What Is the SEC Asking the Court to Approve? The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has asked a federal court in New York to impose long-term officer-and-director bans on three former senior figures from FTX and its affiliated trading firm Alameda Research. The proposed penalties target Caroline Ellison, former chief executive of Alameda, along with Gary Wang, former chief technology officer of FTX, and Nishad Singh, a former senior engineer at the exchange. In a litigation release published Friday, the SEC said it submitted proposed final consent judgments in the Southern District of New York. Under the terms, Ellison would face a 10-year ban from serving as an officer or director of a public company, while Wang and Singh would each face eight-year bans. All three agreed to the judgments without admitting or denying the agency’s allegations, pending court approval. The proposed orders would also permanently bar the defendants from violating core antifraud provisions of federal securities law, including Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 17(a) of the Securities Act. Each defendant also agreed to five-year conduct-based injunctions. Investor Takeaway The SEC is pressing for governance bans that extend well beyond criminal sentencing, restricting former FTX leaders from future roles overseeing public investors. How Does This Tie Back to the FTX Collapse? The civil enforcement action traces back to the November 2022 failure of FTX, once one of the largest crypto exchanges globally. The company filed for bankruptcy after a rapid liquidity crisis exposed deep holes in its balance sheet and raised questions about how customer funds were handled. Alameda Research, closely linked to FTX’s operations, collapsed shortly after. According to the SEC, Ellison, Wang, and Singh played central roles in a scheme that misled investors about FTX’s internal controls, risk management, and its relationship with Alameda. Regulators have alleged that FTX portrayed Alameda as just another trading client while secretly granting it special privileges that allowed access to customer assets. The agency has said Wang and Singh were responsible for building and maintaining the software infrastructure that allowed Alameda to draw on billions of dollars in customer funds. Those funds were later used for proprietary trading, venture investments, and other spending directed by Alameda under Ellison’s leadership. Why Are Officer-and-Director Bars a Key Remedy? The proposed penalties reflect what the SEC previously described as a “bifurcated settlement” approach. Under this structure, defendants agreed early in the case to injunctions and governance restrictions, while financial penalties and final terms were left unresolved until related criminal proceedings concluded. Officer-and-director bars are among the SEC’s strongest civil tools in cases involving disclosure failures and misuse of investor funds. While they do not carry prison time, they prevent individuals from holding senior leadership or board positions at public companies across all sectors, not just crypto. Legal practitioners often view these bans as protective rather than punitive. They are intended to limit the risk of repeat misconduct by excluding individuals deemed unfit for fiduciary responsibility from positions where they would oversee public capital. Investor Takeaway Even where criminal sentences were limited or avoided, civil regulators can still impose lasting constraints on who is allowed to run or govern public companies. How Do These Civil Penalties Compare to the Criminal Outcomes? All three former executives also faced criminal charges brought by federal prosecutors and cooperated with authorities during the case against former FTX chief executive Sam Bankman-Fried. Bankman-Fried was convicted in late 2023 on seven counts, including wire fraud and securities fraud conspiracy, and later sentenced to nearly 25 years in prison. Ellison testified extensively during the trial and later received a two-year prison sentence. Judges cited her cooperation but also referenced her role at Alameda during the period when customer funds were misused. Wang and Singh avoided prison sentences entirely, receiving supervised release instead, with courts pointing to their early assistance in explaining the exchange’s technical and operational structure. The SEC’s proposed bans introduce a sharper contrast between criminal and civil outcomes. Despite the absence of prison time for Wang and Singh, the agency is seeking to restrict their future involvement in public-company leadership for nearly a decade. If the court approves the settlements, the injunctions and governance bans would take effect immediately. The ruling would close another chapter in one of the SEC’s most consequential crypto enforcement cases, as regulators continue to use the FTX collapse to illustrate what they view as failures in oversight, controls, and disclosures across parts of the digital asset sector.

New York — Michael Burry, the hedge fund manager who became famous for betting on the housing bubble in "The Big Short," has issued a clear warning about the current U.S. stock market frenzy. Burry recently posted on social media about data revealing that American households have put more of their net worth into stocks than into real estate. This has only happened twice before, in the late 1960s and late 1990s. Burry said, "This is a fascinating chart because household stock wealth has only been higher than real estate wealth in the late 1960s and late 1990s, the last two times the bear market lasted years." The figure, from Wells Fargo and Bloomberg, shows a significant change in household balances. Even if home values have risen 50% over the last few years, equities have outperformed real estate, making stocks the most valuable part of household wealth. Things That Are Making The Stock Market Boom Burry says that this exceptional allocation is due to a combination of economic and behavioural factors. He talks about how interest rates have been at zero for almost 10 years, how the government gave out huge stimulus packages during the pandemic, how inflation is at levels not seen in 50 years, and how Treasury yields have now risen. Apps and platforms that make stock trading more like a game, a rise in gambling-like behaviour among retail investors, excitement about artificial intelligence, and trillions of dollars in expected AI capital expenditures by businesses and governments are all contributing factors. Burry thinks these factors have pushed stocks far beyond their fundamentals, making the market more like past bubbles. The Danger of Passive Investing Burry is worried about the rise of passive investing, which he estimates now makes up more than half of all investment funds. On the other hand, less than 10% of funds are actively managed with a long-term goal. He worries that this change in structure could make any future slump worse. Passive methods that are linked to indexes tend to buy high and sell low a lot when the market is volatile. This might turn a normal sell-off into a long-term disaster. Burry said, "I think the whole thing is going to come down now." "And it would be tough to protect yourself while holding stocks in the United States." In Burry's opinion, today's market, which relies on passive investments, doesn't have as many safe places to hide as during the dot-com meltdown of 2000, when some equities remained valuable even as the Nasdaq fell. Historical Echoes and What They Mean for the Market There are clear parallels between the late 1960s and the 1990s: in both periods, households shifted their wealth into stocks during multi-year bear markets. Burry's warning is a voice of caution in a market that is otherwise very positive, as investors pour money into broad indices driven by excitement about AI and easy money. His past work in identifying systemic threats, such as the 2008 subprime catastrophe, adds weight to his current conclusion. Now, people in the market are wondering if this family stock craze is another crucial turning point, with passive flows making any reverse stronger and longer. Burry's study is the only one that explicitly links contemporary situations to past scary times, even though no other analysts are cited for this precise warning.

