traders. Hayes said higher energy prices were one reason behind the decision. He linked the pressure to the war in the Middle East and inventory restocking, arguing that higher energy costs could weigh on risk assets such as altcoins. He also pointed to expected AI-related IPOs as a liquidity risk for crypto markets. Hayes cited 3 “mega” AI company listings expected by the early part of the third quarter, saying they could pull capital away from digital assets. While he did not name the companies, Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX are reportedly preparing for public listings this year. How Did AI Risk Shape the Trade? The AI angle matters because Hayes tied part of his sell decision to both liquidity and politics. He predicted that President Donald Trump could take an anti-AI stance to improve Republican chances in the U.S. midterm elections scheduled for Nov. 3. That could create pressure for projects linked to the AI narrative, including Near Protocol, which has positioned itself as an “AI-native” blockchain. The argument is not only about NEAR’s technology. It is about how quickly token narratives can lose support when macro liquidity, political risk, and sector rotation move against them. AI has been one of the strongest market themes across public equities and crypto, but a heavy IPO calendar could compete for investor capital rather than support every AI-linked asset. Hayes also framed the sale as a timing call. “I think highs in markets will happen between now and September,” he wrote. “Time to take profit, and two-step in beefa without worrying about my positions.” That message placed the decision inside a broader risk-management view: taking profits before a possible market peak, rather than holding through a period Hayes sees as vulnerable to macro and liquidity shocks. Investor Takeaway Hayes’ exit shows how fast crypto positioning can change when macro risk rises. The market reaction is not only about HYPE and NEAR. It reflects a wider concern that altcoin rallies remain highly exposed to liquidity shifts, energy prices, and crowded narratives such as AI. Why Did Traders Accuse Hayes of Pumping the Tokens? The backlash came because Hayes had publicly backed both tokens shortly before selling. In an interview published on May 25, he said HYPE’s price was going to go “much, much higher.” He also praised Hyperliquid’s token structure. “One thing [Hyperliquid] did was they fixed the tokenomics … No VC sales, only a team allocation, and pretty much all revenue going back to token holders,” Hayes said. “No other project does this at scale, in terms of the revenue that HYPE generates.” Hayes argued that Hyperliquid had broadened retail access to markets by allowing users to trade and discover prices in traditional assets, including oil, on weekends when conventional exchanges are closed. His comments on NEAR were also strongly bullish. Hayes said NEAR had the potential to rise 20-fold because intents could play a central role in the privacy narrative, allowing users to move money anonymously across multiple networks. He also said ZCash had 5x potential. On May 22, Hayes wrote on X that HYPE, NEAR, and ZEC were the “holy trinity.” After Thursday’s sale announcement, several users criticized him, with some accusing him of a pump-and-dump-style strategy for promoting the tokens publicly and then selling days later. What Does This Mean for HYPE, NEAR and Altcoin Sentiment? The immediate market reaction was sharp. HYPE fell 8.3% over 24 hours to trade at $66.44, while NEAR dropped 17.8% to $2.34. The heavier fall in NEAR shows how quickly AI-linked and narrative-driven tokens can reprice when a prominent supporter exits. For investors, the episode highlights a familiar crypto-market risk: public bullish commentary from influential figures can support sentiment, but it does not guarantee long-term holding behavior. When those same figures reverse course, the market often reacts not only to the sale but to the perceived gap between public messaging and private positioning. Hayes said he would provide more detailed explanations for selling HYPE and NEAR in his next essay, scheduled for June 9. Until then, the market is left with a clear signal that he sees near-term risk outweighing further upside in 2 of the tokens he recently favored. The wider issue is whether altcoin liquidity can absorb similar exits if macro conditions tighten. Higher energy prices, a stronger AI equity pipeline, political risk, and weak risk appetite would all make it harder for speculative tokens to keep momentum. Hayes’ sale does not settle the outlook for HYPE or NEAR, but it does show how vulnerable altcoins remain when narrative conviction meets profit-taking.

Bitcoin's security model relies on a simple assumption: miners will immediately broadcast any valid block they discover to the rest of the network. This allows all participants to work on the same version of the blockchain and ensures that mining rewards are distributed roughly in proportion to each miner's computational power. Selfish mining challenges this assumption. Instead of publishing blocks as soon as they are found, a miner or mining pool intentionally withholds them and reveals them strategically to gain an advantage over honest miners. The attack was first formally described in 2013 and demonstrated that a miner does not necessarily need majority control of the network to earn disproportionate rewards. While selfish mining is difficult to execute successfully, it remains one of the most important concepts in blockchain security because it exposed weaknesses in the incentive structure underlying proof-of-work networks. How Selfish Mining Works Under normal circumstances, a miner who discovers a block immediately broadcasts it to the network. Other miners verify the block and begin mining the next block on top of it. A selfish miner follows a different strategy. When they find a block, they keep it private rather than sharing it with the network. Meanwhile, honest miners continue working on the publicly known chain, unaware that a competing private chain already exists. The selfish miner then attempts to extend this hidden chain. If they discover another block before the rest of the network catches up, they gain a lead of two blocks. This private lead gives the attacker flexibility in deciding when to reveal their blocks. For example, if honest miners eventually discover a competing block, the selfish miner can publish their hidden chain at a strategic moment. Because Bitcoin nodes generally follow the chain with the greatest accumulated proof of work, the attacker's chain may become the accepted version of the blockchain. When this happens, blocks mined by honest participants can become orphaned. These orphaned blocks are valid blocks that do not end up in the main chain and therefore do not earn rewards. The attacker benefits because honest miners have wasted computational resources mining blocks that ultimately contribute nothing to the blockchain. Why Selfish Mining Can Increase Rewards The effectiveness of selfish mining comes from information asymmetry. Honest miners immediately reveal every block they discover, while selfish miners selectively decide when information reaches the network. This allows the attacker to influence which blocks become part of the main chain and which become orphaned. Every time honest miners produce a block that is later discarded, part of the network's mining power has effectively been wasted. As a result, the productive mining power of honest participants decreases relative to the selfish miner. Suppose a mining pool controls 30% of the total network hash rate. Under honest mining, it would be expected to receive approximately 30% of all block rewards over time. Through selfish mining, however, that same pool may earn a larger share because competitors are repeatedly forced to mine blocks that never make it into the longest chain. The strategy therefore allows a miner to earn rewards disproportionate to their actual computational contribution. This is what makes selfish mining fundamentally different from traditional mining optimization techniques. The attacker is not finding more blocks through superior