Jane Street asked a U.S. court to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the bankruptcy estate of Terraform Labs, rejecting claims that the trading firm helped trigger the 2022 collapse of the TerraUSD (UST) stablecoin and its sister token Luna.
In two filings submitted Thursday to the Southern District of New York, Jane Street and several employees said the case is an attempt to shift blame for the failure of the Terra ecosystem, which erased roughly $40 billion in value within days.
The firm urged the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, which would prevent Terraform from pursuing the same claims again.
“This case is an attempt by the estate of Terraform Labs to extract cash from Jane Street to foot the bill for a fraud that Terraform itself perpetrated on the market,” the defendants wrote.
Jane Street argued that the core issues behind Terra’s collapse have already been settled in court. It pointed to criminal and civil cases against Terraform founder Do Kwon, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and wire fraud and is serving a 15-year prison sentence. A jury also found Kwon and Terraform liable for securities fraud. According to the filing, Kwon said he was “alone responsible for everyone’s pain.”
Terraform’s lawsuit, filed in January by administrator Todd Snyder, accuses Jane Street of insider trading that sped up the collapse. Snyder alleges the firm used nonpublic information from Terraform insiders to trade ahead of major moves, including large withdrawals from the Curve liquidity pool that preceded UST losing its dollar peg.
For example, the complaint claims Terraform withdrew 150 million UST on May 7, 2022, and that a wallet linked to Jane Street pulled 85 million UST minutes later, sparking market panic. Jane Street disputes that narrative and denies any role in the collapse.
Jane Street maintains that “Terraform’s fraud scheme — in which Jane Street had no involvement — has already been prosecuted, adjudicated, and punished.”
Terraform Labs, founded in 2018, filed for bankruptcy in January 2024. Its downfall rippled across the crypto sector, contributing to failures at several firms exposed to the project. The court’s decision on Jane Street’s motion could shape how responsibility for that collapse is assigned.
Bitcoin (BTC) has remained strong in recent days, and analysts are painting an optimistic picture for the future.
At this point, Michael Saylor, founder of Strategy, the largest publicly traded Bitcoin company, was the first to adopt an optimistic tone regarding Bitcoin, writing that the Bitcoin winter was over. However, some analysts said that Saylor’s statements might be premature.
Saylor X, in a post on her social media account, said “The Bitcoin winter is over,” reigniting the debate on the subject.
Speaking to Coindesk, AdLunam co-founder Jason Fernandes countered Saylor’s view, saying that even if the Bitcoin winter is over, altcoins are still in a deep downturn. However, Fernandes stated that he doesn’t believe the crypto winter is over.
“Even if the Bitcoin winter is over – a view I disagree with – altcoins are still in deep cold.”
Mati Greenspan, founder of Quantum Economics and former senior market analyst at eToro, believes that there has never been a crypto winter.
Mati Greenspan argues that the movements in Bitcoin and the crypto market since the massive crash on October 10th (which wiped out approximately $19 billion in liquidations within 24 hours) cannot even be described as a crypto winter.
At this point, Greenspan stated that the correction since October was a temporary dip within a long-term bull market, and that Bitcoin had likely already formed a bottom.
According to him, the next surge will depend on Bitcoin’s adoption by institutions and nation-states.
“Increased corporate adoption will kickstart the next phase, but Saylor is missing the sovereign state adoption phase – which is definitely coming soon.”
Virginia man buys 20 tickets for one lottery drawing, wins 20 times
March 27 (UPI) — A Virginia man bought 20 identical tickets for a single Pick 4 lottery drawing and ended up winning $5,000 for each ticket — a total of $100,000.
If you purchase an independently reviewed product or service through a link on our website, The Hollywood Reporter may receive an affiliate commission.
With the end of the 2025-26 NHL regular season, the best teams compete to win the iconic Stanley Cup trophy. There’s a lot of top players going into the playoffs — such as Connor McDavid, Nathan MacKinnon, Jason Robertson, Nikita Kucherov, Leon Draisaitl, Cale Makar and others — but only one team can claim victory.