KEY TAKEAWAYS Non-Custodial and Multi-Chain Design: Bloom operates as a non-custodial tool with a Telegram bot and Chrome extension, enabling fast trades across Solana, Base, Ethereum, BSC, and HyperEVM without the platform holding user funds. Advanced Automation Features: Key tools include sniping for new liquidity pools, copy trading to mirror successful wallets, limit orders, AFK mode for offline strategies, and image recognition for extracting token data from screenshots. Speed and User-Friendly Edge: Optimized for sub-millisecond execution, with safety filters like MEV protection and rug checks, making it ideal for volatile memecoin trading on DEXs like Raydium and Uniswap. Significant Risks Involved: High volatility in targeted markets can lead to rapid losses; additional concerns include potential phishing from fake versions, execution failures during congestion, and a lack of audited contracts. Balanced Approach Recommended: While Bloom provides a competitive advantage in speed and automation, users should start small, verify official sources, and recognize that no bot eliminates the inherent risks of crypto speculation.   Automated trading bots have become vital tools for traders looking for speed and efficiency in the fast-changing world of decentralised finance (DeFi). This is especially true in volatile markets like the memecoins market on Solana.  The Bloom Crypto Bot, built by the people who made Bloombot.app calls itself "your unfair advantage in crypto" because it lets you use desktop browser extensions and the mobile Telegram interface together without any problems. This page examines how the bot works based on official documentation and user-reported features. It also highlights the primary hazards associated with using it. What is the Bloom Crypto Bot? Bloom Crypto Bot is a trading platform that doesn't hold your money and lets you trade cryptocurrencies quickly across many blockchains. It works with both a Chrome browser extension and a Telegram bot so that users can trade directly from their trading terminals or mobile devices.  The tool focuses on speed, automation, and interoperability across multiple blockchains. It works with networks including Solana, Base, Ethereum, BSC, and HyperEVM through unified interfaces. Some of the most essential parts are: A browser add-on that puts trading buttons on top of popular terminals so that trades may be done quickly. A Telegram bot that lets you trade on your phone, manage your wallet, and do things automatically. Intuitive menus and customisable presets make it easy for both new and experienced traders to use. The bot is advertised as free to use in its basic form. Still, paid upgrades are available that improve performance, such as the ability to identify events in less than a millisecond in its v2.0 architecture. How the Bloom Crypto Bot Works Bloom Crypto Bot connects directly to users' wallets without any custodial control. This means that users still have access to their private keys, which are often encrypted in Telegram for the bot interface or managed locally through the extension. To start the installation, you need to either download the official Chrome extension from a trusted source or turn on the Telegram bot. Users either import or create wallets, then choose options such as slippage, fees, and safety filters. The addon adds "Buy" or "Snipe" buttons to web-based trading terminals, letting you make deals right away without waiting for someone to enter the information. Main Ways of Trading The bot makes trades on decentralised exchanges (DEXs) such as Raydium (Solana) and Uniswap (EVM chains). Users can easily swap by pasting contract addresses into the Telegram interface or using the extension's Quick Panel. Locally signed trades keep the bot from getting private keys or storing user data. Built-in scrapers and monitors are what make advanced automation possible: Sniping: Finds new liquidity pools or migrations (like Pump.fun to Raydium) and quickly buys them. Copy Trading: Copies positions from chosen wallets and enables you to filter out first-time interactions or match sell percentages. Limit Orders: These let you purchase or sell at specific prices or market caps and can be used with multiple parameters. AFK Automation: Runs offline techniques that have already been set up, including scraping announcements from Discord or Telegram channels. Other tools include in-bot bridging for cross-chain transfers, multi-wallet administration, and performance tracking with profit/loss statistics. Features and Chains That Are Supported Bloom lets you trade across chains, so you can easily move between tools that support Solana and the EVM. The most recent update (v2.0) added picture recognition to extract token data from screenshots and improved stablecoin support. Bloom Crypto Bot's Key Characteristics Bloom stands out since it has a lot of factors that are useful for traders: Speed Optimisation: Monitoring the blockchain in less than a millisecond to find front-running opportunities in competitive launches. Safety Filters: Rug checks, MEV protection against sandwich attacks, and contracts that the community has recognised as scams. Easy-to-Use Interface: Tap-to-trade buttons in Telegram, OCR for reading photos and shared links, and preset strategies. Portfolio Tools: Even distribution of tokens among wallets, positions in real time, and tracking of leaderboards. These features are meant to give you an edge in markets with high volatility, when human trading generally lags behind automated trading. Bloom Crypto Bot's Most Important Risks Bloom has many impressive features, but automated crypto trading is inherently risky, and the bot's focus on speculative assets like memecoins makes it even riskier. Risks in the Market and Execution Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile, and prices can change quickly, leading to significant losses. Sniping new tokens can lead to carpets (when the developer stops working on the project), honeypots (when you can't sell), or huge price swings. When network traffic is high, or slippage settings are high, transactions can fail, MEV bots can front-run, or unexpected costs can eat into gains. Concerns About Safety and Scams Bloom is a non-custodial tool, meaning it doesn't hold funds, which reduces some risks. However, users must check that they are downloading authentic versions to avoid phony extensions that could put their wallets at risk.  Community complaints indicate that there are phishing efforts that mimic the bot and that there are sometimes execution issues (such as missing revenue due to fees or MEV). There are concerns about the project's trustworthiness because the development team is anonymous, and there haven't been any public smart contract audits. Risks in Operations and Regulations Users have reported technical problems, such as transactions still processing or bots going down during peak demand. There may be rules against trading bots in some places, but they are not clear in most areas. Those who are fully responsible for any losses because the platform does not offer any assurances or investment advice. DeFi experts say no bot can eliminate risk. Volatility can cause you to lose all of your money, and automation can make you trade too much without a good plan. Wrapping Up: Opportunities and Cautionary Notes on Bloom Crypto Bot Bloom Crypto Bot is a new and improved Telegram-based trading tool that combines speed, automation, and access to many chains to support aggressive DeFi strategies. It has a non-custodial design and many features that make it easy for traders to move between the Solana and EVM ecosystems.  But because of the risks of crypto speculation, execution flaws, and security concerns, it is essential to be careful when using it. People who want to use it should start with minor positions, learn how to use it well, and do their own research. There are pros and cons to automatic trading. References Bloom Official Website – bloombot.app (Primary source for features and overview). Bloom Documentation – How It Works Section (Detailed explanation of setup, extension integration, and trading mechanisms). Bloom Docs – v2.0 Updates (Information on infrastructure improvements, image recognition, and stablecoin support). Bloom EVM Documentation – Multi-chain support details for Ethereum, BSC, Base, and HyperEVM.

What Did ESMA Decide? The European Securities and Markets Authority has selected EuroCTP as the European Union’s first consolidated tape provider for shares and exchange-traded funds. The decision brings the bloc closer to delivering a single, authoritative view of equity and ETF trading across EU venues, after more than a decade of debate under MiFID and MiFIR. EuroCTP was the only confirmed bidder to complete the tender process. ESMA said it assessed the application against the requirements set out in MiFIR and concluded that EuroCTP met all criteria. The firm will now move into the authorisation phase. If approved, it will operate the tape for a five-year term under ESMA oversight, with a target launch in July 2026. The procurement process formally opened on 20 June 2025, with EuroCTP submitting its bid on 25 July. ESMA described the assessment as detailed, reflecting the role of the consolidated tape as a core market infrastructure project rather than a standard data service. Investor Takeaway A single EU tape for shares and ETFs could change how investors assess liquidity and execution across venues, cutting reliance on fragmented and costly market data feeds. Why Has a Consolidated Tape Been So Hard to Deliver? The idea of a European consolidated tape dates back to the early days of MiFID. Unlike the U.S., where consolidated tapes for equities have existed for decades, Europe’s equity market developed as a patchwork of national exchanges, multilateral trading facilities, and systematic internalisers. This structure left market participants without a single source showing where and how shares trade across the bloc. Previous attempts to build a tape stalled over commercial incentives, data ownership, and funding models. Trading venues were reluctant to support a system that might weaken their control over data revenues, while users argued that high market data costs reduced transparency and competition. Recent MiFIR reforms changed the landscape by creating a formal framework for selecting consolidated tape providers and placing ESMA at the centre of governance. The selection of EuroCTP is the first concrete outcome of that framework for equities and ETFs, following the earlier appointment of a provider for bonds. What Will the EuroCTP Tape Offer? The consolidated tape for shares and ETFs is intended to deliver a single, near-real-time view of trading activity across EU markets. This includes prices, volumes, and execution data from multiple venues, giving both retail and institutional investors a clearer picture of liquidity and trading quality. EuroCTP chief executive Eglantine Desautel said the firm’s bid reflected extensive engagement with market participants during the design phase. “Our focus now is on working closely with ESMA to secure authorisation within the agreed process,” she said. “From there, we are targeting a July 2026 go-live, subject of course to the authorisation timeline. We’re proud of today’s announcement and look forward to what comes next.” ESMA has presented the tape as more than a data product. Natasha Cazenave, the regulator’s executive director, said the project has broader implications for the EU’s capital markets agenda. “The CTP will provide a consolidated view of market activity in shares and ETFs for retail and institutional investors across Europe,” she said, adding that ESMA sees it as a contribution to the Savings and Investment Union. Investor Takeaway If widely adopted, the equities tape could narrow information gaps between large institutions and smaller firms by making pan-EU trading data easier to access. Who Is Behind EuroCTP? EuroCTP is structured as a joint venture backed by European exchange operators and market infrastructure firms. It currently has 16 shareholders, with the Bratislava Stock Exchange joining most recently in July. Supporters of the exchange-led ownership model argue it increases the likelihood of broad venue participation, which is critical for a tape intended to reflect the full market. Alongside its shareholder base, EuroCTP has formed an industry advisory committee with 12 members drawn from the buy-side, sell-side, and broader market. Firms represented include BlackRock, BNP Paribas, and Norges Bank. In December, Citadel’s managing director and head of government and regulatory policy for EMEA, Virginie Saade, joined the group. Further appointments are expected. What Happens Next? Attention now shifts to the authorisation process and the practical details of implementation. Market participants are likely to focus on questions around data coverage, latency, pricing, governance, and whether brokers and asset managers will integrate the tape into trading and reporting workflows once it goes live. The selection also highlights the difficulty of the project. Data firm big xyt exited the process in June 2025, citing insufficient financial backing. Other early initiatives to build an equities tape fell away before the formal tender, underlining the operational and economic hurdles involved. For ESMA, the equities and ETFs tape will serve as a test of the EU’s effort to improve transparency and cohesion across capital markets. A successful launch in 2026 would close one of the longest-running gaps in Europe’s market structure—and set expectations for how investors access equity data across the bloc.