hardware. Instead, they are exploiting the network's consensus rules and propagation delays to improve their share of rewards. The Exact Conditions That Make Selfish Mining Profitable Selfish mining is not automatically profitable. Several specific conditions must exist before the strategy can outperform honest mining. Sufficient Hash Power: Research on selfish mining found that profitability generally emerges when an attacker controls roughly one-third of the network's total computational power. Below this threshold, maintaining a private chain becomes difficult because honest miners catch up too frequently. Strong network connectivity: A selfish miner must be able to distribute blocks quickly when they decide to reveal them. Researchers often describe this using a parameter known as gamma (γ), which measures how many honest miners adopt the attacker's block during a tie between competing chains. A higher gamma value improves profitability because more miners will begin building on the attacker's chain rather than a rival chain. Existence of Propagation Delays: Selfish mining relies on temporary disagreements about the latest valid block. If information spreads instantaneously across the network, opportunities to exploit competing chains become far less common. Large, geographically distributed mining networks naturally create small propagation delays that selfish miners can potentially exploit. Rational Economic Behavior: If other miners recognize selfish-mining activity and modify their strategies, the attacker's advantage may shrink. Improvements in block relay networks and protocol-level defenses can also reduce profitability. Why Selfish Mining Matters for Blockchain Security Selfish mining remains important because it challenged a long-standing assumption about proof-of-work systems. Before its discovery, many believed that a miner needed at least 51% of total hash power to gain a meaningful advantage over the network. The research demonstrated that this was not always true. Under the right conditions, miners controlling significantly less than half of the network's computational power could still earn rewards beyond their fair share. Although widespread selfish mining has not become a major issue in Bitcoin, the concept influenced years of blockchain research. Developers began focusing more closely on incentive design, block propagation efficiency, and consensus mechanisms that discourage strategic withholding. The attack highlighted that blockchain security depends not only on cryptography and computational power but also on ensuring that honest behavior remains the most profitable option. Conclusion Selfish mining is a strategy in which miners deliberately withhold newly discovered blocks and reveal them strategically to gain a reward advantage over honest participants. Rather than increasing computational power, the attacker profits by causing competitors to waste resources on blocks that later become orphaned. The strategy becomes profitable only under specific conditions, including a substantial share of network hash power, favorable network connectivity, propagation delays, and the ability to win blockchain races during temporary forks. Under typical assumptions, profitability begins around one-third of total network hash power, though strong propagation advantages can lower that threshold. More importantly, selfish mining revealed that blockchain security is deeply connected to economic incentives. It showed that even without majority control, miners may be able to benefit from deviating from honest behavior, making incentive alignment a critical component of secure blockchain design. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) What is selfish mining?Selfish mining is a strategy where a miner withholds newly discovered blocks and releases them strategically to gain a larger share of mining rewards. Does selfish mining require 51% of the network's hash power?No. Under favorable conditions, selfish mining can become profitable with significantly less than 50% of the network's total hash rate. How does selfish mining differ from a 51% attack?A 51% attack relies on majority control of the network, while selfish mining exploits block withholding and propagation delays to earn disproportionate rewards. What is gamma in selfish mining?Gamma represents the fraction of honest miners that choose the attacker's chain during a tie between competing blockchains. A higher gamma increases profitability. Is selfish mining a major threat to Bitcoin today?Large-scale selfish mining has not become a significant issue on Bitcoin, but the concept has influenced improvements in blockchain incentive design and block propagation.

Clearwater Analytics has introduced three AI enabled products for institutional investment workflows, built on the same investment data foundation used across more than $10 trillion in global assets. The products extend the Clearwater platform across operations, risk, and private markets, with a focus on data quality, audit trails, and control. The launch includes Clearwater Compass, Total Portfolio Oversight, and Fund Analytics. Sandeep Sahai, Chief Executive Officer at Clearwater Analytics, said, “Every firm in this industry wants AI that works. What firms are discovering is that AI is only as good as the data it runs on. Clearwater was built around a trusted investment record. That allows firms to bring AI directly into the workflows that drive investment operations, risk, and portfolio oversight.” Clearwater Compass Targets Operations And Accounting Clearwater Compass adds AI to investment operations and accounting workflows. The product targets exception management, reconciliation transparency, and close processes, areas where institutional investors often rely on spreadsheets, email chains, and manual checks. The first Compass features available are Smart Suspense and Recon Transparency. Smart Suspense automates the match and categorization of unapplied cash, while Recon Transparency gives clients live visibility into reconciliation breaks processed by Clearwater. Lisa Widdowson, Head of Product, Insurance and Asset Owners at Clearwater Analytics, said, “When reconciliations, exceptions, and close workflows are connected directly to the investment record, firms can move faster while maintaining the controls institutional investors expect.” Blackstone Developed Product Adds Risk View Total Portfolio Oversight was developed with Blackstone and is now live in production. The product gives investment and risk teams one shared view across public and private assets. The solution combines portfolio oversight, risk exposure, shock analysis, and direct portfolio query tools. Clearwater said the product is now in expansion to a selected group of institutional beta clients. The launch follows Clearwater’s acquisition activity across investment management technology. Clearwater completed the acquisition of Enfusion and also added Beacon and Bistro, assets that deepened its reach across portfolio management, risk analytics, modeling, and private markets data. Private Markets Data Moves Into Focus Fund Analytics extends Clearwater’s platform into private markets, where reports from general partners, capital statements, PDF files, spreadsheets, and manual processes still create data gaps for investment teams. The product uses AI to extract, validate, and structure fund data across exposures, performance metrics, and portfolio data. Clearwater said investment teams can use the product for earlier visibility into portfolio changes, look through exposure, peer comparison, and scenario analysis. The announcement comes as Clearwater works through a wider corporate shift. The company agreed to an $8.4 billion acquisition by an investor group led by Permira and Warburg Pincus, with Temasek and Francisco Partners also part of the deal. The AI product launch shows how Clearwater is using its investment record as the base for workflow automation rather than presenting AI as a separate tool. For institutional investors, the practical test will be whether these products reduce manual breaks, improve audit visibility, and make private markets data usable without adding another layer of operational risk.

