One of the notable developments in the cryptocurrency market was the sharp price movement in the Spark ($SPK) token and the statements made by prominent figures. F2Pool co-founder Wang Chun stated that he regretted selling 83.7 million $SPK tokens last year.
Wang Chun stated today, “Last year I sold 83.7 million $SPK tokens, and now I regret it a little.” Shortly after this statement, Upbit, one of South Korea’s leading cryptocurrency exchanges, announced that it had listed the $SPK token. Later in the day, the Spark team reported that the total staked $SPK tokens had exceeded 500 million.
Related NewsNew Developments in the Bullish Crypto Bill, the Clarity Act—What’s the Latest? Is the Bill Coming?
As a result of these developments, the $SPK token saw a strong increase in its price. At its peak, the token gained as much as 73% in 24 hours, becoming one of the top performing assets in the market and topping Binance’s winners list.
Weekly chart showing the recent increase in the $SPK price.
Market commentators point out that, following the recent crisis in the Aave ecosystem, investors have turned to alternative DeFi projects. It is argued that Spark’s risk management approach has stood out in this process, and a significant portion of the liquidity withdrawn from Aave has shifted to Spark.
The analyses also suggest that the Capital Markets Board’s ($SPK) listing of Upbit may not be a direct result of a payment, but rather due to increased market interest and demand.
RAFA, an upcoming Netflix documentary series about tennis great Rafael Nadal, will compete for Primetime Emmys rather than Sports Emmys, The Hollywood Reporter has learned.
Directed by Oscar nominee Zachary Heinzerling (Cutie and the Boxer), the four-part series, which will drop on May 29, chronicles the final year of the 22-time Grand Slam champion’s career, back in 2024, as he grappled with injuries, became a father and decided to retire. It features never-before-seen archival footage and new interviews with Nadal, Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic and John McEnroe, among others.
Netflix intends to push the project not only for best documentary series — in which three sports-related projects have won in the last six years, 2020’s The Last Dance, 2024’s Beckham and 2025’s 100 Foot Wave — but also for its directing, editing, cinematography, sound mixing, sound editing and score.
More than half of RAFA is in Spanish, which would make it the first primarily non-English-language project to land a best documentary series Emmy nomination.
The series was produced by Skydance Sports, which previously backed narrative projects like Amazon’s Golden Globe-nominated Air and nonfiction projects like HBO’s Hard Knocks: Offseason with the New York Giants. Its upcoming projects include an Apple TV+ doc on UConn’s women’s basketball team, Dan Fogelman’s Hulu drama series The Land and a Paramount film about the 1980s New York Giants.
Christian Hubicki made Survivor history in a way no player ever wants to — by becoming the first contestant forced to write down his own name at Tribal Council thanks to a twist from Jimmy Fallon. The wild Survivor 50 moment punctuated a sudden unraveling for one of the season’s sharpest strategic minds. In his exclusive exit interview with The Hollywood Reporter below, Christian explains how it happened, where the game slipped and why he’d still “always take the call” to play again.
***
Do you have a message for Jimmy Fallon? Anything you want him to know?
Look, Jimmy, I am always open to reconciliation. I don’t know who has to get the mediator, but I think we can repair this budding friendship. I believe we can. And maybe it was just a typo. Maybe it was just a typo on the note that maybe Christian will not have to vote for himself. And so we’ll figure this out, my friend.
You became the first player to have to write your own name down at Tribal Council. If you’d kept your vote and had the extra vote, where do those votes go, and does it change anything?
The mere fact that I don’t have to vote for myself and announce that I have to vote for myself, I think changes things potentially a bit. Going to that Tribal, I wasn’t in a great spot. But Emily, to her credit, came out swinging to save me. She could have just thrown me under the bus, but she came out swinging to save me even before I got back, it seems, to pitch Ozzy. So that made her a target. In my understanding — and again, I come from a very particular perspective — the fact that I had to vote for myself made me just a clear target.