As governments and private firms race to modernize money, two digital instruments dominate the conversation—central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and fiat-backed stablecoins. While both are designed to represent national currencies such as the U.S. dollar, euro, yuan, or South African rand, their structures, governance models, and implications for the financial system differ sharply. Understanding these differences is essential as policymakers, banks, and crypto markets assess how digital money will shape payments, savings, and cross-border flows. Key Takeaways CBDCs are issued and guaranteed by central banks, while stablecoins are privately issued and market-driven. CBDCs have legal tender status; stablecoins do not, even when widely used. Stablecoins excel in open, cross-border blockchain use, while CBDCs prioritize policy control and national systems. Monetary policy influence is stronger with CBDCs than with fiat-backed stablecoins. Both instruments are likely to coexist, serving different roles in the future of digital money. What Is a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)? A CBDC is a digital form of a country’s sovereign currency issued directly by its central bank. It represents a direct liability of the central bank, just like physical cash. CBDCs are typically designed to serve public policy goals, including payment efficiency, financial inclusion, and monetary control. Depending on the model, they may be available to the general public (retail CBDCs) or limited to financial institutions (wholesale CBDCs). Examples include China’s digital yuan (e-CNY) and pilot projects underway for the digital euro and digital rand. What Is a Fiat-Backed Stablecoin? A fiat-backed stablecoin is a privately issued digital token pegged to a national currency, such as the U.S. dollar or euro. These tokens are usually backed by reserves held by the issuer, including cash, bank deposits, or short-term government securities. Unlike CBDCs, stablecoins are issued by private companies and circulate primarily on public blockchains. Their value stability depends on the credibility of the issuer, the quality of reserves, and the regulatory framework governing them. Common examples include dollar-pegged stablecoins widely used in crypto markets for trading, settlement, and cross-border transfers. Key Factors Separates CBDC and Stablecoin Issuance and Authority: The most fundamental difference lies in who issues and controls the money. CBDCs are issued and fully controlled by central banks. They are legal tender and carry the full backing of the state. Stablecoins, by contrast, are issued by private entities and do not constitute legal tender, even if they are widely accepted. This distinction has major implications for trust, regulation, and systemic risk. Legal Status and Guarantees: CBDCs have the same legal standing as physical cash. Users hold a direct claim on the central bank, eliminating credit and liquidity risk tied to intermediaries. Stablecoins offer no such sovereign guarantee. Holders rely on the issuer’s promise that tokens can be redeemed at par value. If reserves are mismanaged or frozen, users may face losses or delayed redemptions. Monetary Policy and Control: CBDCs give central banks a powerful new policy tool. In theory, they allow for programmable money, real-time policy transmission, and closer oversight of money flows. This could strengthen a central bank’s ability to respond to inflation, capital flight, or financial instability. Stablecoins operate outside direct monetary policy control. While pegged to fiat currencies, their issuance and circulation are driven by market demand rather than central bank objectives. Large-scale stablecoin adoption can complicate capital controls and weaken monetary sovereignty, particularly in emerging markets. Transparency and Privacy: CBDCs are typically designed with varying degrees of transaction visibility. Central banks may have access to transaction data, raising concerns around privacy, surveillance, and data governance. Stablecoins, especially those running on public blockchains, offer transparent transaction records, but user identities are often managed by exchanges and wallet providers. Privacy depends less on the token itself and more on how users access it. Infrastructure and Accessibility: CBDCs usually rely on state-approved infrastructure, which may or may not use blockchain technology. Access often requires compliance with national identity systems and banking rules. Stablecoins run on open, global blockchain networks and can be accessed with an internet connection and a compatible wallet. This has made them particularly popular for cross-border payments, remittances, and crypto trading. Risk Profile: CBDCs carry minimal credit risk, as they are backed by the central bank. The main risks are political, technical, or related to data misuse. Stablecoins carry issuer risk, regulatory risk, and, in some cases, market risk. Past de-pegging events have shown that not all stablecoins are equally resilient, especially during periods of market stress. Conclusion CBDCs and fiat-backed stablecoins are often framed as rivals, but they may ultimately coexist. CBDCs aim to modernize sovereign money and preserve state control over currency, while stablecoins have emerged as market-driven tools optimized for speed, interoperability, and global reach. The balance between the two will shape the future of payments, financial inclusion, and monetary sovereignty, especially in regions where access to traditional banking remains limited. As governments push forward with CBDC pilots and regulators tighten oversight of stablecoins, the distinction between public digital money and privately issued digital cash equivalents will become even more consequential. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 1. Are CBDCs the same as digital cash?CBDCs are digital versions of sovereign currency issued by central banks. Like cash, they are a direct liability of the state, but they exist only in electronic form. 2. Can stablecoins replace national currencies?Stablecoins can function as payment and settlement tools, but they do not replace national currencies because they are not legal tender and lack sovereign backing. 3. Why are governments cautious about stablecoins?Authorities worry that large-scale stablecoin adoption could weaken monetary control, complicate capital regulations, and introduce financial stability risks. 4. Do CBDCs use blockchain technology?Not always. Some CBDCs use distributed ledger technology, while others rely on centralized systems designed and controlled by central banks. 5. Which is safer: a CBDC or a fiat-backed stablecoin?CBDCs generally carry lower credit risk because they are backed by central banks. Stablecoin safety depends on reserve quality, issuer transparency, and regulation.

What Drove Crypto Markets Lower This Week? Crypto markets extended their pullback as trading activity slowed heading into the holiday period. Bitcoin fell more than 5% over the past week, sliding to a low near $84,400 on Thursday before stabilizing above $87,700 by Friday, according to TradingView data. The move capped another volatile stretch that has weighed on sentiment across major digital assets. Liquidity conditions thinned as traders reduced exposure, a pattern that often magnifies price swings during quieter calendar periods. The broader market followed bitcoin lower, reinforcing concerns that volatility remains a central risk for crypto-linked balance sheets and treasury strategies. That volatility has become especially relevant for digital asset treasury companies, whose market value increasingly tracks the tokens they hold. Industry executives have warned that sharp swings in token prices can push these firms into repeated premiums and discounts to net asset value, creating instability that extends beyond day-to-day price action. Investor Takeaway Thin liquidity and balance-sheet exposure are amplifying market moves. Treasury-heavy crypto firms face growing pressure when token prices swing sharply in either direction. Is Bitcoin Entering Another Post-Cycle Cooldown? Fidelity’s Director of Global Macro, Jurien Timmer, has added weight to the growing discussion around bitcoin’s four-year cycle. He argues that recent price behavior fits closely with past patterns, both in timing and magnitude, raising the possibility that the latest halving-driven phase has already run its course. Timmer points to bitcoin’s October peak near $125,000 as a key reference. Reached after roughly 145 months of cumulative advances across multiple cycles, the high aligns with previous cycle tops when measured against historical analogs. In past cycles, bitcoin’s strongest rallies were followed by extended consolidation or drawdown periods commonly referred to as “crypto winters.” “While I remain a secular bull on bitcoin, my concern is that bitcoin may well have ended another four year cycle halving phase, both in price and time,” Timmer wrote on X. “If we visually line up all the bull markets, we can see that the October high of $125k after 145 months of rallying fits pretty well with what one might expect. Bitcoin winters have lasted about a year, so my sense is that 2026 could be a year off for bitcoin. Support is at $65,000 to $75,000.” Under this framework, 2026 would resemble prior cooldown phases rather than the explosive growth years that followed halvings. That view stands in contrast to more aggressive upside forecasts still circulating in crypto markets. How Does Bitcoin Compare With Gold Right Now? Timmer also draws a sharp contrast between bitcoin’s recent weakness and gold’s performance this year. While bitcoin has struggled to hold momentum, gold has risen roughly 65% year to date, outperforming growth in global money supply. He notes that gold’s behavior during its latest correction fits a classic bull-market pattern. Rather than retracing sharply, the metal has retained most of its gains, a sign that buyers remain active even during pullbacks. Bitcoin, by contrast, has given back a larger share of its recent advance. Timmer does not expect a near-term rebalancing between the two assets. In his view, gold’s role as a defensive asset has reasserted itself during periods of macro uncertainty, while bitcoin remains more sensitive to cycle dynamics and liquidity conditions. Investor Takeaway Gold and bitcoin are behaving differently. Gold has held gains during corrections, while bitcoin shows traits consistent with past post-cycle phases. What Does This Mean for 2025 and Beyond? If the four-year cycle thesis holds, bitcoin may spend the coming months trading within a wide range rather than pushing to fresh highs. Timmer’s identified support zone between $65,000 and $75,000 would mark a deep retracement from recent peaks but still sit well above levels seen in earlier cycles. For crypto-linked companies and funds, that environment raises practical challenges. Balance sheets tied closely to token prices face ongoing valuation swings, while investors may demand clearer paths to durability beyond price appreciation alone. Seasonal factors may continue to shape near-term moves, with thinner volumes leaving markets vulnerable to sharper declines or short-lived rebounds. Beyond that, attention is likely to turn toward whether bitcoin can build a base that resembles prior consolidation phases—or whether structural changes in market participation alter the familiar rhythm. For now, the message from recent price action and macro commentary is cautious. Bitcoin remains far above its pre-halving levels, but history suggests that cycles rarely move in straight lines. Whether 2026 becomes a pause year, as Timmer suggests, will depend on how the current drawdown resolves in the months ahead.