Why Are Israel’s Crypto Tax Disclosures Underperforming? Israeli taxpayer disclosures of cryptocurrency profits have reportedly fallen far short of expectations after the Israel Tax Authority introduced a policy offering immunity from criminal proceedings to eligible filers who correct past reports. Authorities had expected the voluntary disclosure program to bring in up to $1 billion in taxable crypto gains. So far, the tax authority has received reports covering only about $50 million in crypto capital, a small fraction of the expected amount. The weak response shows the limits of voluntary tax compliance in digital asset markets. Crypto holders may be willing to regularize their tax status when the process is clear, low-risk, and final. But when a disclosure program lacks anonymity at the first stage or leaves taxpayers uncertain about their exposure, the incentive to come forward can weaken sharply. The program is also operating in a market where many holders may believe enforcement risk remains manageable. If taxpayers do not expect authorities to identify undeclared crypto profits, immunity from criminal proceedings may not be enough to overcome concerns about opening past activity to review. What Are The Terms of The Voluntary Disclosure Policy? The voluntary disclosure procedure gives crypto holders immunity from criminal charges if they meet several conditions. The value of their holdings must not have exceeded the equivalent of $522,000 as of December 2024, they must file correct reports, and they must pay the required taxes in full before Aug. 31, 2026. Only 58 filers have reportedly attempted to correct their taxes under the procedure. That number is low relative to the size of Israel’s crypto market and suggests the policy has not yet created enough certainty for taxpayers who previously failed to report digital asset gains. The low participation rate also points to a design problem. Voluntary disclosure programs depend on trust between taxpayers and authorities. If filers believe the process may expose them to wider audit risk or does not offer enough confidentiality before acceptance, participation can remain limited even when legal immunity is available. “In the cryptocurrency field, the difficulty of the absence of an anonymous track is even more acute,” said Iftach Simhony, a CPA and head of the tax department at the Prof. Bein Law Office. “When the risk assessment of some taxpayers is not high, and the procedure itself does not offer certainty or anonymity in the first stage, the incentive to undergo voluntary disclosure is weakened.” Investor Takeaway Israel’s crypto tax shortfall shows that enforcement design matters as much as tax policy. A voluntary program can offer legal protection, but weak anonymity, unclear risk limits, and low perceived enforcement pressure can keep taxpayers on the sidelines. Why Does This Matter For Crypto Regulation? The disclosure gap highlights a broader regulatory challenge for governments trying to tax digital assets. Crypto markets create taxable gains, but enforcement depends on transaction visibility, platform reporting, banking links, and the ability to connect wallet activity to taxpayers. Israel’s case is especially relevant because the country has already identified crypto taxation as a revenue opportunity. According to the Bank of Israel’s financial stability report for January to June 2024, Israelis held about $1 billion worth of crypto assets. Against that backdrop, reports of only $50 million in disclosed crypto capital suggest that a large portion of the market may still sit outside clear tax reporting. The policy also reflects a common tension in crypto oversight. Governments want to bring past activity into compliance without launching enforcement campaigns that are costly, politically sensitive, or difficult to prove. Taxpayers, meanwhile, weigh the benefit of immunity against the risk of disclosing information that could expose them to further scrutiny. For exchanges and crypto service providers, stronger tax enforcement could eventually mean heavier reporting duties and closer coordination with banks and regulators. For individual holders, the direction is clear: tax authorities are trying to move crypto profits into the same compliance perimeter as other financial assets, even if the current disclosure program has not delivered the expected results. How Does This Compare With The U.S. Crypto Tax Debate? The Israeli approach differs from recent proposals in the U.S., where lawmakers have looked at reducing compliance burdens for small crypto transactions. Members of Congress introduced the PARITY Act in May, which would direct the Internal Revenue Service to review creating a de minimis exemption for digital assets. Under that proposed framework, taxpayers could not be forced to report small crypto transactions. The goal is to avoid treating every minor crypto payment or transfer as a full tax-reporting event, which critics argue makes everyday digital asset use impractical. The contrast is important. Israel is trying to draw undeclared crypto profits into the tax system through voluntary disclosure and criminal immunity. The U.S. proposal focuses on narrowing reporting duties for small transactions while keeping larger taxable activity within the system. Both approaches show that crypto tax policy is moving beyond simple capital gains treatment. Regulators are now dealing with practical questions: how to identify taxpayers, how to reduce friction for small users, how to tax larger gains, and how to prevent digital assets from becoming a long-term blind spot in national tax systems. Israel’s weak disclosure numbers suggest that voluntary compliance alone may not be enough. Without stronger certainty for filers or stronger detection risk for non-filers, crypto tax programs may continue to produce results well below official expectations.

Goldman Sachs has launched a blockchain-native real estate fund built with Apex Group, Archax, LRC Group, and Ownera, putting fund shares directly on-chain in one of the clearest moves yet to bring an illiquid asset class into regulated tokenized structures. The fund tokenizes its shares using GS DAP, Goldman Sachs' blockchain platform, with the partners handling administration, custody, and distribution. Apex Group, which services more than $3.5 trillion in assets and has spent the past year scaling its own tokenized-fund infrastructure, framed the launch as evidence that managers and investors want blockchain-native products that sit inside existing regulatory frameworks. How The Goldman Sachs Fund Is Structured Apex Group provides Alternative Investment Fund Manager services through Fundrock LIS, fund administration and depositary services of assets other than financial instruments through Apex Fund Services Luxembourg, and bank account services through EDB. Those roles support the issuance, servicing, and lifecycle management of the fund units within a regulated framework. LRC Group acts as manager of the fund. Archax serves as custodian for the regulated digital securities and as the first distribution partner. Ownera's interoperability infrastructure handles connectivity between participants and distribution channels. The structure pairs blockchain-native issuance with established fund models, a design meant to improve operational efficiency and transparency while enabling potential future transferability and preserving governance and regulatory oversight. Agnes Mazurek, Global Head of Digital Assets at Apex Group, tied the firm's role to rising demand for blockchain-native solutions that work within existing regulatory frameworks, calling real estate a natural starting point and pointing to the structure as proof that on-chain issuance can fold into established fund models without weakening governance or investor protections. Why Real Estate, And Why Now Real estate has lagged other asset classes in tokenization, particularly on scalable distribution and ongoing servicing, two challenges the partners say the structure addresses. Apex Group's platform handles onboarding, transaction processing, investor servicing, and regulatory reporting across jurisdictions. The wider category of tokenized real-world assets passed $25 billion earlier this year as institutions moved from pilots into live issuance. Goldman Sachs cast the launch as part of a longer arc for its digital assets business. Mathew McDermott, Global Head of Digital Assets at Goldman Sachs, described this saying: "Issuing blockchain native fund units on GS DAP enables investment in real estate assets with precision while unlocking more seamless transferability in the future." The fund extends a run of tokenization work running through GS DAP, which the bank has positioned as the core of its digital assets strategy and plans to spin out as an independent, industry-owned platform. That work already ran through a July 2025 collaboration with BNY to tokenize money market fund records, with participation from BlackRock, Fidelity Investments, and Federated Hermes.

