Cryptocurrency exchange Binance TR has introduced its new Launchpool project, Opinion ($OPN). This event will be the exchange’s ninth Launchpool.
Users will be able to qualify for the $OPN airdrop by staking their BNB holdings on Binance TR starting Tuesday, March 3rd at 03:00. The launchpool event will continue until Thursday, March 5th at 02:59, after which the $OPN token will be listed on the exchange at 16:00 on the same day.
Opinion, a new cryptocurrency project, is being promoted as an ecosystem that provides infrastructure for the global trading of trading signals, opinions, and predictions.
According to the announced plan, the project aims to activate the governance mechanism in the second quarter of the year, while planning to enter the large-scale adoption process after the fourth quarter. The roadmap defines the first quarter of 2026 as the “Expansion Phase.” During this period, the goals include launching the $OPN token, beginning the construction of the ecosystem infrastructure, and expanding the community and early-stage partners.
The second quarter will see the transition to the “Ecosystem Growth Phase.” This phase plans to deepen network implementations, expand signaling and use cases, and initiate token holder participation in decentralized governance.
The third quarter of 2026 is positioned as the “Protocol Maturity” period. This phase will focus on infrastructure updates, improvements to governance mechanisms, and increased support for integration with more applications.
The project aims to enter a “mass adoption phase” in the fourth quarter and beyond. In this context, it was stated that training activities and ecosystem support programs will be implemented to spread the “multi-user internet” vision to a wider user base.
The developers also detailed the $OPN token supply distribution and unlock schedule. 23.5% of the total supply was allocated for the airdrop. Of this, 3.5% will be distributed unlocked during the TGE (Token Generation Event), and the remaining portion will remain locked for 7 months. It was stated that users who locked their tokens for certain periods after the first airdrop could earn additional airdrop rewards.
Scientists created a biodegradable packaging film from milk protein, starch, and volcanic clay.
The material reduces water vapor permeability by nearly 1,000x compared to similar biopolymer films.
It fully degrades in soil in about 13 weeks—far faster than petroleum-based plastics.
The protein that keeps your yogurt thick and your cheese stretchy just got a new job: replacing plastic wrap.
Researchers from Colombia and Australia have published a study in Polymers detailing a biodegradable film made primarily from calcium caseinate—the same protein that makes up roughly 80% of cow’s milk—blended with starch, a dash of clay, and a synthetic binder to hold everything together. The result is a packaging film that degrades completely in soil in about 13 weeks, compared to conventional plastics that can take centuries.
Casein—the milk protein—naturally forms dense molecular networks when dissolved and dried, giving films a decent baseline structure. But on its own, pure casein film contracts and becomes brittle after drying, like a piece of dried glue. The researchers found that glycerol, a common food-grade plasticizer, acts like a lubricant inside the polymer, keeping it flexible.
Image: Polymers
They then blended in modified starch to bulk it up and PVA—a biodegradable polymer—to dramatically improve strength and compatibility between the other ingredients, and voilà.
But the key of the concoction is bentonite: a volcanic clay mineral ground down to nanoscale particles and suspended in the mixture. When the film dries, those tiny clay platelets arrange themselves in flat, overlapping layers inside the material—like a wall of stacked cards running through the film.
Water vapor trying to cross the packaging can’t go straight through anymore—it has to navigate a maze of these clay barriers, following a longer, winding path. That “tortuous diffusion” effect is why the film’s water vapor permeability dropped by nearly three orders of magnitude compared to conventional casein-starch films reported in the literature. That’s a thousand-fold reduction.
The final film stretches more than double its original length before tearing. Comparable casein-starch films without PVA or bentonite are a lot more rigid. Such improvement in strength comes from bentonite’s silicate layers acting as internal reinforcement, distributing stress more evenly across the material when it’s being pulled or bent. Think of it less like a standard plastic bag and more like a fiber-reinforced composite—just made from food ingredients instead of carbon fibers.
On the microbiology front, bacteria colonies on the film remained below the threshold set by ISO standards for non-sterile packaging applications. This means that these films don’t have explicit antimicrobial properties, but they don’t create a petri dish environment either. The researchers flagged this as a direction for future work, noting that incorporating silver nanoparticles or other active agents could push the film into genuinely antibacterial territory.
Biodegradation was tracked by burying rectangular film samples in soil for nine days and weighing them daily. The most aggressive breakdown happened in the first 72 hours—the casein and starch begin absorbing moisture quickly, swelling and fragmenting. After that, degradation continued at a steadier pace.
Extrapolating the curve puts full disintegration at around 13 weeks, which is longer than simpler casein-only films but significantly shorter than anything petroleum-based. That’s much shorter than the whole millenia it may take a plastic bag to go through the same process.