What Is the SEC Alleging Against VBit? The US Securities and Exchange Commission has taken the position that certain Bitcoin mining hosting services can qualify as securities, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday against mining firm VBit and its founder, Danh Vo. The complaint, lodged in Delaware federal court, accuses the company of fraud and of misusing roughly $48 million raised from investors between 2018 and 2022. At the center of the case are VBit’s so-called Hosting Agreements. The SEC argues these contracts meet the legal standard for securities under the Howey test, which looks at whether investors commit money to a common enterprise with an expectation of profit based on the efforts of others. “VBit’s Hosting Agreements are investment contracts and therefore securities,” the SEC wrote in its filing. The agency added that buyers “did so with the expectation of earning passive income and relied exclusively on VBit’s efforts to earn a profit,” noting that investors neither controlled nor operated the mining rigs they believed they owned. According to the complaint, VBit sold more hosting agreements than it had mining machines available, leaving many customers without the computing power they were promised. Investor Takeaway The SEC’s case hinges on how VBit structured its hosting contracts. The outcome may hinge less on mining itself and more on investor control, disclosure, and profit expectations. Why Does the SEC Say These Hosting Deals Look Like Securities? The regulator argues that VBit’s model tied investor outcomes together in a way that fits securities law. In the lawsuit, the SEC says VBit directed customers’ computing power into a mining pool it controlled, rather than letting each client independently manage their equipment. “The fortunes of each investor were purportedly tied to the fortunes of other investors,” the SEC wrote, adding that returns depended on the performance of VBit’s overall mining pool and on the company’s ability to attract more participants. This pooling of hashrate, according to the agency, created a shared profit structure that left investors dependent on VBit’s operational choices. The SEC also claims VBit kept full control over mining operations, while customers lacked visibility into where their rigs were located or how they were being used. That framing echoes enforcement tactics used more frequently during the Biden administration, when the SEC often applied securities laws broadly across crypto-related business models. While the current administration has dropped several high-profile crypto probes, fraud-based cases such as VBit’s remain active. Does This Apply to the Broader Hosted Mining Industry? Industry participants have pushed back sharply against the SEC’s interpretation, arguing that VBit’s setup does not reflect how legitimate hosted Bitcoin mining works. Mitchell Askew, head of Blockware Intelligence, said the agency’s theory rests on practices that most hosting providers avoid. “Hosted Bitcoin mining simply means a client purchases a computer and electricity,” Askew told Cointelegraph. “There’s no pooling of capital, no profit-sharing, and no reliance on a promoter to generate returns. Under the Howey test, that is very clearly not a security.” Askew also disputed the idea that the lawsuit creates risk for compliant operators. “I don’t think this affects the hosted mining industry at all. Legitimate hosted mining has no resemblance to an investment contract, and this theory has no legs to stand on,” he said. In traditional hosted mining arrangements, customers usually retain ownership of their machines, choose which mining pool to join, and receive payouts directly from the network. The provider supplies space, power, and maintenance rather than acting as a profit manager. Investor Takeaway The SEC’s argument focuses on control and pooling. Hosted mining models that give customers direct ownership and payout control may sit outside this interpretation. How Does This Fit Into the SEC’s Broader Crypto Stance? The VBit lawsuit stands out as one of the more aggressive classifications made by the SEC since the change in administration. Under President Trump, the agency has adopted a more accommodating tone toward crypto markets, while still pursuing cases tied to alleged deception or misuse of funds. Several enforcement actions launched during the previous administration have been dropped or narrowed, yet the SEC continues to pursue cases it views as clear-cut fraud. The VBit complaint falls into that category, according to the agency, which alleges the company misrepresented its mining capacity and investor arrangements. The SEC did not respond to a request for comment on whether the lawsuit reflects a broader policy view on mining hosting services. For now, the case places a spotlight on how Bitcoin mining products are marketed to investors. If courts accept the SEC’s reasoning, hosting providers may face closer scrutiny when contracts blur the line between infrastructure services and profit-oriented offerings. If the agency’s view is rejected, the decision could limit how far securities law reaches into mining operations.

Markets face Fed patience despite cooling inflation, geopolitics underpin gold, and global policy divergence sustains strong dollar, delaying cuts expectations. The Fed’s Balancing Act: Cooling Data vs. Policy Caution The primary narrative remains the tension between slowing U.S. inflation and a Federal Reserve that refuses to be hurried into aggressive easing. While the November Consumer Price Index (CPI) slowed to 2.7%, undershooting expectations, the victory lap for markets has been cut short. New York Fed President John Williams has signaled a lack of urgency, suggesting that while the labor market shows signs of softening with unemployment at 4.6%, distortions from the recent government shutdown have clouded the reliability of the data. This "statistical artifact" concern, combined with looming 2026 wildcards like trade tariffs and labor supply constraints in the services sector, has kept the Fed on a restrictive footing. Investors are now caught in a waiting game, pricing in modest cuts for late 2026 while acknowledging that the central bank is unlikely to budge at the upcoming January meeting. Geopolitics and the Resurgence of the Safe-Haven Premium Gold’s resilience is increasingly tied to a darkening geopolitical horizon, which provides a persistent "tail-wind" even when the US Dollar is strong. While there is tentative optimism regarding peace talks in Eastern Europe, new friction points are emerging in the West. Recent threats from the U.S. administration regarding the seizure of oil tankers near Venezuela—and the explicit mention that military options remain "on the table"—have reintroduced a significant risk premium into the commodity markets. For Gold, these tensions act as a floor, preventing a deeper sell-off despite rising equity markets and a firm Greenback. As long as the threat of energy-sector disruptions and regional conflict persists, the "safe-haven" status of precious metals will remain a cornerstone of institutional portfolios. Global Monetary Divergence and the King Dollar The third pillar of the current market is the widening gap between the Federal Reserve and other major central banks, a phenomenon that continues to fuel US Dollar (USD) dominance. In Japan, the Bank of Japan’s move to hike rates to a 30-year high of 0.75% failed to rescue the Yen, as cautious forward guidance signaled that the tightening cycle may be slow and shallow. Similarly, the British Pound has struggled after the Bank of England delivered a rate cut against a backdrop of disappointing retail sales. This divergence creates a "carry trade" environment where the USD remains the preferred destination for capital. Even with softer U.S. inflation, the Greenback’s yield advantage over the Euro, Yen, and Pound remains substantial. This firm Dollar acts as a ceiling for Gold and other dollar-denominated assets, keeping the market in a state of consolidation rather than a full breakout. Top upcoming economic events:   12/22/2025 – PBoC Interest Rate Decision (CNY) As the first major event of the week, the People’s Bank of China's decision sets the tone for Asian markets. This event is critical because it dictates the cost of borrowing in the world's second-largest economy. Any change, or even a "hold," provides insight into how China is managing its economic recovery and property sector, which has significant ripple effects on global commodity prices and trade partners. 12/22/2025 – Gross Domestic Product (QoQ) (GBP) The UK’s quarterly GDP is the primary "health check" for the British economy. This high-impact release tells investors whether the economy is expanding or contracting. A higher-than-expected figure often strengthens the Pound (GBP), as it suggests the economy is resilient enough to handle current interest rate levels, whereas a low figure can spark recession fears. 12/23/2025 – RBA Meeting Minutes (AUD) These minutes provide a detailed record of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s most recent policy meeting. They are vital for traders because they reveal the "hawkish" or "dovish" leanings of board members. By reading the nuances of their debate, markets can better predict future interest rate hikes or cuts, directly impacting the value of the Australian Dollar. 12/23/2025 – Gross Domestic Product (QoQ) (EUR) This medium-impact release serves as a barometer for the Eurozone's economic growth. While it is a "second read" or update for the quarter, it remains a key metric for the European Central Bank (ECB) when determining monetary policy. Stability here is crucial for maintaining confidence in the Euro across the 20-nation bloc. 12/23/2025 – Gross Domestic Product Annualized (USD) This is arguably the most important data point of the week. The annualized GDP for the United States represents the total value of all goods and services produced. It is a lagging but definitive indicator of economic health. Significant deviations from expectations can cause massive volatility in global stock markets and the USD, as it influences Federal Reserve policy. 12/23/2025 – BoC Summary of Deliberations (CAD) Similar to the RBA minutes, this document provides transparency into the Bank of Canada’s decision-making process. It helps investors understand the specific economic pressures—such as housing costs or inflation—that are weighing on Canadian policymakers. It is essential for those looking to understand the future path of the "Loonie." 12/23/2025 – BoJ Monetary Policy Meeting Minutes (JPY) Japan’s monetary policy has been a focal point of global finance due to its transition away from negative interest rates. These minutes allow markets to see how close the Bank of Japan is to further policy normalization. Even subtle shifts in language regarding inflation or wage growth can cause significant movement in Yen pairs. 12/24/2025 – Initial Jobless Claims (USD) Released a day early due to the Christmas holiday, this is a "real-time" pulse check on the U.S. labor market. It measures the number of individuals filing for unemployment insurance for the first time. In a cooling economy, an unexpected rise in claims can be a leading indicator of an upcoming recession, making this a closely watched figure for short-term traders. 12/25/2025 – BoJ Governor Ueda speech (JPY) Direct communication from a central bank head is always high-impact. Governor Ueda’s speech on Christmas Day is particularly notable as it may provide a year-end summary or a forward-looking "roadmap" for 2026. His comments can clarify the Bank's stance on inflation, often overriding the impact of previous data releases. 12/25/2025 – Tokyo Consumer Price Index (YoY) (JPY) The Tokyo CPI is considered a leading indicator for national inflation trends in Japan. Because it is released ahead of the national data, it gives the market an early look at how consumer prices are behaving. High inflation readings here would put more pressure on the BoJ to tighten monetary policy in the coming months.     The subject matter and the content of this article are solely the views of the author. FinanceFeeds does not bear any legal responsibility for the content of this article and they do not reflect the viewpoint of FinanceFeeds or its editorial staff. The information does not constitute advice or a recommendation on any course of action and does not take into account your personal circumstances, financial situation, or individual needs. We strongly recommend you seek independent professional advice or conduct your own independent research before acting upon any information contained in this article.