Coinbase froze more than $3 million in cryptocurrency tied to Southeast Asian fraud syndicates as part of a US Department of Justice (DoJ) operation that pulled major technology firms into a coordinated strike against scam networks draining billions from American victims. The exchange acted under the DOJ's Scam Center Strike Force during a four-day event the department branded "Disruption Week," convened in Washington from May 18 to May 21 and announced on June 3. Federal investigators from the FBI, the Secret Service, and Homeland Security Investigations handed private participants intelligence on specific Southeast Asian targets, and those firms moved to freeze accounts, sever infrastructure, and cut off funds linked to cryptocurrency investment fraud. Across the private sector, participants voluntarily froze more than $3.8 million in crypto tied to laundering stolen funds, with Coinbase accounting for the bulk of that figure. Coinbase Freezes Scam-linked Crypto Coinbase joined Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, SpaceX, TRM Labs, Silent Push, and Zenlayer to pool intelligence and act against syndicates running romance scams, investment fraud, and forced-labor compounds that target people worldwide. The company said its share—the largest single contribution among the firms involved—went directly to wallets controlled by those networks. "This operation is proof that scammers can't be stopped by any single company or agency acting alone," Coinbase said. Coinbase used the operation to defend the role of blockchain in fraud investigations, arguing that public ledgers give law enforcement a transparent and permanent record of every transaction that traditional finance often cannot match. That same on-chain tracing has also surfaced in recovery fights, including one in which an investor sued Coinbase to recover assets frozen after a 2024 phishing attack. Strike Force Widens DOJ's Scam Fight Foreign law enforcement counterparts joined the effort, including the Royal Thai Police, the UK National Crime Agency, the Australian Federal Police, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, and New Zealand Police, while Meta coordinated private-sector participation. The DOJ said the week disrupted criminal activity across more than 1.4 million social media and email accounts, decommissioned servers and hosting infrastructure linked to scam networks, and produced the arrests of seven scammers in Thailand alongside new cases opened by the Royal Thai Police Anti-Cyber Scam Center. US Attorney Jeanine Pirro noted that "Cyber-enabled and crypto investment fraud is devastating Main Street Americans, wiping out life savings and preying on some of our most vulnerable citizens." Investment scams became the most commonly reported crime type in 2023, with cryptocurrency investment fraud making up 83 percent of that category, according to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center. Reported losses climbed from $3.96 billion in 2023 to $5.8 billion in 2024 before rising 24 percent to more than $7.2 billion last year. Many of the schemes run out of industrial-scale compounds in Cambodia, Laos, and Burma along the Thai border, where trafficked workers are forced to defraud victims under threat of violence. Coinbase has traced funds out of comparable operations before, helping the US Secret Service seize $225 million in stolen cryptocurrency in June 2025 from a human-trafficking syndicate behind pig-butchering romance scams. The exchange has also faced federal scrutiny of its own, with the DOJ opening a criminal investigation into a 2025 insider data breach in which overseas contractors were bribed to leak user data.

Why Is Coinbase Entering Pre-IPO Futures? Coinbase has launched pre-IPO perpetual futures, starting with a SpaceX contract that gives eligible traders exposure to Elon Musk’s aerospace company before its expected public listing next week at a reported $1.8 trillion valuation. The product adds Coinbase to a fast-growing market for synthetic exposure to private companies. Pre-IPO shares have traditionally been available mainly to venture capital funds, private equity firms, employees, and accredited investors. Crypto exchanges are now using perpetual futures to give retail and institutional traders price exposure before a company lists publicly. Coinbase’s pre-IPO contracts are settled in USDC and trade 24/7. They have no expiry and no rollover. If the underlying company completes an IPO, the contract is designed to convert automatically into a standard perpetual futures contract tied to the public listing. The first listing, SpaceX, gives the launch immediate attention. SpaceX is one of the most closely watched private companies globally because of its satellite, launch, defense, and commercial space operations. Demand for access has been strong for years, but direct private-market participation remains limited. How Do The Contracts Work? Coinbase said pre-IPO perpetual futures allow eligible users to open and close positions at any time, similar to standard perpetual futures. The contracts are not equity. They do not give holders voting rights, ownership, dividends, or any direct claim on company shares. The SpaceX contract tracks a valuation-based index price tied to estimated pre-listing value. Profits and losses are settled in USDC. Coinbase said the contracts offer up to 5x leverage, lower than its standard stock perpetual futures, which offer up to 10x leverage, and ETF perpetual futures, which offer up to 20x leverage. The lower leverage reflects the additional risk in pre-IPO markets. Unlike public stocks, private company valuation data can be fragmented, less frequent, and dependent on secondary-market transactions or external pricing sources. That makes fair-value discovery harder and can increase the chance of sudden repricing. Coinbase said the SpaceX product is the first in a planned pipeline covering technology, artificial intelligence, energy, and space. The move places the exchange in direct competition with other centralized and decentralized trading venues that have recently launched pre-IPO-linked products. Investor Takeaway Coinbase is not selling private shares. It is offering leveraged synthetic exposure to pre-IPO valuation moves. That distinction matters because traders get price exposure, not ownership, governance rights, or a legal claim on company equity. Why Are Regulators And Traders Watching The Product Closely? Pre-IPO perpetual futures sit in a sensitive area between derivatives, private-market access, tokenized real-world assets, and retail speculation. They are designed to widen access to companies that are still private, but they also rely on pricing models that can be less transparent than listed equities. The risks were visible last week when a SpaceX-linked contract on another platform briefly dropped about 45% after incorrect price data was published by an external oracle provider. The move triggered liquidations for some traders, forcing the platform to compensate affected users and review its pricing system. Coinbase warned that pre-IPO perpetual futures differ materially from standard perpetual futures because they carry valuation-based pricing, IPO conversion risk, lower liquidity, higher volatility, and increased liquidation risk. Those risks are amplified by leverage. A 5x leveraged contract can wipe out margin quickly if the index price moves sharply or if liquidity thins. In pre-IPO markets, where valuation inputs may be less stable than public-market prices, that can make liquidation risk harder for retail traders to judge. Who Can Access Coinbase’s Pre-IPO Perps? The product is available to eligible Coinbase Advanced users in supported jurisdictions. It is not available in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Singapore, India, Australia, and other restricted markets. The geographic limits reflect the regulatory pressure around private-market exposure and derivatives. In the United States, Coinbase offers CFTC-regulated perpetual-style futures through Coinbase Derivatives Exchange. Outside the United States, it offers crypto perpetual futures through Coinbase International Exchange for institutions and Coinbase Advanced for retail users in eligible markets. Coinbase Financial Markets also recently became a CFTC-regulated U.S. futures commission merchant, allowing institutional clients to access global crypto perpetual futures and options markets under new regulatory guidance. The pre-IPO launch shows how crypto exchanges are expanding beyond crypto-native assets into synthetic exposure to private companies, tokenized markets, and real-world asset products. That shift could broaden trader access, but it also raises harder questions about pricing quality, investor protection, liquidity, and the line between public-market derivatives and private-company exposure. Investor Takeaway Pre-IPO perps are becoming a competitive product category for crypto exchanges, but the market is still early. Pricing reliability, jurisdictional limits, and liquidation controls will determine whether these contracts become a durable access point or remain a high-risk trading niche.