The NHL Playoffs continues until the end of the the NHL Stanley Cup Final on Sunday, June 21 — if the championship series goes seven games.
At a Glance: Watch the 2026 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs Live Online
How to Watch 2026 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs Without Cable
While the NHL Playoffs broadcast on TV across ESPN, ESPN2, ABC, TNT and truTV, games can be streamed on internet-based streaming cable services, like DirecTV, Sling and Hulu + Live TV. Postseason games are also available to livestream on platforms, such as ESPN Unlimited and HBO Max.
Ahead, find out how to watch the NHL Playoffs with and without a cable subscription.
EDitor’s Choice
DirecTV
125+ channels
Watch the 2026 NHL Playoffs with DirecTV, which carries ESPN, ESPN2, ABC, TNT and truTV, along with more than 125 other channels — such as NHL Network, CBS Sports Network, FOX Sports, NFL Network, FanDuel TV and others. Sports fans can watch NHL games for free with the cable streamer’s five-day trial. Afterwards, you can either cancel the service or keep watching, with prices starting at $59.99 for the first month of service ($94.99 per month afterward) for the entry-level “Choice” package with the streamer’s current deals.
Sling
Please note: Prices and channel availability depend on your local TV market.
Sling is one of the most affordable options for new live TV streaming subscribers who want to watch the NHL Playoffs on ESPN, ESPN2, ABC, TNT and truTV with the Orange + Blue plan with prices starting at $60.99 per month. Meanwhile, NHL Network is available through Sling’s Sports Extra package for an additional $11 per month. The sports package includes NBA TV, MLB Network, ESPNU and more.
Hulu + Live TV
Comes with Hulu, Disney+ and ESPN Unlimited
To watch ESPN, ESPN2, ABC, TNT and truTV online, a subscription to Hulu + Live TV is fantastic option. The streaming service includes Disney+, ESPN Unlimited and access to more than 95 live channels — like CBS Sports Network, BET, CNN, Food Network and more — starting at $89.99 per month. In addition to live cable, Hulu + Live TV lets subscribers watch originals from Hulu, Disney+ and ESPN Unlimited. It includes unlimited cloud DVR, too. Hulu also offers a three-day free trial.
ESPN
ESPN Unlimited
Watch NHL games on ESPN Unlimited; plants from $29.99 per month.
ESPN Unlimited includes all of the sports network’s channels, including ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, ABC on ESPN, ESPNU, ESPNEWS and others, as well as original programming, such as The Pat McAfee Show, 30 For 30, McEnroe’s Places, Man in the Arena: Tom Brady, Southern Hoops: A History of SEC Basketball, Deion’s Double Play and others. It also comes with streaming access to live sports from NBA, UFC, Formula 1, MLB and other sports leagues.
Courtesy of WBD
HBO Max
Sign up via Prime Video
HBO Max has the B/R Sports add-on for free, as part of its streaming service.
Available through Prime Video, HBO Max’s sports hub has access to the NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs starting at $10.99 per month; note that a Prime Membership ($14.99 monthly or $139 annually) or Prime Video subscription ($8.99 monthly) is required.
In addition, HBO Max includes NHL on TNT, U.S. Soccer, MotoGP and other sports leagues. The service has hit movies like Sinners, One Battle After Another, Barbie, The Zone of Interest, Wonka, Avatar: The Way of Water and others, as well as award-winning series, such as The Last of Us, Hacks, The White Lotus and others.
How to Watch 2025-26 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs With Cable
NHL postseason games air across ESPN, ESPN2, ABC, TNT and truTV. You can watch by tuning in through your cable TV provider, on the networks’ respective websites and mobile apps with your cable TV account login — including streaming and traditional services such as DirecTV,Sling, Verizon, Xfinity and others.
Apple TV dropped a teaser for Widow’s Bayearlier this month, and the horror series looked predictably scary with ominous music paired with chilling sequences in a New England island town. But there’s a moment at the end of the trailer that telegraphed that the series is not a typical jump scare show.
“I don’t understand,” says Matthew Rhys, playing the town’s mayor, Tom Loftis, who is perplexed by the tale of a killer sea hag. “How do you die?” Stephen Root’s character has a surprising answer: “She crawls into your bed and sits on your face.”