Given the strength of the support level 1.7700 and the bullish Ripple sentiment seen today across the crypto currency markets, Ripple cryptocurrency can be expected to rise further to the next resistance round level 2.0000.   Ripple  reversed from long-term support level 1.7700 Likely to rise to resistance level 2.0000 Ripple cryptocurrency recently reversed up from the strong support area between the powerful long-term support level 1.7700 (former multi-month resistance from the start of 2021, which is acting as the strong support now after it was broke at the end of 2024, as can be seen from the weekly Ripple chart below) and the lower weekly Bollinger Band. The upward reversal from this support area stopped the previously weekly downward correction from September, which belongs to the long-term upward impulse sequence (III) which started earlier this year. Given the strength of the support level 1.7700 and the bullish Ripple sentiment seen today across the crypto currency markets, Ripple cryptocurrency can be expected to rise further to the next resistance round level 2.0000. [caption id="attachment_178910" align="alignnone" width="800"] Ripple Technical Analysis[/caption] The subject matter and the content of this article are solely the views of the author. FinanceFeeds does not bear any legal responsibility for the content of this article and they do not reflect the viewpoint of FinanceFeeds or its editorial staff. The information does not constitute advice or a recommendation on any course of action and does not take into account your personal circumstances, financial situation, or individual needs. We strongly recommend you seek independent professional advice or conduct your own independent research before acting upon any information contained in this article.

Why Did the FCA Remove Verus Financial Services’ Authorisation? The UK Financial Conduct Authority has revoked all regulatory permissions held by Verus Financial Services Limited, forcing the firm to stop all regulated activity with immediate effect. The action follows repeated breaches of an existing asset restriction and the firm’s failure to pay a legally binding Financial Ombudsman Service redress award. In a First Supervisory Notice dated 27 October 2025, the FCA said Verus could no longer be relied upon to act in consumers’ interests or to engage openly with the regulator. As a result, the firm is no longer allowed to provide regulated financial advice or operate as an independent financial adviser. Clients have been instructed to seek advice from another authorised firm. The move represents a clear escalation from earlier supervisory intervention and reflects the regulator’s tougher stance on firms that do not honour Ombudsman decisions or attempt to deal with assets once liabilities arise. Investor Takeaway Failure to pay Ombudsman awards is increasingly treated as a licence-ending issue. The FCA is moving quickly where redress remains unpaid and asset controls are ignored. How Did the Ombudsman Case Trigger Regulatory Action? Verus Financial Services was incorporated in November 2016 and became FCA-authorised in March 2017. The firm operated as a financial advice and intermediary business but was not permitted to hold client money. Regulatory scrutiny intensified in 2023 after a customer complained about pension advice. According to the FCA, the client had been advised into a high-risk, non-standard investment that did not align with their stated risk profile. The complaint also questioned whether the client had been wrongly categorised as an elective professional client. The Financial Ombudsman Service upheld the complaint in June 2024 and ordered Verus to pay £415,000 in compensation. The customer accepted the decision the following month, making it final and enforceable. Despite this, the FCA says Verus failed to pay the award, including missing agreed instalments. By mid-2025, more than a year after the ruling, the compensation remained outstanding. What Were the Asset Restriction Breaches? Before the Ombudsman decision was final, the FCA had already moved to limit risk at the firm. In September 2023, Verus agreed to a voluntary asset restriction preventing it from selling, transferring or otherwise reducing its assets without regulatory consent above a defined threshold. The FCA now says that restriction was breached multiple times. The supervisory notice states that Verus made payments above the permitted limit without approval, including transfers to a connected company. The regulator said the firm admitted the breaches and accepted that they were deliberate. These actions raised concerns that assets were being moved despite known redress exposure. In response, the FCA imposed a far stricter restriction. Under the new terms, Verus cannot deal with any of its assets without prior approval, except for tightly limited spending on essential operating and legal costs. Investor Takeaway Breaching asset restrictions is treated as evidence of intent, not oversight. Once assets move without approval, enforcement tends to escalate rapidly. Why Governance and Cooperation Became Central Issues The FCA also cited governance weaknesses and poor regulatory engagement. Verus is run by a sole director who holds all senior management functions, concentrating oversight and decision-making in one individual. The regulator said this structure, combined with missed redress payments and asset restriction breaches, weakened confidence in the firm’s ability to meet basic standards of integrity and consumer protection. Lack of cooperation with supervisory requests further undermined trust. Non-payment of Ombudsman awards is taken seriously because it directly affects consumer outcomes and can point to financial stress or unwillingness to prioritise clients once liabilities arise. Why Did the FCA Warn About a Connected Firm? Alongside the action against Verus Financial Services, the FCA issued a consumer warning about Verus Estates Limited, a connected firm that is not authorised by the regulator. Verus Estates is the majority shareholder of Verus Financial Services and is controlled by the same individual. The FCA warned that Verus Estates is not permitted to carry out regulated activities in the UK. Consumers dealing with unauthorised firms are not protected by the Financial Ombudsman Service or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. What Should Clients Do Now? The FCA stressed that the regulatory action does not automatically mean that investments arranged by Verus have failed or underperformed. The intervention relates to governance failures, asset handling and redress non-payment. Clients are advised to find a new authorised financial adviser and to seek guidance through MoneyHelper.

Did Kalshi Plan to Let Users Bet on College Transfers? Prediction market Kalshi says it does not plan to allow wagers on whether college athletes will enter the NCAA transfer portal, despite having sought regulatory approval for such contracts. The clarification followed public backlash after filings suggested the exchange could list contracts tied to player transfer decisions. “We have no immediate plans to list these contracts,” a Kalshi spokesperson said. “There are many markets we certify but don't launch.” Kalshi said the certification process—submitting a contract to regulators for review—does not guarantee that a market will go live. According to the company, it routinely seeks approval for ideas that never reach users. One example cited by the firm was a previously certified contract on whether an extinct animal might return, which was never listed. The comments followed reports that Kalshi had filed with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission indicating that contracts tied to the college transfer portal could become available. ESPN reported that the filing suggested a potential launch as early as Wednesday, triggering immediate reaction from college sports officials. Investor Takeaway Regulatory certification does not equal product launch. Kalshi’s filings highlight how prediction markets test boundaries with regulators before deciding what actually reaches users. Why Did the NCAA React So Strongly? The National Collegiate Athletic Association moved quickly to oppose the idea. NCAA President Charlie Baker publicly criticized Kalshi, arguing that wagers on athlete transfer decisions would add pressure to students already facing abuse tied to sports betting. “The NCAA vehemently opposes college sports prediction markets,” Baker wrote on X. “It is already bad enough that student-athletes face harassment and abuse for lost bets on game performance, and now Kalshi wants to offer bets on their transfer decisions and status.” Baker said betting on transfer decisions would threaten recruiting systems and competitive balance. “This is absolutely unacceptable and would place even greater pressure on student-athletes while threatening competition integrity and recruiting processes,” he added. The transfer portal allows college athletes to formally declare interest in switching schools, opening the door for contact from other programs. While the system is a core part of modern college sports, it remains sensitive due to concerns over player treatment, inducements, and competitive fairness. How Does Kalshi Defend Its Regulatory Standing? Kalshi pushed back against claims that it operates outside traditional oversight. Responding to Baker’s criticism, the company rejected the idea that its markets exist in a legal gray area. “It’s inaccurate to say we are unregulated,” a Kalshi spokesperson told crypto outlet The Block. “We are a federally regulated exchange, governed by the Commodity Exchange Act and its hundreds of regulations.” Kalshi is registered as a Designated Contract Market, which allows it to list futures, options, and swaps tied to event outcomes. Unlike sportsbooks regulated at the state level, Kalshi operates under federal commodities law, a distinction the firm often highlights when defending its offerings. That regulatory structure has allowed Kalshi to list event contracts that resemble betting markets, including wagers on the outcomes of college football and basketball games. Its main rival, Polymarket, also lists contracts tied to college sports outcomes, though Polymarket operates outside the U.S. regulatory framework. Investor Takeaway The clash shows how prediction markets sit between commodities law and sports betting norms, a tension likely to grow as contracts expand into more sensitive categories. What Does This Episode Say About Prediction Markets’ Limits? The transfer-portal controversy highlights the fault lines facing regulated prediction markets as they expand beyond politics and economics into cultural and sporting domains. Even when legally permitted to certify markets, exchanges still face reputational, ethical, and political constraints that can halt a product before launch. For Kalshi, the episode reinforces a pattern: aggressive exploration of new contract types paired with caution once public reaction becomes clear. The firm says certification is part of internal risk assessment, not a promise of availability. Critics argue the process still tests boundaries that traditional betting operators avoid. As prediction markets gain visibility, pressure from institutions like the NCAA may influence which ideas remain theoretical and which reach the screen. Federal regulation provides a legal framework, but it does not insulate platforms from backlash when markets intersect with student athletes, elections, or other sensitive subjects. For now, Kalshi says transfer portal bets will not move forward. But the broader question—how far regulated prediction markets can push into sports-related outcomes—remains unresolved.