I think Rizo said that well when he said, “Look, Christian his back is against the wall. He has nothing to defend himself with. Why not take him out now? It’d be silly not to take him out now.” I think it was a helpful determining factor in me going home. But that said, I have to take ownership that that particular day, I made a couple of bad decisions — and you’re only as good as your worst decision on Survivor.
What were those bad decisions that you made that day?
For the first 17 days, I made a lot of very good decisions. Really number one, far and away, was telling Cirie I was interested in targeting Ozzy. I was even nominally aware that they had a relationship. Back on the original Cila tribe when we started, there were a lot of conversation, but over time that faded away. I have to give credit to Ozzy and definitely Cirie for having a way of just getting past that. And not to take anything away from Ozzy, I think he’s great, but Cirie has a way of communicating without looking like she’s communicating with people. She’s clearly crafted that so well, so it made it easy to forget.
On top of that, I was partly blinded by how much I wanted to go deep with Cirie. And yes, Rick and Emily, huge allies, love working with them, no inclination of wanting to turn on them. But Cirie is the one person who I’m fairly sure is almost certain to have a bigger target than me. Not that I necessarily would be the threat to beat at the end, but in case I was, like I was perceived on my first season, I need someone who is a bigger target, a bigger shield.
I told Cirie on my first day on the beach, “I want to go to the final three with you. This is going to sound crazy, but we both have a similar problem to vastly different degrees. We both want to punch through to the end of that game. I’m not you, to be clear. But there are shades of the same problem. So what if we work together? There will be times where I will need to protect you and I’ll happily do it. And there will be times that I will need to be protected by you. But in the end, we will protect each other and go to the end.”
Now, would I have gone to the end [with Cirie]? Probably not. But at least it gets me deeper. I put so much stock into needing that endgame option. I think it blinded me to what other relationships were like. And while I am flattered to be Cirie’s number three, like she said on the island, it’s easy to forget that you’re not number one, right?
Ozzy Lusth and Christian Hubicki.
Let’s talk about your overall game. You had gastrointestinal distress, called Ozzy “Polly Prissypants” and formed a Star Trek alliance with Rick Devens. You were killing it and seemed to have the game under control up until this last episode. So when did the game slip away?
The show, I think, did a pretty reasonable job explaining even what I understand to this day to be true. I’m sure there are things I’m unaware of, but the reason Jonathan was targeting me, for instance, was because of the previous vote at the pairs Tribal Council. That vote I felt was existential, because the way it paired up, that Coach and Chrissy had to go. If they didn’t, there was this potential big, giant alliance of old school thinking people that wanted to band together and would seem very loyal to each other that could have taken control of the entire game and have us on the back foot and basically in the minority. So it had to be Coach and Chrissy. That was the easiest decision. But to do that, Jonathan couldn’t know, because clearly Jonathan was in with this group and I was paired with Jonathan.
Jonathan started to try to take me in, but I had to deceive him a lot. I had to pretend to him that I wanted Devens and Aubrey out. I kept telling people that. And even that Tribal Council, I’m saying things like that because he cannot know what the plan is. Then it kind of got all blown up anyway. So he looked at me, I think as someone who betrayed him and that’s why he wanted to target me. Was that enough to get me out? I’m not sure. Maybe other people had similar ideas, but once you have that and you also have Cirie wanting to target me, that was a real turning point.
It’s possible if I just lay low and say, “Cirie, what are you thinking? There’s so much going on. What do you do? I’ll be happy to go whichever way you want. “Maybe she doesn’t target me. Maybe she goes after one of these other people. I was hoping it wouldn’t be Rick. That was my concern. But if I let her drive a little bit more, maybe it worked out better.
Let’s talk about early in your game when you had some issues with Ozzy because you decided to take out Mike White. When I talked to Mike, he told me in his exit interview, and I’m quoting him, “There’s a part of me that thinks Christian felt like I shouldn’t have been asked back.” And when referring to other players possibly angling for a White Lotus cameo, he said, “Both Emily and Christian are purists about the game and saw that as some kind of unfair advantage.” Are those accurate or inaccurate takes by Mike?