The punchline is indicative of a level of comedy infused throughout in creator Katie Dippold’s Widow’s Bay. The series is set in, well, Widow’s Bay, which is 40-miles off the coast of New England. Mayor Tom Loftis (Rhys) is desperate to revive his struggling community in the face of some challenging circumstances like the absence of Wi-Fi, spotty cellular reception and superstitious locals who believe the place is cursed. Loftis remains determined to build a better future for his teenage son and turn the island into a tourist destination. As he begins to succeed in his goal, old stories that seemed too ludicrous begin happening, sending shivers throughout the island. Rhys and Root star opposite Kate O’Flynn, Kingston Rumi Southwick, Kevin Caroll and Dale Dickey.
“I’d certainly never read anything like it,” Rhys said during an Apple TV panel discussion at the streamer’s Santa Monica press day in February. “I’d grown up with things like the Wicker Man and Jaws and things like this, and this was kind of everything I’d always thought I would never get to do. When I knew it was this mash-up and meeting these two, it was sort of done in a millisecond. It became a true dream job.”
Widow’s Bay: Rhys also executive produces the show, which was created, showrun and executive produced by Katie Dippold. Emmy winner Hiro Murai directs and executive produces through his Chum Films alongside Carver Karaszewski, Claudia Shin and Rhys. Other directors include Ti West, Sam Donovan and Andrew DeYoung.
Credit: Courtesy of Apple TV
Murai, best known for his work on Atlanta and The Bear, agreed about the show’s singular tone. “I just never read anything like it before. It felt like a TV show from the past but so modern at the same time. And to be totally honest, when I first read it I was like, I don’t know what this is yet, and that’s always the most exciting place to start,” he said of working with Dippold, who has experience blending horror and comedy after having written the features Haunted Mansion and Ghostbusters. “I’ve never read something that has so much hard comedy in it and truly scary kind of terrifying horror while trying to be honest about the emotional lives of these characters. It felt like we’re just kind of like hanging on to two sled dogs at the same time.”
Rhys added that the laughs are not shoehorned in for fun. “There’s no conscious choice of anything comedic. Everything is played for real in the situation and then what comes comes,” he said. “Almost every script surprised me in the genuine sense and just getting to watch the visual world or the visual mind of Hiro Murai was a real treat and seeing how you brought things to life. I would often go oh my God, that’s so dark. I was constantly surprised in the best way and obviously nothing I can say into a microphone.”
The 10-episode series will make its global debut on Wednesday, April 29, by dropping the first three episodes. New episodes will follow every Wednesday through June 17.
Neil Casey, Hiro Murai, Katie Dippold and Matthew Rhys at Apple TV’s press day at Santa Monica’s Barker Hangar on Feb. 3, 2026.
(Photo by Dan Steinberg/Apple TV via Getty Images)
The Boston Celtics and Philadelphia 76ers have a rich postseason history and, for decades, stood as one of the league’s original rivalries. It was one with epic performances and finishes, especially in the 1980s, when their playoff series often sent the eventual NBA champion to the NBA Finals.
Fast forward to today, and there’s a scent of a rivalry brewing again, if only because their first-round series is tied at one game each and suspense has entered the building.
The Sixers have the next two games in Philly and should have an emotional boost. Expect all the old-time legends (like Allen Iverson and Julius Erving) to sit courtside and provide motivation.
However, Iverson and Erving can’t suit up and play for the Sixers. It’s up to the current players lacking in championship experience to keep the series moving in a positive direction. That won’t be a simple task against a team that’s healthier, bringing higher expectations and championship mettle with Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown.
Whether this series elevates in terms of intrigue and intensity, therefore, falls on the shoulders of the Sixers and whether they can either maintain the home court or at least split the next two games.
Here’s what to watch for Game 3 tonight (7 ET, Prime Video) in Philadelphia:
1. What is Maxey’s mindset?
The following statement is to be taken in context and isn’t meant to offer a comparison. Now that it’s understood, here it goes — the last time the Sixers were led in the playoffs by a quicksilver point guard who caused whiplash and broke ankles and was tough to contain was Iverson.