Interactive Brokers has unveiled a redesigned version of its IBKR GlobalTrader mobile app, signaling a renewed focus on simplicity and accessibility for investors trading across global markets. The update reflects the firm’s broader strategy to serve investors at every experience level, offering an intuitive entry point alongside its more advanced IBKR Mobile platform. The refreshed interface delivers faster navigation and a cleaner user experience, while preserving the global market access that has long defined Interactive Brokers’ offering. Through the app, users can trade stocks, ETFs, options, and access cryptocurrencies, all within a streamlined mobile environment designed to reduce friction for everyday investing. IBKR GlobalTrader is positioned as a complementary platform rather than a replacement for IBKR Mobile. While the flagship app continues to cater to more advanced and active traders, GlobalTrader is designed for users who prioritize clarity and ease of use without sacrificing access to international markets. AI-Driven Insights and Forecast Contracts Take Center Stage One of the most notable additions to the redesigned app is integrated access to forecast contracts, allowing users to trade these instruments directly through a simplified, mobile-friendly interface. This feature expands the range of tools available to GlobalTrader users while keeping execution straightforward. The app also introduces AI-generated news summaries, giving investors concise overviews of market developments without requiring them to sift through large volumes of information. These summaries are accessible through both the Explore section and individual quote detail pages, supporting quicker decision-making on the go. The redesigned Explore page plays a central role in helping users identify investment opportunities. It highlights related instruments and markets, while Investment Themes connect companies, products, competitors, and regions across the S&P 1500 universe, streamlining research and discovery within a single mobile experience. Takeaway: The redesigned IBKR GlobalTrader app blends simplicity with powerful features, using AI-driven insights and forecast contract access to make global investing more approachable on mobile. Streamlined Trading Tools Designed for a Broader Audience Beyond discovery and insights, Interactive Brokers has refined core trading workflows within the app. Enhanced watchlists now include spark charts for monitoring intraday changes, while portfolio management tools consolidate order history, funding options, and controls into a single, easily accessible view. The order ticket has also been simplified with a new step-by-step “Focused” view, aimed at guiding users through trades with minimal complexity. For those who require additional control, the app still offers the option to switch to a more advanced ticket, maintaining flexibility across different trading styles. Milan Galik, Chief Executive Officer of Interactive Brokers, said: “We created IBKR GlobalTrader as a streamlined complement to our flagship IBKR Mobile, bringing the power of our comprehensive trading tools into a simpler, more intuitive experience. The app makes it easy for novice investors who might be new to our platform to trade across global markets from one place.” The redesigned IBKR GlobalTrader app is now available on iOS and Android, with Interactive Brokers noting strong early adoption and additional enhancements planned in future updates.  

Regnology has signed an exclusive agreement to acquire Moody’s Regulatory Reporting & ALM Solutions business, marking a significant step in the company’s ambition to become a global leader across regulatory reporting, risk, and finance technology. The proposed acquisition includes solutions covering Basel III compliance, IFRS9 impairment accounting, large-bank asset-liability management (ALM), Solvency II insurance reporting, and prudential and statistical reporting across more than 50 jurisdictions. The deal substantially expands Regnology’s functional and geographic reach, allowing it to address a wider range of regulatory and risk requirements for banks and insurers operating in complex, multi-jurisdictional environments. By adding Moody’s regulatory capital and liquidity capabilities, Regnology aims to strengthen its position with large, internationally active financial institutions that increasingly demand integrated and future-ready compliance solutions. The transaction also reflects broader industry trends, as financial institutions face rising regulatory complexity alongside pressure to modernise legacy risk and reporting infrastructures. Regnology said the acquisition is designed to accelerate its expansion into new markets while reinforcing its role as a strategic technology partner for Chief Risk Officers and Chief Financial Officers navigating heightened supervisory expectations. Regnology Risk Hub at the Centre of the Combined Offering At the core of the acquisition strategy is the Regnology Risk Hub (RRiskHub), an integrated platform intended to provide a single point of control for regulatory compliance, risk analytics, and strategic decision-making. RRiskHub will combine Regnology’s established strengths in regulatory reporting and core risk with the risk quantification and ALM capabilities acquired from Moody’s, creating what the company describes as a new standard for all-in-one regulatory and risk solutions. The expanded platform will cover financial risk measurement, capital and liquidity management, and multi-jurisdictional reporting within a unified architecture. Built on the Regnology Granular Data (RGD) model, the solution is designed to ensure consistency, auditability, and scalability across regulatory and risk domains. Regnology said this approach supports greater automation and transparency while reducing fragmentation between risk, finance, and regulatory functions. Rob Mackay, Chief Executive Officer of Regnology, said: “The proposed acquisition of Moody’s Regulatory Reporting & ALM Solutions is a bold step forward in our mission to be at the forefront of the regulatory and risk technology space. This acquisition strengthens our shared commitment to deliver transformative value and help Chief Risk Officers and Chief Financial Officers navigate an increasingly complex landscape with confidence. We are looking forward to further advancing our platform to empower financial institutions worldwide with innovative solutions, while opening new horizons for our customers and employees to thrive.” Takeaway: By agreeing to acquire Moody’s Regulatory Reporting & ALM Solutions, Regnology is building a broader, integrated platform that brings regulatory reporting, capital, liquidity, and ALM capabilities under one roof for global financial institutions. Implications for Clients, Investors, and the RegTech Landscape The acquisition is backed by Nordic Capital, Regnology’s majority owner, which sees the deal as reinforcing the firm’s momentum in the regulatory technology sector. Fredrik Näslund, Partner at Nordic Capital Advisors, said: “Nordic Capital is delighted to support Regnology as it continues its impressive growth journey. This acquisition underscores Regnology’s strong accelerating progress within the regulatory technology sector to further deliver outstanding solutions to financial institutions around the world.” For Moody’s, the transaction allows the firm to sharpen its strategic focus while placing its regulatory reporting and ALM solutions within a platform purpose-built for regulatory technology. Andrew Bockelman, Head of Banking Solutions for Moody’s, said: “We are grateful for the work of our teams that have built these solutions over the years, and we are confident they are joining an organization that will continue to provide top-rate service to customers and new growth opportunities for employees. Regnology is strategically positioned to build on the strengths of these product families, while Moody’s continues to focus on its core lending, credit modeling, KYC, financial crime, portfolio risk, and data-driven solutions.” The proposed acquisition remains subject to consultation with relevant works councils and the receipt of regulatory approvals in several jurisdictions. If completed, it is expected to further consolidate Regnology’s position in a RegTech market increasingly defined by the need for scalable platforms that can handle regulatory change, data intensity, and cross-border complexity. For financial institutions, the deal signals continued convergence between regulatory reporting, risk management, and strategic finance technology under unified operating models.  