A group of nine US House Democrats led by Kevin Mullin and Gabe Vasquez is calling on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate advertisements from prediction markets. The group argues that event-based trading products may be exposing consumers to misleading marketing and gambling-like behavior without sufficient protection. The House Democrats’ position is another notable scrutiny of how prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket have evolved from niche forecasting platforms into multi-billion-dollar trading venues driving online gambling, with concerns about consumer protection, insider trading, and market manipulation now on the rise. House Democrats Raise Consumer Protection Concerns The request for the FTC to probe ads within prediction market entities has been strongly driven by lawmakers critical of the sector’s growth and how consumers may unfairly be the value chain. Letter from Nine US Democrats for Prediction Market Ads FTC Probe. Source: Kevin Mullin Critics, including the House Democrats, argue that many platforms increasingly market event contracts using language associated with investing and financial empowerment rather than highlighting the speculative nature of the products. The lawmakers reportedly want the FTC to determine whether those advertising practices comply with federal consumer protection standards. The issue has become more politically sensitive as prediction markets move beyond crypto-native audiences and attract mainstream users. Trading volumes have surged over the past year, fueled by election-related contracts, regulatory outcomes, sports events, and geopolitical developments. According to Rep. Kevin Mullin, who led the effort: “These prediction market companies are presenting themselves differently to regulators than they are to the public. They can mislead consumers on what rules and protections actually apply.” Some House Democrats have also compared the industry's growth trajectory to earlier debates around online sports betting, where aggressive customer acquisition campaigns eventually triggered concerns about consumer harm and addiction.  Prediction Markets Face Scrutiny on All Fronts  The FTC request arrives during a period of mounting regulatory pressure on prediction market operators. In recent months, over 40 Democratic lawmakers urged regulators to address potential insider trading risks on prediction market platforms. Federal regulators have reportedly investigated alleged manipulation and insider-trading incidents tied to high-profile event contracts. One recent case involved an investigation into unusual trading activity linked to former Congressman George Santos, highlighting concerns about how non-public information could potentially influence event-contract markets. Even social media platforms like X have instituted mandatory disclosure features for ads from such platforms. The growing list of investigations suggests regulators are becoming increasingly focused not only on how prediction markets operate, but also on how they are marketed to the public. Despite the scrutiny, prediction markets continue attracting institutional and retail interest. The sector processed billions of dollars in trading volume during 2024 and 2025, driven largely by political and macroeconomic events.  More recently, firms such as Galaxy have begun offering institutional OTC prediction markets, Critics, however, warn that the same growth creating institutional interest is also increasing the need for stronger consumer protections. As platforms continue attracting larger audiences, the determination from lawmakers to ensure “safe” marketing practices is glaring.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has voted to eliminate its long-standing “no-deny” settlement policy, allowing companies and individuals that settle enforcement actions with the agency to publicly dispute allegations against them after reaching an agreement.  The policy, originally adopted in 1998, required defendants settling CFTC enforcement actions to refrain from publicly denying the allegations underlying their cases. Under the new rule, the agency will no longer require such restrictions as a condition of settlement. .@CFTC Rescinds Policy Regarding Denials of Settlements in Enforcement Actions: https://t.co/Tw3320hlol — CFTC (@CFTC) June 3, 2026 CFTC Ends a Settlement Practice Dating Back Nearly Three Decades Since 1998, the CFTC had maintained that it would not accept settlements if a respondent publicly denied the allegations forming the basis of the action. However, the commission has approved and formally published a change to the rule in the Federal Register this week. With the new change, the commission is relaxing the rules preventing settling defendants from publicly contesting allegations to avoid trial, just as done by the SEC in May.  According to the Director of the Division of Enforcement, David Miller: “Today’s action harmonizes the Commission’s settlement approach with those taken by other agencies and ensures fairer resolutions in enforcement matters.”  The policy shift means future settling parties may now publicly challenge the commission's version of events without risking violation of settlement agreements. Supporters of the change argue that settlements are often driven by economic and practical considerations rather than admissions of wrongdoing. Defendants frequently choose to settle because litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain, not necessarily because they are guilty of regulators’ indictments.  SEC and CFTC Set to Relax Settlement Rules The CFTC's move comes just weeks after the SEC rescinded Rule 202.5(e), ending one of the most controversial provisions in federal securities enforcement. Under the SEC's revised approach, defendants can settle enforcement actions without agreeing to remain silent about allegations afterward. The SEC also announced it would no longer enforce existing no-deny provisions contained in prior settlements. The agency's decision now extends that broader policy rethink into derivatives and commodities markets. Interestingly, the announcement coincided with another notable development at the agency. According to reports, the agency is seeking to vacate its $5 million settlement with Gemini, arguing that the case reflected enforcement priorities from a previous regulatory era. The move has drawn criticism from some officials, including former Chairman Tim Massad, who described the reversal as “extraordinarily unusual.” Together, the Gemini action and the no-deny rescission underscore how the agency's enforcement posture has changed over the past year. Under current leadership, the CFTC has emphasized guidance, transparency, and voluntary compliance over aggressive enforcement. This has resulted in just 11 enforcement actions and less than $1 billion in monetary relief over the past year, compared to 58 actions and more than $17.1 billion in relief in 2024. The policy change could be relevant to crypto companies, many of which have argued that settlements often create reputational damage even when firms resolve cases without admitting wrongdoing.