The latest problem for other teams is Tyrese Maxey, who can shift gears off the dribble and change directions on a dime and score on anyone the Celtics offer up in defense. Sometimes two Celtics.
How Maxey craves the ball in big moments is something to behold. He was always a shooting guard trapped in a point guard’s body, although in his case, that’s not such a bad thing. If Maxey has the will, the Sixers might find a way to win more than a game against Boston, and Maxey definitely has the will.
The playoffs have a way of exposing you for the player you truly are, with every game and often every possession magnified along with the demands. Some players gravitate toward this, while others regress.
Maxey’s shooting hasn’t always been sharp in this series, but he doesn’t allow the misses to discourage him. As the Sixers continue without Joel Embiid, Maxey can’t afford to lose confidence.
2. Embiid’s status for Game 3
The elephant in the room, metaphorically speaking, of course, is the former Kia MVP and Sixers starting center. He can change an entire game or maybe even a best-of-seven series, but is currently inactive because of injury. The identity of that person isn’t very hard to know.
This has been Embiid’s career, for the most part. His games played and games missed, if placed on opposite ends of a scale, would show an even balance. This season, he played just 38 games.
But the longer the Sixers stretch this series, the more the possibility — nothing certain, but still — that Embiid, upgraded as doubtful for Game 3, could heal up in time to see action.
The last thing the Sixers will do is rush their big man back from an emergency appendectomy, which he suffered on April 9. He has entered the next phase of his rehab, but hasn’t done any contact drills. That means it’s safe to assume he’s more likely not to play than to play, which means more Adem Bona and Andre Drummond in the post.
But Sixers fans can dream. If somehow this series is tougher than anyone imagined and Embiid, who averaged 26.9 points and 7.7 rebounds per game, finds a way to suit up…well, let’s just pencil that in for the event of the entire playoffs.
3. Brown ready to take over?
The one constant for the Celtics, not only in this series but all season, is Jaylen Brown and his high level of performance. He’s averaging 31 ppg in the playoffs and is the only Celtics player hitting his 3-pointers (at 50%). All this comes on the heels of a Kia MVP-flavored regular season where he carried the Celtics for stretches and finished among the league’s top scorers and rebounding guards.
His next trip, if it becomes necessary, is to carry the Celtics through this series, especially if the 3-pointers don’t fall for his teammates and the Sixers somehow get juiced by two home games.
Speaking of the home court, the Celtics are not pushovers on the road. Only Detroit, San Antonio and Oklahoma City were better in hostile arenas. And again, this was without Tatum for the most part.
Brown enjoys being one of the league’s top players, an ascent that began with his performance in the 2024 NBA Finals, and he intends to keep his place in line. The best way is to be the finest player on the floor, starting with this series.
In that sense, so far anyway, it’s Brown vs. Maxey. Who will be the last player standing at the end?
On April 20, the United States fired at and then seized an Iranian-flagged container ship close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, amid its blockade of Iranian ports.
It was similar to a scene which played out in the 1980s during the so-called Tanker War between Iran and Iraq, during which both countries fired on each other’s tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, seeking to cripple each other’s economies.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
As naval tensions rise again in the Strait of Hormuz – this time between Iran and the US – we break down what happened in the 1980s and examine the parallels and differences between the situations then and now:
The ‘Pivot’ tanker in flames in the Strait of Hormuz in 1987 during the Iran-Iraq war [File: Francoise De Mulder/Roger Viollet via Getty Images]
How the 1980s Tanker War played out – a timeline
The war between Iran and Iraq began in 1980 when then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein launched a full-scale invasion of Iran following Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.
In 1984, this war reached the Gulf when Iraq attacked Iranian oil tankers, seeking to cripple its oil-revenue-dependent economy. Iran retaliated by firing at oil tankers belonging to Iraq and its allies in the Gulf.
According to a report by the University of Texas’s Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law, Iran also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz then, but did not do so since its own economy, already crippled by the war, was dependent on exporting oil to the rest of the world through it.