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) outpaces the broader cryptocurrency market with a 9.57% surge to $586.67. High-profile rotation by ShapeShift founder Erik Voorhees signals significant veteran confidence in the "digital cash" narrative. The activation of "Cashinals" and BitMart's network support drive on-chain utility and retail interest. Bitcoin Cash Market Momentum Intensifies Following Strategic Whale Movements The cryptocurrency market witnessed a sudden shift in capital on December 18, 2025, as Bitcoin Cash (BCH) emerged as a standout performer, climbing nearly 10% while the broader market faced weekly declines. This rally, which pushed BCH to an intraday high of $586.67, has been fueled by a combination of high-profile whale activity and the introduction of a new NFT-style system on the network. A primary driver for why Bitcoin Cash is going up today is the reactivation of a long-dormant whale address linked to early Bitcoin evangelist and ShapeShift CEO Erik Voorhees. After nine years of inactivity, the wallet (identified as 0x03b5) executed a massive capital rotation, selling 4,619 ETH—worth approximately $13.42 million—to purchase 24,950 BCH. This transaction coincided with a 99.25% spike in 24-hour trading volume, reaching $718 million, and significantly amplified market momentum. Wallet(0x03b5), possibly linked to Erik Voorhees(@ErikVoorhees), has recently swapped $ETH for $BCH after being dormant for 9 years. Over the past 2 weeks, the wallet has exchanged 4,619 $ETH($13.42M) for 24,950 $BCH.https://t.co/8lywWeQdUWhttps://t.co/ZL9LgFPXwv pic.twitter.com/eJPrCm6e5A — Lookonchain (@lookonchain) December 18, 2025 Why Is Bitcoin Cash Price Surging? Whale Confidence and Ecosystem Growth The rotation of assets by a veteran crypto figure like Voorhees suggests a strategic rebalancing toward the "digital cash" utility that BCH promotes. Analysts suggest that such moves by long-term ETH holders indicate a shifting market interest toward alternative digital currencies. As noted by the on-chain analytics platform Lookonchain, the wallet had not seen activity since 2016, a period when ETH was valued at just $20, resulting in a profit of over $13.3 million for the holder. Adding fundamental fuel to the fire is the activation of "Cashinals" on December 18—an Ordinals-style system that enables BCH-20 tokens like $CASH. This development mimics the 2023 Ordinals boom on the Bitcoin network, which historically drove massive fee revenue spikes. In its first 12 hours, $CASH reached 8.2 million mints, pushing BCH block space demand to 6-month highs. Tomorrow: Cashinals brings Ordinals-style inscriptions to Bitcoin Cash ? Fully on-chain, self-custody wallet, marketplace – all on BCH. Who's minting first? ? #BCH #Cashinals https://t.co/npMj8PBYmL — Bitcoin Cash (BCH) (@BitcoinCashOG) December 17, 2025 Industry adoption followed quickly. On December 18, BitMart announced the launch of Cashinals on the Bitcoin Cash network, adding on-chain inscriptions and an integrated wallet. This integration is expected to further boost transaction demand and miner fees, strengthening the network's economic floor. Save this POST , & thanks us later. It's probably a good buying time in $BCH , Cause... we track a , Nine Years Silent -- Then a Full Rotation After nearly a decade of inactivity, this wallet suddenly woke up, and it didn’t just move funds, it changed its bet. The address… pic.twitter.com/6qc7wAX64b — EyeOnChain (@EyeOnChain) December 18, 2025 Technical Analysis Reveals Bitcoin Cash Price Prediction Bullish Potential From a technical perspective, the recent price action has cleared several critical hurdles. Our Bitcoin Cash Price Prediction indicates a target range of $605 to $625 over the next three weeks as the asset recovers from a deep oversold bounce at the $560 support level. The technical setup for this Bitcoin Cash Price Prediction shows BCH trading above its 7-day ($558) and 30-day ($552) Exponential Moving Averages (EMAs). Furthermore, derivatives data from CoinGlass shows that BCH futures Open Interest (OI) surged 18.69% in 24 hours to $761.48 million, reflecting a return of risk-on sentiment. While the current RSI of 48.99 to 52.86 remains neutral, it provides ample room for upward momentum before reaching overbought conditions. However, some analysts, including Valdrin Tahiri, caution that failure to reach the $615-$620 horizontal resistance area could signal exhaustion. A breakdown below the $470 to $500 support zone would invalidate the current bullish outlook and potentially trigger a correction toward $320. [caption id="attachment_178771" align="aligncenter" width="1840"] Source - https://www.tradingview.com/[/caption] Technical Summary Metric Value/Level Sentiment Current Pivot Support $562 Neutral/Bullish Immediate Resistance $605 - $607 Bearish Barrier RSI-14 (Daily) 52.86 Neutral/Rising BCH Open Interest $761.48M Strongly Bullish 60-Day Gain vs BTC +21.42% Outperforming Lookonchain Analysis and Important Quotes The on-chain activity has been widely discussed on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter). Analytics firm Lookonchain provided the definitive data on the whale movement that sparked the rally. Verbatim Tweet Content (Lookonchain Thread Summary): "An Ethereum wallet linked to Erik Voorhees (@ErikVoorhees) reactivated after 9 years of dormancy. The wallet 0x03b5 has sold 4,619 ETH ($13.42M) for 24,950 BCH over the past two weeks. This marks a massive capital rotation from ETH to Bitcoin Cash." Commentary: This activity highlights a "smart money" rotation. While Ethereum has struggled to maintain stability above the $3,000 level, veteran investors appear to be finding better value propositions in the revitalized Bitcoin Cash ecosystem. Important Quotes: Erik Voorhees, CEO of ShapeShift: Regarding the ETH-to-BCH event, official channels have noted: "No recent statements from Voorhees’ Twitter, LinkedIn, Medium, blogs, or other official channels directly address this ETH-to-BCH exchange event," though the on-chain data remains undeniable. Lawrence Jengar, Market Analyst: "BCH price prediction targets $580-$625 range as Bitcoin Cash shows signs of oversold bounce from $518 support, with technical indicators suggesting 12-17% upside potential." Valdrin Tahiri, Technical Analyst: "Bitcoin Cash is now at a pivotal moment. Repeated failures at the $615 resistance... suggest that the recent rally may have been the final leg of an A-B-C correction." Bitcoin Cash Price FAQ What is the short-term Bitcoin Cash Price Prediction? In the short term (1 week), analysts target a range of $572 to $580. For the rally to continue toward $625, BCH must achieve a decisive daily close above the $562 pivot and maintain volume above $700 million. Is the Erik Voorhees move a bad sign for Ethereum? Some traders view the move as cautionary for Ethereum, as it may signal that early holders are no longer convinced of ETH’s long-term growth trajectory compared to assets like Bitcoin Cash. However, others dismiss this as an isolated case of portfolio rebalancing. What are 'Cashinals'? Cashinals is an Ordinals-style NFT and token system (BCH-20) activated on the Bitcoin Cash network. It allows users to mint tokens and digital inscriptions directly on the blockchain, significantly increasing network activity and demand for BCH. Is Bitcoin Cash a good buy right now? Investment decisions depend on risk tolerance. Conservative buyers are advised to wait for a breakout above $580 with volume confirmation. Aggressive traders might find entries near current levels with tight stop-losses below $518-$530, targeting the $600+ range. However, failure to hold the $500 level could lead to a 40% crash to the $320 resistance area.

The U.S. spot cryptocurrency ETF market presented a starkly divided landscape on Thursday, December 18, 2025. While Bitcoin funds demonstrated a powerful "dip-buying" resolve among institutional players, Ethereum products continued to face a punishing stretch of liquidations. This divergence highlights a maturing market where investors no longer view the two largest digital assets as a single trade, but rather as distinct instruments with unique risk profiles. Despite a broader 4.4% decline in the underlying Bitcoin price, which saw the asset slide toward $84,000, regulated investment vehicles acted as a vital stabilization mechanism, absorbing hundreds of millions in fresh capital even as retail sentiment wavered. Fidelity and BlackRock Anchor a $457 Million Rebound After a bruising 48-hour period that saw over $635 million in net withdrawals, the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF market staged a significant recovery on Wednesday and Thursday. Leading the charge was the Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC), which recorded a massive $391 million in net inflows. This surge pushed Fidelity’s total net assets toward the $12.4 billion milestone, reinforcing its status as the preferred choice for large-scale allocators. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) also reported healthy demand, capturing $111 million in new capital. This collective $457 million influx successfully flipped the week’s net flow into positive territory, signaling that institutional conviction remains high despite the year-end volatility. Market analysts noted that this "early positioning" suggests professional traders are viewing the $84,000 support level as a prime entry point ahead of potential rate cuts in early 2026. In contrast to Bitcoin’s resilient showing, the spot Ethereum ETF market experienced its most challenging week since its inception. On December 18, Ethereum funds extended a five-day losing streak, with total net outflows for the period reaching a staggering $533.1 million. The liquidations have cut the total assets under management for these products to approximately $17.34 billion, reflecting a broader institutional pivot away from the asset. This "Ether-specific" caution appears to be driven by concerns over network value capture and a rotation toward higher-growth opportunities within the Solana ecosystem. While corporate treasury companies like BitMine have continued to "buy the dip" by adding nearly 4 million ETH to their balance sheets, the regulated ETF market remains heavily skewed toward the sell side, leaving Ether struggling to maintain its footing above the critical $2,800 support zone. The XRP Anomaly: A Record-Breaking 32-Day Winning Streak The true outlier of the December market continues to be the burgeoning spot XRP ETF category. Defying the "choppy" behavior of its larger peers, XRP-linked funds have now recorded 32 consecutive trading sessions of positive net inflows. On Wednesday, the funds attracted an additional $18.99 million, bringing the cumulative total for the nascent asset class to over $1.14 billion since launching in mid-November. This relentless accumulation suggests a unique, non-correlated institutional interest in XRP, likely driven by its perceived utility in global payment infrastructure and the recent regulatory clarity provided by the GENIUS Act. As we move into the final trading days of 2025, the persistent demand for XRP highlights a growing fragmentation in the crypto market, where specialized assets are increasingly carving out their own distinct investor bases independent of Bitcoin’s price action.

The fallout from the catastrophic collapse of the Terra ecosystem took a dramatic turn on December 18, 2025, as the bankruptcy administrator for Terraform Labs filed a massive $4 billion lawsuit against Jump Trading and its top executives. The legal action, led by liquidator Todd Snyder, accuses the Chicago-based high-frequency trading giant of market manipulation and profiting from a "secret agreement" that accelerated the destruction of the $40 billion crypto empire. According to the complaint filed in an Illinois district court, Jump Trading allegedly engaged in illicit market intervention to prop up the price of the UST stablecoin during its initial de-pegging in May 2021. By covertly buying millions of tokens to restore the $1 peg, Jump is accused of creating a "false sense of stability" that enticed billions in further investment from unsuspecting retail and institutional players before the final, fatal crash in 2022. The "Secret Deal" and Alleged $1.28 Billion Profit The crux of the lawsuit centers on an undisclosed arrangement between Terraform founder Do Kwon and Jump Crypto President Kanav Kariya. The filing alleges that after Jump rescued the peg in 2021, Kwon rewarded the firm by modifying their prior agreements to convey over 61.4 million LUNA tokens at a 99% discount from market prices. This move effectively allowed Jump to accumulate a massive treasury of assets which they later resold into the market for a staggering $1.28 billion profit. The lawsuit argues that this intervention was not an act of market stabilization but a predatory scheme designed to extract value while masking the structural flaws of the algorithmic system. During depositions for a separate SEC case, Kariya reportedly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights multiple times when questioned about these specific back-door deals, further fueling the liquidator's claims of a coordinated effort to deceive the public. SEC Settlement and the Ripple Effect on Market Makers This new $4 billion claim follows closely on the heels of a $123 million settlement reached between Jump Trading subsidiary Tai Mo Shan Ltd. and the Securities and Exchange Commission in late 2024. In that case, the SEC alleged that Jump acted as an unregistered underwriter for LUNA and misled investors regarding the source of UST’s stability. While Jump settled without admitting or denying the findings, the civil lawsuit from the Terraform estate seeks a much higher level of accountability, aiming to claw back the "unjust enrichment" gained during the ecosystem's prime. For the broader industry, this case serves as a landmark test for the legal liability of market makers; if Jump is found responsible for the "acceleration" of the collapse, it could set a precedent that forces liquidity providers to disclose all private support agreements that affect the perceived stability of a digital asset.