Around 60% of retail traders trade on mobile, making mobile advertising an obvious priority for brokers. With this in mind, cTrader has integrated AppsFlyer, The Modern Marketing Cloud and a global leader in mobile attribution and marketing analytics, to give brokers the opportunity to launch and track mobile advertising campaigns for their branded cTrader mobile apps. For cTrader brokers, this is a chance to engage and convert the largest and fastest-growing community of mobile traders.. They can now run targeted campaigns that bring prospective traders into their branded mobile app, with full visibility into which campaigns, creatives and channels are performing. The integration has been successfully piloted and is now available for all cTrader clients. How it works Once registered with AppsFlyer, a broker launches a campaign through Google Ads or Meta Ads using AppsFlyer attribution links. When a prospective client clicks the ad, AppsFlyer captures the source, campaign, creative, and then redirects them to the App Store, Google Play or the broker's website. Once the app is installed and opened, AppsFlyer attributes the trader to the campaign that brought them in. With this data available, brokers can more easily see which campaigns drive installs, which channels bring higher-quality prospects, how users behave after installation and where acquisition budgets can be optimised based on real mobile activity. Yiota Hadjilouka, COO of Spotware Systems, commented: "At Spotware, our focus is on giving brokers the technology and solutions to grow their business. With AppsFlyer integration, cTrader brokers can now run mobile advertising campaigns directly to their branded apps – opening up an acquisition channel that wasn't available to them before – and one that remains unique to the cTrader environment.” Contact the Spotware team to integrate AppsFlyer for your branded cTrader mobile app.

Key Facts Brokeree Solutions has launched an Integration API for its PAMM money management system, allowing brokers, financial institutions and crypto companies to embed managed account services into proprietary trading platforms. The API removes a longstanding limitation that tied most PAMM deployments to MetaTrader and cTrader environments. The launch follows Brokeree's March 2026 release of its Social Trading Integration API, which first extended copy trading technology beyond MetaTrader and cTrader. According to Brokeree's analysis of approximately 1,000 retail brokers worldwide, nearly 15% currently offer PAMM services. Quoted on the launch are Tatiana Pilipenko, Regional Head of Business Development (APAC, UK, Americas), and Victor Ivanov, Regional Head of Business Development (EMEA) at Brokeree Solutions. Brokeree Solutions has launched an Integration API for its PAMM money management system, opening up the company's managed-account technology to proprietary trading platforms and other non-standard infrastructures for the first time. The release follows Brokeree's Social Trading Integration API launch in March 2026 and completes a two-step strategy to make both of Brokeree's flagship investment systems available beyond MetaTrader and cTrader. What the API enables For more than a decade, PAMM systems have been built around MetaTrader's architecture, with cTrader compatibility added in recent years. Brokeree's Integration API removes that platform-specific requirement. Brokers, financial institutions and crypto companies running proprietary trading platforms can now embed Brokeree's PAMM directly into their existing infrastructure, rather than rebuilding managed-account capabilities from scratch or limiting themselves to off-the-shelf platforms. The PAMM system itself is unchanged. It is a managed-investment technology that lets multiple investors pool funds into a single strategy managed by a professional money manager, with the platform automatically tracking each investor's share of the pool, allocating profits and losses proportionally, calculating management and performance fees, and handling deposits, withdrawals and reporting. The API is the connector that makes that engine accessible from outside the MetaTrader and cTrader ecosystems. Executive comment Tatiana Pilipenko, Regional Head of Business Development for APAC, UK and Americas at Brokeree Solutions, framed the API as the next stage in PAMM's evolution. "PAMM has been part of our portfolio for over a decade, and we have spent that time refining how it operates across different trading environments. The Integration API is the next step in that work," Pilipenko said. "It gives companies a structured way to connect PAMM to their own platforms, regardless of the technology stack they have built around. We want PAMM to be available wherever there is demand for managed account services, and the API is what makes that possible." Victor Ivanov, Regional Head of Business Development for EMEA, positioned the release as completing Brokeree's universal-access push. "With the PAMM Integration API, we are taking another decisive step toward making Brokeree's investment systems truly universal," Ivanov said. "Professional money management should not be restricted by trading infrastructure. This release is about giving brokers and financial institutions the freedom to build managed account services into their offerings on their own terms." Market context: PAMM penetration and headroom Brokeree's own market data informs the rollout. The company's analysis of approximately 1,000 retail brokers worldwide last year found that nearly 15% offered PAMM services as part of their product lineup. The figure points to an established base of brokers running managed account services — but also significant room for adoption among the remaining 85%, many of whom operate on platforms that have historically lacked native PAMM support. The Integration API directly targets that gap. By removing the platform dependency, Brokeree makes PAMM reachable for brokers operating proprietary terminals, the growing roster of crypto exchanges looking to add managed-account products, and investment platforms that have previously had to build money-management infrastructure in-house. How it fits Brokeree's platform-agnostic push The PAMM API completes the second half of a strategy Brokeree began in March 2026 with its Social Trading Integration API. That earlier release extended copy trading technology beyond MetaTrader and cTrader for the first time, giving brokers, investment firms and crypto companies a path to deploy copy trading services without building a custom integration from scratch. Together, the two APIs reflect Brokeree's broader product thesis: that investment infrastructure should be platform-agnostic and embed wherever it is needed, rather than dictating which trading platforms a firm can use. The thesis has been visible across other recent moves, including the integration with Neptune Forex CRM and the company's earlier extensions of PAMM and Social Trading to cTrader, DXtrade CFD and TraderEvolution platforms. The strategic backdrop is also worth noting. As MetaTrader's grip on the retail FX industry has loosened — partly through Apple's removal of MT4 and MT5 from the App Store in 2022 and partly through the rise of proprietary and white-label platforms — broker technology providers that built exclusively around the MetaTrader stack have faced an obvious question: how to remain relevant when an increasing share of new broker launches happens outside that environment. Brokeree's Integration APIs are a structural answer. FAQ What is the Brokeree PAMM Integration API? The Integration API is a new release from Brokeree Solutions that lets brokers, financial institutions and crypto companies embed Brokeree's PAMM money management system into proprietary trading platforms and other non-standard infrastructures. It removes the platform-specific requirements that have historically limited PAMM deployments to MetaTrader and cTrader environments. What does Brokeree's PAMM system do? PAMM is a managed-investment technology that lets multiple investors pool funds into a single strategy run by a professional money manager. The system automatically tracks each investor's share of the pool, allocates profits and losses proportionally, calculates management and performance fees, and handles deposits, withdrawals and reporting. How does this fit with Brokeree's Social Trading API? The PAMM Integration API follows Brokeree's Social Trading Integration API, which launched in March 2026 and extended copy trading technology beyond MetaTrader and cTrader for the first time. Together, the two APIs make Brokeree's flagship investment systems accessible to a broader range of trading platforms and industry participants. The strategic logic of the PAMM API is straightforward: take a managed-account system with a decade of production deployment in MetaTrader and cTrader environments and make it embeddable anywhere. As broker technology fragments and proprietary platforms gain share, Brokeree's bet is that investment functionality will increasingly be sourced as modular components delivered via API — and that owning those components, rather than tying them to specific tr