In November 1986, when Iran struck Kuwait’s ships, Kuwait asked for foreign help. The former Soviet Union was the first to respond and helped escort the nation’s ships in the Gulf.
The US, led by then-president Ronald Reagan, launched Operation Earnest Will in July 1987, also seeking to protect tankers in the Gulf and render more assistance than Moscow. The operation involved reflagging Kuwaiti tankers with the US flag so they could legally sail under US protection.
According to an article by the Veterans Breakfast Club, a US-based website which shares experiences of former US military veterans, during Washington’s very first escort mission in July 1987, a reflagged tanker hit an Iranian mine in the Gulf.
“The convoy continued, but the incident made clear that the United States had entered a shadow war with Iran at sea,” the article said.
“Over the next fourteen months, dozens of US warships rotated through the region escorting tankers and protecting shipping lanes. US forces also conducted special operations to hunt Iranian mine-layers at night and conducted strikes against Iranian military positions and ships. The mission wasn’t a small one, consuming 30 US Navy ships at one time,” the article added.
Then in April 1988, the US frigate USS Samuel B Roberts was damaged by an Iranian mine in the Strait of Hormuz. Historian Samuel Cox, writing for the US Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC), noted in 2018 that by the end of 1987 that vessel was so badly damaged, that “the only thing actually holding the ship together was the main deck”.
So, the US launched Operation Praying Mantis, seeking to destroy Iranian vessels.
The tanker war eventually ended in August 1988, following a United Nations-brokered ceasefire agreement between Iran and Iraq.
Cox noted that by the end of 1987, “Iraq had conducted 283 attacks on shipping, while Iran attacked 168 times. Combined, the attacks had killed 116 merchant sailors, with 37 missing and 167 wounded, from a wide variety of nationalities.”
“Initially, there was great concern that the attacks would cut off the vital flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf, but all they really did was drive up insurance rates. The world’s need for oil was so great, that over 100 dead merchant seamen was apparently an acceptable price,” he wrote.
A tanker in flames in the Strait of Hormuz in December 1987 during the Iran-Iraq war [File: Francoise De Mulder/Roger Viollet via Getty Images]
What is happening in the Strait of Hormuz now?
The current hostilities between the US and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz began when Tehran, whose territorial waters extend into the strait, closed passage to all vessels after the US and Israel began bombing the country. On March 4, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared that it was in full control of the strait, and ships would need to get clearance from them to pass through it.
Shipping through the strait collapsed by 95 percent, sending the price of oil – 20 percent of global supplies of which are shipped this way – soaring above $100 a barrel.
Iran, through its imposition of control over who passes through Hormuz, has for almost eight weeks now, determined which vessels can exit the strait from the Gulf into the Gulf of Oman.
At first, Iran indicated that it would allow “friendly” ships to pass if they paid a toll. On March 26, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Iran’s state TV: “The Strait of Hormuz, from our perspective, is not completely closed. It is closed only to enemies. There is no reason to allow the ships of our enemies and their allies to pass.”
Vessels from Malaysia, China, Egypt, South Korea, India and Pakistan passed through the strait through most of March and early April.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) provided these vessels with an alternative route through the Strait of Hormuz to avoid potential sea mines. US officials, including Donald Trump, have said mines have been placed there by Iran, although it has not officially confirmed or denied this.
(Al Jazeera)
But on April 13, alarmed that Iran was continuing to ship its own oil out of the strait, the US imposed a naval blockade of all Iranian ports. Since then, US Central Command has said US forces have directed 33 Iran-linked vessels to turn around or return to an Iranian port.
On Monday, the US military fired on and then captured the Iranian-flagged container ship Touska close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, and, a day later, detained another oil tanker sanctioned for transporting Iranian crude oil as it sailed in the Bay of Bengal, which links India and Southeast Asia.
In a post on social media after detaining the Touska, the Pentagon wrote: “As we have made clear, we will pursue global maritime enforcement efforts to disrupt illicit networks and interdict sanctioned vessels providing material support to Iran – anywhere they operate. International waters are not a refuge for sanctioned vessels.”