In terms of The White Lotus cameos, people use whatever they can to get further in the game. The only reason Mike was the target was all about diffusing my target at the merge. If the three of us went together into the merge, after we were on a tribe altogether, it would look like I was protecting them. After I was telling people, “No, no, we’re not working together.” But in fact, I wanted to work with Mike. I absolutely did. But when we kept going to Tribal Council at the swap, I had to get rid of one of them. Originally I was like, “Oh, it’s Angelina.T hat makes all the sense in the world. Angelina and I are not that tight.” When she gets to the merge, she’s a person; I’ve been there, she just goes to the end. She goes from being a target to not a target very quickly.
So I was like, that’s bad because who’s the target? Me. And people love working with Mike. Celebrity or not. I’m the target of the three. One of them has to go.But then when Mike is really pushing to keep Angelina to the point where he’s trying to get me to ignore the danger to me at the merge and say, “Just get rid of Emily instead.” And when I ask him about what we are going to do at the merge, he’s like, “We’ll figure it out.” I’m like, “Oh no, there is no plan. He just wants to save Angelina.” At that point, I start looking at Mike as a person that is not my closest ally, but someone who is the glue between Angelina and Ozzy. Yes, Ozzy will be mad, but Angelina and Ozzy are not a natural fit. They’re unlikely to lie together to get me out of the next vote. And sure enough, I caught no votes in the next Tribal Council. What was the other accusation?
Mike said, “There’s a part of me that thinks Christian felt like I shouldn’t have been asked back.”
Oh, no, no, no. I think that’s sad. I’ve been Mike White’s biggest supporter over the years. I voted for him [in the David vs Goliath finale.] I thought his game was transformative. He absolutely earned, irrespective of his celebrity, his spot on Survivor 50. I’ve always said he’s an excellent player. I said he was a transformative player. He earned that spot. I don’t know exactly where that comes from. I think there might be people who think that, but I’m not one of them.
What’s your relationship with Mike White now?
I think it’s a bit of a hiatus because when I got back from the island, I knew he’d be understandably hurt. The thing is, I know he has many, in my opinion, great things going on in his life, and I’m thrilled for him. But I also know he loves Survivor. Of all the things he could be doing in his life, he goes back and plays Survivor again, where he doesn’t eat and he got ripped to be on the season. Purely strategically, the move was to get rid of Mike. And I think time has borne that out. There was no part of this that is like, “I don’t think Mike would’ve been able to save me from being targeted at the merge.”
But my point is that I knew it hurt him because he wanted to be there so badly. So I reached out to him as soon as I got back and I sent a message, an absurdly long voice message basically saying, “I felt I owed you an explanation for what happened. This was not some grand plan. I wanted to work with him. I did. It was just a bad situation and why I targeted him instead of Angelina. The thing I liked about it the least is that it would hurt you. And I knew that it might, and I knew it probably would. So I hope someday you’ll understand that my phone’s open to you whenever.”
Your last challenge was a major first. You are one of only 11 people to ever participate in a challenge with Jeff. What was going through your mind when you saw he was going to participate?You even outlasted him.
Of course, pride in the end. But what I realized, so much as I enjoyed on Survivor: David vs Goliath doing a long endurance challenge where I’m yammering at Jeff Probst and he’s my hostage, I also realized it’s an opportunity for interrogation and extortion. So you can hear me yammering. I was starting to talk about, “Jeff, when we’re done with the season, we tend to do these little exit press interviews and some of these postseason interviews, you limit it to an hour. I would like it not to be limited to an hour if I beat you. Can you please do that?” I’m negotiating that stuff and using it for leverage because he’s in pain and he’s not of his full mental faculties. That’s what I’m thinking. Leverage.
After season 50, do you feel you’ve put a bookend on your Survivor experience, that you accomplished everything you wanted or would you play again if asked?
If I was asked, I’d always take the call. I know realistically there are so many people who have not gotten a second chance on the show who are due to be called back, and I sure hope that they are. But if someday down the line they’re saying, “We need more metaphors at Tribal Council again. The people stopped giving them.” I’ll send them my rate. It’s very reasonable.