Image: Polymers
The researchers used a solution casting method to produce the films, essentially pouring the liquid mixture into molds and letting it dry in an oven at 38°C (about 100°F). It’s low-tech enough to scale without exotic equipment, which matters for adoption in developing countries where plastic waste management infrastructure is often limited.
There’s still work ahead. Thermal stability testing hasn’t been done, antimicrobial performance needs deeper validation, and the optical clarity drops slightly with bentonite added—though the researchers say the change is imperceptible to the naked eye.
These aren’t dealbreakers. They’re the kind of engineering problems that get solved as the formulation moves from lab to pilot production. The core proof of concept—that you can build a functional, genuinely biodegradable food packaging film out of milk protein and volcanic clay—is sitting right there in the data.
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
Deloitte penned USAT’s first attestation report on behalf of issuer Anchorage Digital.
The Big Four accounting firm began working for Circle in 2023.
Tether signaled last year that it’s pursuing a full, independent audit.
Anchorage Digital tapped Deloitte for USAT’s first attention report, linking the Big Four accounting firm with Tether’s efforts to offer a regulated stablecoin in the U.S.
The report showed that USAT’s reserves were valued in excess of the stablecoin’s circulating supply, totaling $17.6 million and $17.5 million, respectively, as of Jan. 31. That meant the token had a cushion of around $100,000 a few days after its debut last month.
USAT’s reserves consist of cash and U.S. Treasuries, which are held at financial institutions based in the country, the report showed. It was prepared under a framework established by the world’s largest member association for certified professional accountants last year.
In a blog post, Tether USAT noted that its token combines Tether’s ability to operate at a global scale with Anchorage’s “strong track record operating under a clear U.S. federal framework.” Anchorage became the first federally chartered digital asset bank in 2021.
“Anchorage Digital Bank is establishing a clear standard of accountability and financial strength,” Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino said in a statement. “We intend to help define the next chapter of digital dollars in the United States.”
Tether USAT is led by CEO Bo Hines, former executive director of the White House’s digital assets working group, who initially signed on as a strategic advisor to Tether in August.
USAT’s debut followed the passage of the GENIUS Act last year, a framework for stablecoins requiring companies operating in the U.S. to abide by reserve requirements that don’t align with Tether’s $183 billion stablecoin, which is partially backed by Bitcoin and gold.
Deloitte’s role in USAT’s attestation report highlights Tether’s bifurcated approach: building a wall of federal compliance around its U.S. stablecoin to win over institutional players who might remain wary of the company’s broader international business.
Tether’s reserves have never undergone a full audit, and its flagship USDT stablecoin has previously faced scrutiny for its rolein facilitatingcriminal activity. The company announced that it was relocating its headquarters to El Salvador in January of last year.
Months later, Ardoino told DL News that “none of the Big Four companies will audit us” because they are afraid of damage that it may cause to their reputations. Nonetheless, he said that securing a firm like Deloitte for a full, independent audit was a “top priority.”
Decrypt has reached out to Tether for comment.
The attestation report produced by Deloitte did not judge how Anchorage manages USAT’s reserves day-to-day, only that the money was there when a snapshot was taken. Additionally, Deloitte did not determine whether the stablecoin reserves “complied with federal, state or local laws or regulations.”
Anchorage declined to comment to Decrypt.
Circle, Tether’s biggest rival, appointed Deloitte as its independent auditor in its 2022 fiscal year. That means the Big Four accounting firm has been also producing attestation reports for USDC’s reserves since January 2023.
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
MARA Holdings, one of the largest publicly traded Bitcoin miners in the US, has made a significant change to its treasury policy for 2026.
According to the company’s 10-K report submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), MARA has gained the flexibility to sell its Bitcoin ($BTC) reserves held on its balance sheet when necessary.
This step represents a significant departure from the company’s past strategy of “holding the Bitcoins it produces as a long-term investment.”
MARA implemented a strategy change in the second half of 2025, allowing the sale of Bitcoin generated from operations, and approved the inclusion of balance sheet assets in the sale scope starting in 2026. The company stated that it may buy and sell Bitcoin from time to time depending on market conditions and capital allocation priorities.
As of December 31, 2025, MARA holds a total of 53,822 $BTC. Approximately 28% of these assets are managed within the framework of an active digital asset management strategy.
9,377 $BTC were lent to counterparties, while 5,938 $BTC were used as collateral for a $350 million loan. $32.1 million in interest income was earned from the lent Bitcoins.