Recent reports show crypto-backed political action committees pouring millions of dollars into U.S. election races, demonstrating how deeply digital assets have become embedded in mainstream policy discussions. At the same time, lawmakers continue debating legislation like the CLARITY Act, while institutions and corporations explore new ways to integrate crypto into their long-term strategies. For investors searching for the Best crypto to buy in June, these developments signal something important: digital assets are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. While Litecoin continues attracting treasury adoption headlines and Stellar quietly advances its institutional payment ambitions, many investors are looking further down the market-cap spectrum for opportunities that have not yet reached widespread exchange exposure. That search is leading many toward APEMARS. How Market Sentiment Beats Technology in Early Crypto Cycles Crypto markets often reward narratives before utility catches up. History has repeatedly shown that investor attention flows toward compelling stories long before the underlying technology reaches mass adoption. Whether it was Bitcoin's digital gold narrative, Ethereum's smart contract revolution, or Solana's high-speed ecosystem expansion, sentiment frequently arrives before full-scale implementation. This creates a unique environment where timing becomes one of the most important factors in identifying the Best crypto to buy in June. Investors increasingly recognize that once a project becomes widely known, much of the early-stage opportunity may already be gone. As a result, many market participants focus on discovering projects during their growth phase rather than after mainstream recognition arrives. The APEMARS Story: Early Access Before Discovery While established projects compete for institutional attention, APEMARS represents a different category of opportunity. Rather than entering the market through traditional exchange listings, APEMARS follows a structured stage-based presale model known as Operation Red Banana. The project is currently operating in Stage 23. This framework allows participants to enter before public market trading begins while following a clearly defined progression system. Unlike projects that launch immediately into open-market volatility, APEMARS advances through predetermined stages that reward earlier participation with lower pricing. For investors searching for the Best crypto to buy in June, this structure offers exposure before broader market discovery takes place. Stage 23 Scarcity: Why Pricing Windows Don’t Stay Open Forever Every stage-based presale operates on a time-sensitive pricing structure, and APEMARS is no exception. The project is currently available at Stage 23 pricing of $0.000541050, with an intended listing price set at $0.0055. As the presale progresses through future stages, access to this pricing level will permanently disappear, making earlier entry conditions unavailable for later participants. This structured progression naturally creates urgency, as each stage effectively resets the cost basis for new entrants. Many investors tracking APEMARS momentum view this narrowing window as a key factor driving continued attention, especially as availability at lower stages becomes increasingly limited. The 916% Pricing Gap Explained: Stage 23 vs Listing Value A major point of discussion around APEMARS is the clear pricing difference between the current Stage 23 entry level and the intended listing valuation. At $0.000541050 per token in Stage 23 compared to a projected $0.0055 listing price, the structured model reflects a calculated 916% difference based on presale mechanics. This figure represents the mathematical gap between staged pricing and intended exchange valuation rather than any guaranteed outcome. Investors searching for the Best crypto to buy in June often highlight this kind of transparent structure because it clearly shows how entry timing directly impacts potential valuation scenarios within presale environments. APEMARS Growth Metrics Highlight Rising Community Participation APEMARS continues to show steady traction across core presale metrics, with more than $502,000 raised to date. The project has also reached approximately 1,868 token holders, alongside over 30 billion tokens sold during the ongoing presale phases. These numbers reflect increasing engagement as the project moves deeper into its later-stage rollout. Community expansion is often a key indicator in early-stage crypto ecosystems, as growing participation can signal sustained interest beyond initial entry waves. In many cases, these early holders become long-term supporters who contribute to ongoing ecosystem visibility and narrative development as the project progresses toward listing. What A $1,000 Position Looks Like With LAUNCH350 Many participants are actively using the LAUNCH350 bonus code (+350% additional tokens) while entering the presale. For a $1,000 allocation at Stage 23 pricing of $0.000541050, a standard purchase provides approximately 1,848,442 $APRZ tokens. When the LAUNCH350 bonus is applied, total holdings increase significantly to approximately 8,318,989 $APRZ tokens (1,848,442 base tokens + 6,470,547 bonus tokens), offering substantially higher exposure at the same entry cost while Stage 23 pricing remains available. Combined with the current structured pricing model, bonus incentives continue attracting strong attention from investors evaluating early-stage opportunities before broader market discovery and exchange-based price action begins. How To Buy APEMARS In 5 Simple Steps Visit the official APEMARS presale website. Connect a supported crypto wallet. Select your preferred payment method. Apply the LAUNCH350 bonus code. Confirm the transaction. 3 Days Before Launch: Why Stage 23 Feels Like the Real Turning Point Stage 23 was always meant to be the final step, but now it feels like the turning point of the entire APEMARS cycle. With just 3 days remaining, the presale is no longer progressing, it is concluding. At $0.000541050, participants are sitting in the last structured pricing zone before the shift to $0.0055 listing conditions. The emotional pressure at this stage comes from one simple realization: after this, there are no more stages left to wait for. Crypto PACs Are Spending Millions And Wall Street Is Paying Attention Political influence is becoming one of crypto's fastest-growing narratives. Recent filings show crypto-backed PACs spending millions of dollars supporting candidates across multiple U.S. elections. Organizations linked to major industry players are actively participating in efforts to shape future digital asset legislation and regulatory frameworks. At the center of many discussions is the CLARITY Act, legislation designed to provide clearer market structure rules for digital assets. Whether investors agree with every aspect of the political process or not, one thing is becoming increasingly obvious. Crypto is no longer operating on the sidelines of traditional finance and government. For many investors searching for the Best crypto to buy in June, this growing political engagement reinforces confidence that the industry continues moving toward broader adoption. Litecoin's Corporate Treasury Story Changes The Conversation Litecoin has spent years building a reputation as one of crypto's most established networks. Recently, however, the narrative