In a decisive move for the future of American financial oversight, the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Michael Selig as the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on Thursday, December 18, 2025. Selig, who previously served as the Chief Counsel for the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, succeeds Acting Chair Caroline Pham, who led the agency through a transformative year of modernization. His confirmation marks the end of a monthslong leadership transition and signals a shift toward a "minimum effective dose" regulatory philosophy. Selig’s deep background in digital asset policy—ranging from his early days as a clerk for former Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo to his private practice work advising global trading platforms—positions him as a primary architect for the next era of regulated digital commodities. The "Minimum Effective Dose": Selig’s Vision for Market Innovation During his confirmation hearings, Selig emphasized a commitment to "common-sense, principles-based regulations" designed to keep pace with the rapid speed of technological innovation without stifling market growth. He has consistently advocated for a technology-neutral framework that treats digital assets with the same regulatory rigor as traditional commodities while acknowledging their unique structural properties. This "minimum effective dose" approach is expected to prioritize transparency and consumer protection while actively dismantling outdated rules that once hindered the integration of blockchain technology into mainstream derivatives markets. With the Senate's backing, Selig is now tasked with implementing the final stages of the GENIUS Act and overseeing the agency's first comprehensive reauthorization in over a decade, a process that is expected to significantly expand the CFTC's jurisdiction over spot digital asset markets. Transition of Power and a New Era for Digital Assets The confirmation of Selig also facilitates the official exit of Caroline Pham, who has accepted a high-profile role as the Chief Legal Officer and Chief Administrative Officer at the crypto payments firm MoonPay. Pham’s tenure was defined by the successful launch of listed spot crypto products and the implementation of a landmark digital asset pilot program for tokenized collateral. As Selig prepares to be sworn in, the industry anticipates a high degree of continuity between the two leaders, particularly regarding the "Crypto Sprint" initiative and the ongoing harmonization of rules between the CFTC and the SEC. Selig’s leadership arrives at a critical juncture where institutional demand for regulated crypto instruments is at an all-time high, and his ability to coordinate with other federal regulators will be essential in cementing the United States' position as a global capital for digital finance.

In a move that further blurs the lines between traditional finance and the digital asset economy, Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE)—the powerhouse parent company of the New York Stock Exchange—is reportedly in advanced discussions to invest in the cryptocurrency payments firm MoonPay. According to reports surfacing on December 18, 2025, the potential investment is part of a strategic funding round that could propel MoonPay’s valuation to approximately $5 billion. This represents a significant 47% increase from the company’s $3.4 billion valuation established during the 2021 market peak. While the specific dollar amount of ICE’s contribution remains undisclosed, the talks signal a major vote of confidence from one of the world’s most influential market operators, positioning MoonPay as a primary beneficiary of the accelerating "institutionalization" of crypto infrastructure. Strategic Synergies and the $5 Billion Valuation Target The timing of ICE’s interest coincides with a period of aggressive regulatory and operational expansion for MoonPay. Just days before the investment rumors surfaced, MoonPay secured a Limited Purpose Trust Charter from the New York Department of Financial Services, adding to its existing BitLicense and allowing the firm to offer full-scale fiduciary and custody services in the state. By potentially aligning with ICE, MoonPay gains access to the deep institutional plumbing of the global derivatives and equity markets. For ICE, the move fits into a broader 2025 strategy of capturing "on-chain" value; the firm recently committed $2 billion to the prediction platform Polymarket and has been actively exploring stablecoin settlement integrations with Circle. This partnership would effectively turn MoonPay into a regulated gateway for the NYSE’s vast network of retail and institutional clients, facilitating a more seamless bridge for fiat-to-crypto transitions within the traditional financial system. MoonPay’s Executive Overhaul and Institutional Pivot The reported investment interest follows a series of high-profile executive moves designed to shore up MoonPay’s regulatory standing. The most notable addition is Caroline D. Pham, the former Acting Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), who is slated to join the firm as Chief Legal Officer. Pham’s transition from the top ranks of federal oversight to MoonPay’s C-suite provides the company with unparalleled insight into the evolving legal landscape, a factor that likely influenced ICE’s decision to pursue the deal. Furthermore, MoonPay has recently shifted its product focus toward enterprise-grade solutions, including a partnership with Exodus to launch a fully reserved digital dollar in early 2026. By combining top-tier regulatory expertise with the backing of a global exchange giant like ICE, MoonPay is evolving from a celebrity-endorsed startup into a core utility of the modern financial stack, ready to handle the next wave of tokenized asset settlement.

In a formal confirmation released on Friday, December 19, 2025, Polymarket announced that it has successfully resolved the technical issues that led to significant platform downtime during the previous trading session. The service interruption, which began on December 18, was traced back to a critical outage on the Polygon network, the Layer 2 blockchain infrastructure upon which Polymarket’s decentralized application is built. While the platform's front-end remained accessible to some, trading functions and real-time data ingestion were severely hampered as the underlying network struggled with block synchronization. Following a collaborative effort between Polymarket engineers and the Polygon core team, all systems—including market creation, share trading, and outcome resolution—have been fully restored to operational status. The Root Cause: Subgraph Ingestion and Network Instability The downtime was primarily driven by a failure in the platform's data ingestion subgraphs, which are essential for indexing on-chain events and translating them into the user-friendly interface seen by traders. When the Polygon network experienced a temporary lapse in block production and synchronization on Thursday, these subgraphs were unable to process new transactions, leading to "stale" market prices and the temporary suspension of the order book. Polymarket's status page indicated that the team worked through the night to resync the affected subgraphs and ensure that no user funds or open positions were compromised during the lag. This incident highlights the inherent "dependency risk" faced by decentralized applications that rely on external blockchain protocols, prompting fresh speculation among industry analysts that Polymarket may soon prioritize the development of its own dedicated Layer 2 chain to ensure greater uptime reliability. Market Resilience Amidst High-Stakes End-of-Year Trading The resolution comes at a pivotal moment for the platform, as trading volume has surged toward the end of 2025 due to a highly active macro and political calendar. Significant capital remains locked in markets tracking the Trump administration's "Gold Card" visa program and the S&P 500’s year-end closing price, with over $100 million in combined open interest at stake. Had the outage persisted, it could have led to significant "oracle friction," where markets are unable to resolve correctly due to missing on-chain data. To mitigate future risks, Polymarket has reportedly begun implementing redundant data providers and enhanced monitoring tools to detect network-level anomalies before they impact the user experience. As the platform maintains its 99.9% uptime target for the remainder of the year, the successful recovery serves as a testament to the maturation of decentralized infrastructure in handling high-concurrency global events.

In a move that has sent shockwaves through the cryptocurrency exchange industry, Bitfinex officially announced on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, that it has eliminated all maker and taker trading fees. Effective immediately, the exchange has transitioned to a permanent zero-fee model across its entire product suite, including spot, margin, derivatives, OTC, and tokenized securities trading. This strategic pivot marks the first time a major, long-standing centralized exchange has completely removed transaction fees for all customers, regardless of their trading volume or asset holdings. By leveraging its long-term profitability and highly efficient technology stack, Bitfinex aims to set a new global benchmark for accessibility and market liquidity, effectively challenging the fee-based revenue models that have defined the industry for over a decade. Comprehensive Fee Elimination and Impact on the LEO Ecosystem The zero-fee implementation is remarkably broad, covering more than 250 spot pairs and 60 perpetual derivatives contracts. Under the new pricing structure, both market makers who provide liquidity and takers who execute against the order book will see their execution costs drop to zero. This change also extends to Bitfinex Securities, making it one of the most cost-effective platforms for trading tokenized real-world assets. However, Bitfinex clarified that while trading fees have been removed, fees for margin lending and funding remain unchanged and will continue to be charged at prevailing market rates. This ensures that the peer-to-peer financing ecosystem, which is a core pillar of Bitfinex’s liquidity, remains incentivized and functional while the cost of executing the actual trades disappears for the end-user. The transition has necessitated significant adjustments to the exchange’s existing incentive programs, most notably for holders of the UNUS SED LEO (LEO) token. Since trading fees are now zero by default, the traditional fee-discount benefits associated with holding LEO have been neutralized. Similarly, the Bitfinex Affiliate Program has been updated; affiliates will no longer earn rebates from trading fees, as there is no longer a fee pool to share. Despite these changes, Bitfinex confirmed that the LEO repurchase and burn mechanism will continue unaffected, as it is funded by the broader revenues of iFinex rather than solely by trading commissions. This ensures that the long-term deflationary thesis for the LEO token remains intact even as the platform moves toward a "public utility" model for trade execution. A Strategic Bet on Volume and Institutional Liquidity According to Bitfinex CTO Paolo Ardoino, the decision to remove fees is a "strategic reset" intended to attract a new generation of professional and institutional traders who prioritize execution speed and capital efficiency. By removing the "friction" of transaction costs, Bitfinex expects to see a significant acceleration in trading volume and a deepening of its order books, which should result in tighter spreads and more resilient price discovery. The exchange’s matching engine, capable of processing orders in as little as four milliseconds, is now positioned to handle the anticipated surge in high-frequency trading activity. As the "fee wars" among global exchanges intensify, Bitfinex's move to zero represents a bold attempt to consolidate its position as the premier destination for deep liquidity, betting that increased market share and lending activity will more than compensate for the loss of traditional commission revenue.