Since the US naval blockade of Iranian ports began, Tehran, which was earlier allowing vessels from “friendly” nations to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, has further tightened its grip on the strait.
Justifying the decision not to allow any foreign ships to pass until the US ends its naval blockade on April 19, Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said the “security of the Strait of Hormuz is not free”.
“One cannot restrict Iran’s oil exports while expecting free security for others,” he wrote in a post on X.
Last Saturday, Iran reportedly fired at two Indian-flagged merchant vessels in the strait. The IRGC said the two ships were attacked because they were “operating without authorisation”, according to state media reports.
Then, on April 22, Iran captured two container ships seeking to exit the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz after firing on them and another vessel.
What are the parallels between the two wars?
Just like during the Tanker War of the 1980s, shipping has been severely disrupted by the US-Israel war on Iran, upending global oil and gas prices.
According to an April 17 article by the World Economic Forum, from the mid-1980s when the Tanker War took place, to the start of the new millennium, a barrel of crude oil averaged $20.
On Friday, while a ceasefire between the US and Iran was in effect, a naval battle was still playing out in the Strait of Hormuz, and Brent crude, the international benchmark, topped $106 per barrel. During open warfare between the US, Israel and Iran in March and early April, oil rose as high as $119 per barrel.
Mines in the sea are another problem common to both time periods.
While vessels were damaged by mines during the 1980s Tanker War, there has so far been no report of vessels being damaged by mines in the current war. However, the risk is the same.
US President Donald Trump has said the US will ramp up efforts to remove mines from the Strait of Hormuz. This has not begun yet, however.
According to CNN, there are only a few US minesweeping ships in the Gulf. The US Navy also told the broadcaster that four dedicated minesweepers stationed in the Gulf region were decommissioned last year.
John Phillips, a British safety, security and risk adviser and former military instructor, told Al Jazeera: “There are some clear parallels between the current situation in Hormuz and the Tanker War of the 1980s. In both cases, the basic idea is the same: pressure at sea can have effects far beyond the water itself.
“A relatively small amount of naval disruption, whether that means mining, harassment of shipping, missile threats, or attacks on tankers, can create real strategic and economic consequences, especially in a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz. So in that sense, the original Tanker War is a useful reminder of how vulnerable global trade can be when the maritime domain becomes part of a wider political or military confrontation.”
What are the differences between the two wars?
During the Tanker War, the US escorted ships to protect them from Iranian attacks and also deployed vessels to remove mines. NATO countries like the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Italy also joined.
But in the current standoff in the Strait of Hormuz, US allies like the UK and other NATO nations have refused to join Washington in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, or begin minesweeping operations, fearing they will be dragged into the war.
In a post on Truth Social in early April, the US president took aim at allies, “like the United Kingdom”, which, he said, have “refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran”, telling them to either buy US fuel or get involved in the rapidly escalating war.
“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!” Trump wrote.
The framework of the US-Israel war on Iran is different from that of the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, experts say.
“In the 1980s, the Tanker War was part of the broader Iran-Iraq War, so the shipping attacks were tied to a much larger land conflict between two regional armies. Today, the situation is more about Iran’s standoff with the United States and its allies, and the maritime activity is less about asymmetrical war at sea and more about deterrence, signalling and the threat of escalation,” said Phillips.
“The military lesson, really, is that Hormuz is still one of those places where limited actions can have outsized effects, but the modern setting is more fast-moving, more technologically advanced and potentially more volatile than the original Tanker War,” he added.
Analysts have also pointed out that, unlike in the 1980s, Iran is currently stronger when it comes to withstanding attacks and naval blockades by the US.
In the Tanker War, Iraq was militarily supported by Western allies, while Iran was under a US arms embargo imposed in 1979 after the Iranian revolution. While this gave Iraq a military advantage, Iran’s IRGC used asymmetric warfare tactics by striking Iraq’s allies’ ships and oil tankers.
Experts also say that since the 12-day war between Iran and Israel last year, Tehran has shifted its military doctrine from one that is primarily about defensive containment to an explicitly offensive asymmetric posture.