We started our conversation with me asking if you had a message for Jimmy Fallon. I’d like to wrap things up with a message you might have for your son Michael. Imagine years from now, he’s watched you play twice and he’s reading old exit interviews. What do you want him to know about you and season 50?
I want him to know that in life you should always be kind and good to people, and also that you should be able to stand up for yourself and try to fight for what you feel like you can earn. That you feel it’s okay to try to win as hard as you can, so long as you’re respecting others. My first season — I talked about this when I met you, Terry, out in Fiji — when I got voted out in David vs Goliath, I was like, “Yeah, I did really well. But I guess it was my time.” But you know what? There’s always an opportunity to do better. There’s always an opportunity to realize, “You know what? I am worth it. I can earn this for myself. That’s okay. You don’t have to limit yourself.” And that’s a great way to live life.
***
Survivor airs new episodes on Wednesdays at 8 p.m. on CBS and Paramount+.
Prosecutors charged Benjamin Pasternak with strangulation and assault over a March 31 incident.
Pasternak was arraigned and pleaded not guilty; his next court date is in June.
The arrest adds to mounting legal troubles over allegedly deceptive token sales.
Benjamin Pasternak, founder of the Solana-based token launchpad Believe, was arrested Tuesday and charged with one count of second-degree strangulation and two counts of third-degree assault with intent to cause physical injury over a March 31 incident.
Pasternak has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to return to court June 11, per court records in the New York State Unified Court System.
The arrest comes as Pasternak faces civil allegations, as well. A class action lawsuit filed March 23 in the Southern District of New York alleges Pasternak claimed “zero ownership” in the Believe platform’s tokens while ostensibly collecting creator fees on every trade, reneging on at least 12 public buyback promises and executing a token migration that allegedly diluted holders by about 33%.
The complaint alleges Pasternak “ran the same play three times, under three different token names” across $PASTERNAK, $LAUNCHCOIN, and $BELIEVE, as the Believe platform processed roughly $6 billion in trading volume and extracted an estimated $54 million in fees.
Holders who failed to convert their tokens by the October 29, 2025 migration deadline saw their balances permanently destroyed, per the filing, which estimates consumer losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The suit brings six claims spanning New York consumer protection law, California false advertising statutes, and common law theories. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction freezing on-chain assets, including the flywheel wallet and token treasury.
Pasternak co-founded plant-based food company Simulate in early 2018, raising $50 million in a Series B round at a $260 million valuation before selling the company in October 2024. He launched his first crypto token the following January.
Late last year, Avi Patel, founder of decentralized data marketplace Kled, accused Pasternak of dumping KLED tokens on the open market in breach of a private OTC-only agreement.
Patel alleged that Pasternak sold more than 1% of the KLED supply during the project’s September app launch, then resumed selling during a later update. The Kled team repurchased Pasternak’s position twice over the counter, reducing his stake in the project from 6% to 1.7%.
The Believe platform’s native token has crashed 99.8% since its May 2025 all-time high at $0.35, and has fallen nearly 15% on the day to a recent price of $0.0007, per CoinGecko data.
“Our team is personally concerned by the public reports of domestic violence involving Ben Pasternak,” said Burwick Law founder Max Burwick, counsel for the plaintiffs in the civil suit. “Our thoughts are with the alleged victim. As to the federal class action lawsuit against defendant Ben Pasternak, Burwick Law is focused on zealously representing our clients and the proposed class. We do not comment on litigation strategy or anticipated motion practice.”
Decrypt reached out to Believe for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
Editor’s note: This story was updated after publication to include comment from Burwick Law.
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
TV’s bubble burst is continuing to have an impact on Emmy submissions, with another major drop appearing likely this year in comedy, drama and limited series contenders.
Variety is tracking which programs could land on the Emmy ballots, and has once again found a declining pool of eligible series. There will be around 87 submissions for drama series, 70 for comedy and 32 for limited/anthology, according to the most recent tracker. That’s a total of 189 likely entries across the three marquee races.