shifted dramatically. MEI Pharma surprised many investors by allocating $100 million toward a Litecoin treasury strategy, bringing renewed attention to LTC's role within the broader digital asset ecosystem. This move reflects a growing trend where corporations are beginning to consider cryptocurrencies as strategic treasury assets rather than purely speculative investments. Litecoin currently trades near $47.74 while maintaining a market capitalization of approximately $3.66 billion. Analysts continue monitoring resistance levels and ETF-related developments, while long-term supporters point to Litecoin's network stability, strong brand recognition, and increasing institutional visibility. Despite these strengths, some investors searching for the Best crypto to buy in June continue exploring earlier-stage opportunities that may offer greater upside potential. Stellar Quietly Builds While Others Chase Headlines Unlike many projects that rely heavily on hype cycles, Stellar has spent years focusing on real-world financial infrastructure. The network remains heavily associated with cross-border payments and institutional settlement systems. While Stellar's price performance has faced challenges recently, supporters argue that its long-term adoption strategy remains largely intact. Currently trading around $0.22, XLM remains significantly below previous cycle highs despite continued development efforts. Some investors view this as a sign of underperformance. Others see it as evidence that Stellar remains overlooked relative to its underlying utility. Regardless of perspective, Stellar demonstrates how even fundamentally strong projects can require patience before broader market recognition arrives ParaWin and the Shift Toward Utility-Based Web3 Gaming Systems The Web3 gaming industry is gradually shifting toward utility-driven ecosystems, and ParaWin is positioning itself within this transition. Built around the $PWIN token, the platform is designed to support Crypto Lucky through a structured utility layer that connects participation with ecosystem activity. Rather than relying on static token allocation models, ParaWin introduces a dynamic-supply system where distribution is shaped by real engagement during the early phases of development. This creates a more flexible and responsive ecosystem structure. Since whitelist registration is currently open, users can secure early access before the platform transitions into its full presale stage and public rollout phase. Conclusion The crypto market continues evolving at an extraordinary pace. Political influence is growing. Institutions are becoming more involved. Corporations are expanding treasury strategies. Established projects like Litecoin and Stellar continue building within their respective niches. The latest market overview on Best Crypto To Buy Now signals changing crypto conditions, reflecting increased volatility and shifting investor confidence. At the same time, investors searching for the Best crypto to buy in June are increasingly looking for opportunities before they become household names. With Stage 23 currently priced at $0.000541050, over $502K raised, 1,868 holders, and 30B tokens sold, APEMARS remains positioned as an early-stage opportunity that many investors are watching closely as available allocations continue shrinking. For More Information: Website: Visit the Official APEMARS Website Telegram: Join the APEMARS Telegram Channel Twitter: Follow APEMARS ON X (Formerly Twitter) FAQs About The Best Crypto To Buy In June What stage is APEMARS currently in? APEMARS is currently in Stage 23 of its structured presale campaign. What is the current APEMARS price? The Stage 23 price is $0.000541050. What is the intended listing price? The intended listing price is $0.0055. How much has APEMARS raised? The project has raised more than $502,000. How many holders does APEMARS have? APEMARS currently has 1,868 token holders. How many tokens have been sold? More than 30 billion APEMARS tokens have already been sold. What bonus code is available? Participants can use the LAUNCH350 bonus code during eligible purchases. Summary Crypto is increasingly influencing politics, regulation, and institutional adoption. Recent PAC spending and ongoing CLARITY Act discussions highlight the growing role of digital assets in mainstream policy. While Litecoin benefits from corporate treasury interest and Stellar continues advancing its institutional adoption thesis, many investors searching for the Best crypto to buy in June are looking toward earlier-stage opportunities. APEMARS has raised over $502K, attracted 1,868 holders, sold 30B tokens, and remains available at Stage 23 pricing of $0.000541050 before future stage progression changes access conditions.

NewLimit, the longevity biotech startup co-founded by Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, closed a $435 million Series C round led by Founders Fund to push its first age-reprogramming medicine into human clinical trials. The raise values the company at $3.1 billion, more than triple its prior valuation, and marks Armstrong’s largest non-crypto commitment to date. A $3.1 Billion Valuation in Three Years NewLimit announced the round on June 2, naming Thrive Capital, Greenoaks and Quiet Capital as new investors. Existing backers Kleiner Perkins, Abstract, Nat Friedman and Daniel Gross, Valor Equity Partners, Eli Lilly Ventures and Human Capital also participated. The Wall Street Journal reported the $3.1 billion valuation, which represents more than three times the company’s valuation from the previous year. Founded in 2021, NewLimit focuses on epigenetic reprogramming, a technique that aims to restore youthful function in aging cells without altering their DNA sequence. Its lead program targets liver cells, where early research showed old human liver tissue regaining markers of younger function in laboratory settings. The company plans to begin its first human trial next year, a timeline it says has accelerated beyond initial projections. Armstrong Sees Longevity as a Platform Play “Following breakthrough results, we’re bringing longevity medicine to human trials,” NewLimit posted on X. “Reprogramming cell age has the potential to create more healthy years for everyone. We’re closer than ever to realizing it.” The company is led by co-founder Jacob Kimmel, a computational biologist who serves as CEO and president. Blake Byers, a former GV partner and bioengineer, is the third co-founder. NewLimit initially estimated that advancing an aging medicine to human trials would take more than a decade, but credited recent scientific breakthroughs with compressing that timeline significantly. The Crypto CEO’s Portfolio Diversification The raise signals a pattern among crypto executives channeling wealth into adjacent technology sectors. Armstrong has already steered Coinbase toward AI integration, with the exchange reportedly cutting account restriction resolution times by 90% using automated tools. Stablecoins, tokenization and automation have featured prominently in his recent public remarks about the future of financial infrastructure. A $435 million biotech raise from a crypto CEO also tests whether founder credibility transfers across industries. NewLimit has no approved product and must now demonstrate that cell-level results translate into a safe, effective human therapy.  If the clinical program succeeds, it validates a rare crossover between digital-asset wealth and deep biological science. If it stalls, the bet becomes a case study in founder ambition outpacing the complexity of drug development. Industry Reaction The longevity sector has attracted significant venture capital in 2026, though few startups have reached clinical-stage readiness. NewLimit’s round places it among the best-funded private companies in the space, alongside Altos Labs and Retro Biosciences. The participation of Eli Lilly Ventures adds pharmaceutical industry validation to a field still largely driven by tech-sector capital. What’s Next? NewLimit plans to file for its first human trial next year and expand its research pipeline across liver, immune, metabolic and vascular programs. The outcome of that regulatory filing will determine whether Armstrong’s largest outside bet moves from laboratory promise to clinical reality.