“Iran today appears more structurally aggressive in doctrine where it is formally embracing earlier and more extensive use of regional missiles, drones, cyberattacks and energy coercion [when energy resources and infrastructure are targeted or cut off], but is operationally constrained by battle damage, sanctions and internal instability,” Phillips, the risk adviser and a former military chief instructor, told Al Jazeera in an interview on March 2.
A former US ambassador to Bahrain, Adam Ereli, also told Al Jazeera that Iran and the IRGC have “revolutionary fervour”, which means they can “survive”.
“They can tolerate pain for a lot longer than I think most American decision-makers and planners calculate,” he said.
Anthropic’s shares are trading at $1 trillion on secondary platforms like Forge Global, overtaking OpenAI which sits at $880 billion on the same venue.
The company’s annualized revenue soared from $9 billion in late 2025 to $30 billion by March 2026—a 233% jump in a single quarter, driven primarily by Claude Code adoption.
Just three months ago, Anthropic’s valuation was $380 billion; secondary markets are now pricing it at more than 2.6 times that figure.
On secondary share trading platforms, Anthropic has quietly flipped the AI power map—trading at roughly $1 trillion, overtaking OpenAI for the first time.
On Forge Global, one of the leading private-share marketplaces, Anthropic is hovering around the $1 trillion mark, according to Forge CEO Kelly Rodriques, who confirmed the figure to Business Insider. OpenAI, meanwhile, is trading at approximately $880 billion on the same platform.
That’s not a small gap. And it didn’t exist three months ago.
In February 2026, Anthropic closed a $30 billion Series G round led by GIC and Coatue at a post-money valuation of $380 billion. Today, secondary markets are pricing the company at almost three times that figure. The speed of the appreciation is unusual even by AI’s inflated standards.
Anthropic’s annualized run rate sat at roughly $9 billion at the end of 2026, based on its own reports. By March 2026, that number had jumped to $30 billion—a 233% increase in a single quarter, fueled largely by enterprise adoption of Claude Code and the company’s API products. Amazon’s recent commitment of up to $25 billion in additional investment didn’t hurt the mood either.
This mix of good deals (and good PR) have increased the appetite for Anthropic shares. Caplight, which tracks private-market share activity, reported that interest in Anthropic has spiked over 650% in the last 12 months.
Besides revenue, the supply side is doing the heavy work pushing up these valuations. Anthropic employees and early investors have had very few chances to sell. When buyers pile in and almost nobody is selling, prices move fast. Glen Anderson of Rainmaker Securities told Business Insider that a $960 billion valuation—which would have been “unthinkable” a month earlier—was being snapped up within hours by competing buyers.
The OpenAI picture looks different. On Forge Global, OpenAI is trading at $880 billion—just 3% above its $852 billion valuation from its early-2026 fundraising round. Caplight found that in Q1, Sam Altman’s company reported more people interested in selling than buying it on secondary markets.
None of this means Anthropic is worth $1 trillion in any primary-market sense. Secondary trades are illiquid, minority positions with no board rights and no path to forced liquidity. The trillion-dollar figure reflects what a buyer will pay for a small stake, not what Anthropic could raise in a full funding round, and not necessarily what an IPO would be priced at.
Reports suggest Anthropic is exploring a public debut as early as late 2026, with Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan advising, targeting an IPO valuation in the $400–$500 billion range. IPO groundwork has been underway since at least late 2025.
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
U.S. Army soldier Gannon Ken Van Dyke was charged with five federal crimes, including commodities fraud and unlawful use of classified information
Van Dyke allegedly profited $409,881 from 13 Polymarket bets totaling $33,034 between December 26, 2025 and January 2, 2026.
The bets involved classified intelligence about Operation Absolute Resolve targeting former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
A U.S. Army soldier stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, was charged Thursday with using classified military intelligence to trade on Polymarket around the January removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, marking the first major case of alleged insider trading on crypto prediction markets using U.S. government secrets.
Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, allegedly accessed classified information about Operation Absolute Resolve—a military operation targeting Maduro—and placed 13 bets on Venezuela-related outcomes between December 26, 2025 and January 2, 2026, according to court documents.