Of course, that number could climb, as there are usually a handful of surprises, last-minute launches and obscure entries (some of which self-submit) that appear just before the eligibility window closes. Still, the final number will likely be the lowest in several years — down from 228 in 2025, 229 in 2024 and 309 in 2023. That last number reflects a 33% drop from 2022 due to industry-wide strike delays.
Meanwhile, across all 15 program races, 600 submissions were in contention last year, down from 614 the previous year.
The decline in contenders will also likely mean fewer nominations, as the TV Academy bases the number of nominees in a category on how many programs or individuals are submitted. There are a few exceptions: Outstanding drama and outstanding comedy always recognize eight nominees.
However, there are 80 other standard categories and 30 “area” awards where the number of submissions determines the number of nominees. For instance, in acting categories there must be at least 80 individual submissions to guarantee six nominees. For the past two years, the lead acting categories have been limited to five nominees.
But a shrinking batch of shows could offer a slight upside. With fewer shows for voters to sift through, perhaps smaller, chronically overlooked series might break through.
WILL TRENT – He Lives!
Disney
That could be good news for critically acclaimed but lesser-known entries like HBO’s financial drama “Industry” with My’hala and Marisa Abela, which hasn’t received a nom across all three previous seasons. And perhaps, ABC’s procedural “Will Trent” could catch some heat for its overdue star Ramón Rodríguez.
Regarding other categories, the limited series races have become a haven for some of the most passionate picks in recent years. A smaller screening pile could open the door for contenders like Prime Video’s “Bait,” starring Riz Ahmed, or Starz’s upcoming retelling of “Amadeus.”
It could also pave the way for long-overdue acting recognition. Among the most exciting new entries is NBC’s “The Fall and Rise of Reggie Dinkins,” a sharp comedy with an incredible ensemble that may boost performers such as “Saturday Night Live” alum Bobby Moynihan and the consistently excellent Erika Alexander.
“This smaller pool creates opportunities for shows that get lost in the noise,” one strategist tells Variety. “There’s more bandwidth to discover what you might have missed.”
Emmy submissions are due on May 7, with nomination-round voting opening on June 11. This week’s latest projections are below and on the official predictions’ pages.
*** = PREDICTED WINNER (All predicted nominees below are in alphabetical order)
Drama Series “The Diplomat” (Netflix) “Euphoria” (HBO Max) “Paradise” (Hulu) “The Pitt” (HBO Max) *** “Pluribus” (Apple TV) “Slow Horses” (Apple TV) “Stranger Things” (Netflix) “The Testaments” (Hulu)
Comedy Series “Abbott Elementary” (ABC) “The Fall and Rise of Reggie Dinkins” (NBC) “Hacks” (HBO Max) *** “Jury Duty Presents: Company Retreat” (Prime Video) “Margo’s Got Money Troubles” (Apple TV) “Nobody Wants This” (Netflix) “Only Murders in the Building” (Hulu) “Shrinking” (Apple TV)
Limited or Anthology Series “Beef” (Netflix) “DTF St. Louis” (HBO Max) “Half Man” (HBO Max) “Lord of the Flies” (Netflix) “Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bissette” (FX)
Lead Actor (Drama) Sterling K. Brown, “Paradise” (Hulu) Gary Oldman, “Slow Horses” (Apple TV) Billy Magnussen, “The Audacity” (AMC) Mark Ruffalo, “Task” (HBO Max) Noah Wyle, “The Pitt” (HBO Max) ***
Lead Actor (Comedy) Steve Carell, “Rooster” (HBO Max) Steve Martin, “Only Murders in the Building” (Hulu) Tracy Morgan, “The Fall and Rise of Reggie Dinkins” (NBC) Jason Segel, “Shrinking” (Apple TV) *** Martin Short, “Only Murders in the Building” (Hulu)
Lead Actor (Limited/Movie) Jason Bateman, “Black Rabbit” (Netflix) Jamie Bell, “Half Man” (HBO Max) *** Charlie Hunnam, “Monster: The Ed Gein Story” (Netflix) Oscar Isaac, “Beef” (Netflix) Matthew Rhys, “The Beast in Me” (Netflix)
Lead Actress (Drama) Chase Infiniti, “The Testaments” (Hulu) Michelle Pfeiffer, “The Madison” (Paramount+) Keri Russell, “The Diplomat” (Netflix) Rhea Seehorn, “Pluribus” (Apple TV) *** Zendaya, “Euphoria” (HBO Max)
Lead Actress (Comedy) Kristen Bell, “Nobody Wants This” (Netflix) Quinta Brunson, “Abbott Elementary” (ABC) Elle Fanning, “Margo’s Got Money Troubles” (Apple TV) Lisa Kudrow, “The Comeback” (HBO Max) Jean Smart, “Hacks” (HBO Max) ***
Lead Actress (Limited/Movie) Claire Danes, “The Beast in Me” (Netflix) Carey Mulligan, “Beef” (Netflix) *** Sarah Pidgeon, “Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bissette” (FX) Tessa Thompson, “His and Hers” (Netflix) Kerry Washington, “Imperfect Women” (Apple TV)
Supporting Actor (Drama) Patrick Ball, “The Pitt” (HBO Max) Billy Crudup, “The Morning Show” (Apple TV) Colman Domingo, “Euphoria” (HBO Max) Zach Galifianakis, “The Audacity” (AMC) Jack Lowden, “Slow Horses” (Apple TV) Tom Pelphrey, “Task” (HBO Max) *** Kurt Russell, “The Madison” (Paramount+) Carlos-Manuel Vesga, “Pluribus” (Apple TV)
Supporting Actor (Comedy) Paul W. Downs, “Hacks” (HBO Max) Harrison Ford, “Shrinking” (Apple TV) *** Ben Kingsley, “Wonder Man” (Disney+) Bobby Moynihan, “The Fall and Rise of Reggie Dinkins” (NBC) Ebon Moss-Bachrach, “The Bear” (FX) Nick Offerman, “Margo’s Got Money Troubles” (Apple TV) Michael Urie, “Shrinking” (Apple TV) Bowen Yang, “Saturday Night Live” (NBC)
Supporting Actor (Limited/Movie) Jason Bateman, “DTF St. Louis” (HBO Max) Stuart Campbell, “Half Man” (HBO Max) Richard Gadd, “Half Man” (HBO Max) David Harbour, “DTF St. Louis” “(HBO Max) *** Song Kang Ho, “Beef” (Netflix) Charles Melton, “Beef” (Netflix) Alessandro Nivola, “Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bissette” (FX)
Supporting Actress (Drama) Marisa Abela, “Industry” (HBO Max) Isa Briones, “The Pitt” (HBO Max) Taylor Dearden, “The Pitt” (HBO Max) Allison Janney, “The Diplomat” (Netflix) Katherine LaNasa, “The Pitt” (HBO Max) *** Sepideh Moafi, “The Pitt” (HBO Max) Julianne Nicholson, “Paradise” (Hulu) Karolina Wydra, “Pluribus” (Apple TV)
Supporting Actress (Comedy) Erika Alexander, “The Fall and Rise of Reggie Dinkins” (NBC) Danielle Deadwyler, “Rooster” (HBO Max) Hannah Einbinder, “Hacks” (HBO Max) *** Janelle James, “Abbott Elementary” (ABC) Li Jun Li, “Spider-Noir” (Prime Video) Annie Mumolo, “Rooster” (HBO Max) Sheryl Lee Ralph, “Abbott Elementary” (ABC) Jessica Williams, “Shrinking” (Apple TV)
Supporting Actress (Limited/Movie) Linda Cardellini, “DTF St. Louis” (HBO Max) *** Grace Gummer, “Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bissette” (FX) Laurie Metcalf, “Monster: The Ed Gein Story” (Netflix) Cailee Spaeny, “Beef” (Netflix) Naomi Watts, “Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bissette” (FX) Yuh-Jung Youn, “Beef” (Netflix) Constance Zimmer, “Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bissette” (FX)
As the cryptocurrency market shows renewed momentum thanks to Bitcoin’s resilient stance in recent weeks, renowned industry analysts Benjamin Cowen and Guy from Coin Bureau have offered critical assessments of the market’s future.