U.S. special forces apprehended Maduro and his wife at a Caracas residence during predawn hours on January 3. Hours later, the President announced the successful operation. Van Dyke’s bets, which totaled $33,034 in initial investment, generated profits of $409,881.
The gains grabbed headlines in January, though it was not initially clear who had made the bets. However, the outsized success raised suspicions of insider trading.
Three days after the operation’s announcement, Van Dyke contacted Polymarket requesting deletion of his account, falsely claiming he had lost access to the associated email address, the same filing shows. Federal prosecutors emphasized that traditional insider trading laws apply to decentralized prediction markets.
“Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, in a statement. “The defendant allegedly violated the trust placed in him by the United States Government by using classified information about a sensitive military operation to place bets on the timing and outcome of that very operation, all to turn a profit.”
“That is clear insider trading and is illegal under federal law. Those entrusted to safeguard our nation’s secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members, and not to use that information for personal financial gain. Our Office will continue to hold accountable those who misuse confidential or classified information in a way that undermines and exploits our national security.”
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche noted that enforcement will adapt to emerging crypto platforms. “Widespread access to prediction markets is a relatively new phenomenon, but federal laws protecting national security information fully apply,” Blanche said.
Van Dyke faces five federal charges, including three counts of violating the Commodity Exchange Act, wire fraud, and theft of nonpublic government information. The commodities violations each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, while the wire fraud charge carries up to 20 years, according to the Justice Department.
“I have been crystal clear that anyone who engages in fraud, manipulation, or insider trading in any of our markets will face the full force of the law,” said CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig, in a statement. “The defendant was entrusted with confidential information about U.S. operations and yet took action that endangered U.S. national security and put the lives of American service members in harm’s way.”
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
Elsbeth Tascioni wears a lot of pink on “Elsbeth” — so perhaps it’s appropriate that the hit CBS series is partnering with famed Hollywood hot dog purveyor Pink’s for an Emmy FYC promotion.
Pink’s Hot Dogs will be giving out free hot dogs every Thursday (which is when “Elsbeth” airs on CBS, natch) to its first 100 customers for the next seven weeks. That means “Elsbeth” and hot dog fans can drop by Pink’s for free eats on April 30, May 7, May 14, May 21, May 28, June 4 and June 11.
Naturally, the hot dog has been dubbed “The Elsbeth” for the occasion: A 9” dog, with coleslaw, cheddar, mustard and ketchup. After the last free hot dog is passed out, the Elsbeth goes for $7.25.
The “Elsbeth” FYC campaign comes as CBS opted to move the show to the comedy categories this year. The Eye network made the move in recognition of the show’s hefty dose of humor.
“In terms of the category shift, I don’t think we changed what we were doing,” said executive producer Jonathan Tolins. “I think over time we just saw it more clearly. The satirical elements, the rhythm of the show, and the sparkling performances of our cast and guest stars have always had a comedic bent. Yes, every episode includes a murder investigation, but the crime is more likely to involve a paper shredder, a hot tub, or a giant nutcracker head than a gun. That particular ‘Elsbeth’ tone makes calling it a comedy feel right.”
CBS Studios is still ironing out its Emmy submissions for “Elsbeth,” but so far that includes lead actress in a comedy Carrie Preston and supporting actor in a comedy Wendell Pierce. Guest actors include Stephen Colbert (episode 301), J Smith-Cameron (episode 314) and more to come. For outstanding directing, submissions include Jose Menendez (301) and John Aronson (313), while outstanding writing includes Tolins (301) and Eric Randall & Matthew K. Begbie (311).
“Elsbeth” is currently wrapping up its Season 3 and has been renewed for a Season 4. The show has been a strong performer for CBS since its February 2024 launch. Carrie Preston plays the offbeat attorney-turned-consultant Elsbeth Tascioni, first seen in “The Good Wife” and “The Good Life” and now helping the NYPD solve crimes as a consultant.
Preston and Pierce star; exec producers are Robert King, Michelle King, Jonathan Tolins, Liz Glotzer, Erica Shelton Kodish, Bryan Goluboff and Gail Barringer.