During the broadcast, the most frequently asked question was whether the “sell in May and run” strategy would still be valid this year.
Analyst Benjamin Cowen compared Bitcoin’s current price movements to past “midterm election year” cycles. Cowen stated that the current situation shows similarities to the 2018 cycle, adding:
“We’ve been in the green for four weeks now. This is very similar to 2018, where we hit a low in February and a higher low in April. However, these kinds of counter-trend rallies always happen in bear markets. Investors shouldn’t be misled into thinking this is a permanent bull season.”
Related NewsEthereum Supply on Cryptocurrency Exchanges Has “Dried Up” – What Does This Mean?
Cowen predicts that the real weakness will emerge during the summer months, especially with potential interest rate hikes by the Bank of Japan.
Another interesting development in the market was the unexpected stagnation of Bitcoin dominance. Cowen expressed surprise at the flat trend in dominance since the beginning of the year, attributing this to the increasing dominance of stablecoins.
Guy from Coin Bureau attributed the lack of an expected altcoin season in this cycle to Bitcoin ETFs. According to Guy, spot Bitcoin ETFs absorbed a large portion of the capital allocated to crypto, preventing it from flowing to other projects.
Experts, also addressing the uncertainty in global markets, expressed surprise that the S&P 500 index remained at record levels despite tensions in the Middle East and the energy crisis. Guy argued that the massive growth in the artificial intelligence (AI) sector was keeping traditional markets afloat, but that supply chain crises and inflationary pressures would have an impact in the long term.
An internal watchdog for the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) will review whether the federal government complied with a law mandating the release of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein files.
The Office of Inspector General, which operates independently of the department, explained on Thursday that its probe would focus on Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed in November.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
“Our primary objective is to evaluate the DOJ’s processes for identifying, redacting, and releasing records in its possession as required by the act,” the office said in a statement.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act mandated the release of all unclassified records related to Epstein in the Justice Department’s possession.
It also required those files to be easily downloadable and searchable, and it limited redactions to what is necessary to protect victims and classified information. The act stipulated that the Department of Justice had 30 days to comply.
“No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary,” the law says.
But critics have questioned whether the administration of President Donald Trump fully followed the law.
Under Trump, the Justice Department has released several batches of information, the most significant being a catalogue of 3.5 million pages published on January 30.
But that came well after the act’s 30-day window, and critics have questioned why certain information was included — or excluded.
Lawmakers, for instance, have accused the Trump administration of using heavy redactions to protect the identities of powerful individuals named in the files.
Survivors of Epstein’s abuse also expressed anger at how the files were handled, saying that personal information about them had been disclosed.
Epstein, who died in 2019 while awaiting federal charges, has been accused of running a years-long transnational sex-trafficking scheme whose victims could number in the hundreds.
A wealthy financier, Epstein moved among some of the most powerful circles of society, maintaining relationships with politicians, academics, business leaders and artists.
Among his connections were two US presidents — Trump and Bill Clinton — as well as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, a former prince in the United Kingdom whose royal title was stripped last year in the wake of the Epstein scandal.
The high-profile nature of Epstein’s social circle has sparked inquiries about who was involved in his sex abuse scheme and who might have shielded him from accountability.
Epstein was convicted in 2008 on state-level charges, including procuring a child for prostitution, but critics have roundly denounced the case as a sweetheart deal: He served only 13 months of an 18-month sentence.
Since taking office for a second term in 2025, Trump has come under scrutiny for his personal relationship with the sex offender.
His administration has also faced pushback over its mixed messaging about the Epstein files.
In February 2025, for instance, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News that an Epstein client list was “sitting on [her] desk right now”, only to deny such a list existed later that year.
Trump himself denounced the Epstein scandal as a “hoax” designed to dent his reputation, and he called Republicans clamouring for the files’ release “stupid people”.
However, as public pressure mounted in November, Trump ultimately backed the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act and signed it into law.
Still, surveys suggest widespread disapproval of Trump’s handling of the files.
A February poll from the research company YouGov found that 53 percent of respondents believed that Trump was trying to cover up Epstein’s crimes, and 50 percent expressed the belief that Trump was personally involved in Epstein’s crimes.
There could also be legal ramifications if the administration is found to have failed to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Republican Representative Thomas Massie, one of the bill’s sponsors, recently warned the recently appointed interim attorney general, Todd Blanche, that he needed to fulfil the act’s mandate within a month.
“Congratulations AG Blanche,” Massie said in a social media post. “Now you have 30 days to release the rest of the files before becoming criminally liable for failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.”
The logline for the untitled series states, “Fresh off a messy divorce, Heidi (Banks) sets out to secure a lively second act for herself and her kids. But when she stumbles into coordinating her father’s retirement community sex dates, Heidi is forced into an unlikely alliance with his girlfriend’s perpetually single son.”
Heldens and Ward serve as writers, executive producers, and showrunners on the series. Banks executive produces along with Max Handelman and Krissy Wall via Brownstone Productions. Jonathan Krisel will direct the pilot and executive produce. Quinn Haberman executive produces alongside Heldens for Selfish Mermaid, while Jason Winer and Jon Radler will executive produce for Small Dog Picture Company. 20th Television, where Heldens is under an overall deal, is the studio.
The series will shoot in Los Angeles later this year.
Banks can currently be seen in the Peacock series “The Miniature Wife” alongside Matthew Macfadyen. She also recently starred in the Amazon series “The Better Sister” with Jessica Biel. Her other TV credits include “Mrs. America,” “30 Rock,” and “Scrubs.” In film, Banks is known for starring in the “Hunger Games” and “LEGO Movie” franchises as well as the “Pitch Perfect” films. Banks has also been very active as both a producer and director in recent years. She produced all the “Pitch Perfect” films and directed the second of the three. Most recently, she directed the hit horror comedy “Cocaine Bear.” She has also produced projects like the comedy series “Shrill” and the comedy feature “Bottoms.”
She is repped by UTA, Untitled Entertainment, and Johnson Shapiro Slewett & Kole.
Heldens is the co-creator and co-showrunner of the hit ABC cop series “Will Trent,” which was recently renewed for a fifth season. She is also the creator of shows like “The Big Leap,” “The Passage,” and “Mercy.” Heldens previously served as a writer on shows including “Friday Night Lights” and “The Dropout.”
She is repped by WME and Hansen Jacobson.
Ward previously worked with Heldens on “Mercy” and “The Big Leap.” He is also known for his work on the recent Fox series “Best Medicine,” based on the hit British series “Doc Martin.” Ward serves as a co-executive producer on the series.
He is repped by CAA, The Shuman Company, and Goodman Genow.
New York-based Thrive Capital was founded in 2009 by Josh Kushner, the younger brother of Jared Kushner, who is Donald Trump’s son-in-law. Josh Kushner, 40, is a former Goldman Sachs banker and son of real-estate developer Charles Kushner.
A spokesman for Thrive Capital declined to comment. Disney reps did not respond to a request for comment.
Per his agreement with Disney, Iger will remain employed by Disney through the end of 2026, in which capacity he will serve as a “senior adviser” to new Disney CEO Josh D’Amaro. Iger also remains on Disney’s board through his current term.
At Thrive, Iger will “work with the firm’s staff on investments and with founders of companies” in the VC company’s portfolio, according to the Journal piece. Thrive recently raised $10 billion for a new set of funds. Its portfolio of investments have included Instagram, Spotify, Patreon, Robinhood, OpenAI and indie film studio A24.
In a statement in September 2022, Iger said about joining the VC firm: “I look forward to working with the extraordinarily talented team at Thrive as they strive to build and nurture companies that will be future industry leaders across key sectors. I have long believed that by harnessing and advancing technology we can transform businesses and ultimately change our world for the better, and this is exactly what Thrive intends to do and I’m excited to join them in this important endeavor.”