However, the company also experienced a significant decline in value in 2025. Due to the drop in Bitcoin prices, the fair value of its assets decreased by $422.2 million. Furthermore, the 2,000 $BTC account managed at Two Prime recorded a net loss of $22.1 million.
MARA produced 8,799 $BTC in 2025, a 7% decrease compared to the previous year. This decline was attributed to the halving in April 2024 and the increased network difficulty.
Markets are stuck between a corrective downtrend and stretched sentiment, where Bitcoin prezzo reflects both intense fear and signs of a tiring selloff.
$BTC/USDT — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Bitcoin prezzo: fear is in control, but the selloff is getting tired
Bitcoin ($BTC) is trading around $67,100, sitting below its short- and medium-term daily moving averages after a difficult run of months. On the higher timeframe, the market is still in a corrective, bearish regime, but the combination of extreme fear (Fear & Greed at 14) and a volatility structure that is no longer accelerating suggests we are closer to the late part of the downtrend than the start.
Right now the dominant force is risk-off positioning: $BTC dominance is high at about 56.5% and total crypto market cap is modestly up on the day. This usually means capital is hiding in Bitcoin and stables while avoiding high-beta altcoins. The question for the next legs is simple: does this correction evolve into a deeper trend break toward the mid–$60Ks and below, or does fear overextend and fuel a sharp mean-reversion rally back toward the low–$70Ks?
On the daily chart the bias is bearish, but the intraday structure is not in free fall. Moreover, hourly and 15-minute timeframes show short-term oversold conditions and fading downside momentum, which opens the door for a corrective bounce inside a broader downtrend.
Daily timeframe (D1): macro bias remains bearish
Trend and EMAs (D1) – Price: $67,111 – EMA 20: $68,333 – EMA 50: $74,476 – EMA 200: $90,959 – Regime flag: bearish
$BTC is trading below all the major daily EMAs, with a clear downside stacking: price < 20-day < 50-day < 200-day. That is classic downtrend structure. The 20-day EMA is close enough to price to act as an immediate dynamic resistance; the 50-day and 200-day are much higher and currently irrelevant for short-term price, but they remind us how far $BTC has pulled back from prior highs.
What it implies: the main scenario is still bearish. Any bounce toward $68.3K–$70K is, by default, a rally into resistance unless $BTC can reclaim and hold above the 20-day EMA.
RSI 14 (D1): 43.8 Daily RSI is sitting just below the midpoint, in the low 40s. Momentum is negative but not washed out.
What it implies: sellers remain in control on the higher timeframe, but this is not extreme oversold territory. There is room for another leg down if macro or flows deteriorate, yet we are close to the zone where dip buyers usually start to step in more aggressively if the structure stabilizes.
The MACD lines are deeply negative, reflecting the strong prior downside phase, but the histogram is now positive: the MACD line has crossed above its signal line while still below zero.
What it implies: the downtrend on the daily chart is losing momentum. This is typically what you see in late-stage selloffs or early base-building phases: price may still drift lower or move sideways, but the persistent, clean downside impulse is fading. It does not give us a buy signal on its own; it says the worst momentum is likely behind us, unless a new shock hits.
$BTC is trading very close to the middle band, after spending time below it earlier in the move.
What it implies: volatility is elevated but not explosive, and price has migrated back toward the midline after weakness. That is typical in a consolidation phase inside a broader downtrend. The lower band around $64.4K is the immediate volatility support; repeated tags of that area without follow-through would reinforce a short-term bottoming narrative. A daily close back above the midline and heading toward the upper band would be the first sign of a more constructive mean reversion.
ATR 14 (D1): $2,964 Average daily range is close to $3K.
What it implies: volatility is high enough that 4–5% daily swings are entirely normal here. Position sizing matters: levels can be pierced intraday without necessarily breaking the broader structure. Traders should not overreact to a $1–2K move; it is just one average day of noise in this environment.
Daily pivot levels (D1) – Pivot point (PP): $67,815 – First resistance (R1): $68,554 – First support (S1): $66,372
Price is currently trading below the daily pivot but above S1.
What it implies: intraday, $BTC is leaning to the bearish side of the daily range, but it has not yet tested the first support. The $66.3K–$66.5K pocket is the first real line in the sand for today’s session; sustained trading below there would open the path toward the lower Bollinger Band near $64.4K.
Hourly timeframe (H1): weak, but not collapsing
On the 1H chart the system labels the regime as neutral, which matches what the indicators are showing: downside pressure, but no clean one-way trend.
Trend and EMAs (H1) – Price: $67,104 – EMA 20: $68,068 – EMA 50: $67,458 – EMA 200: $66,731
Price is under the 20- and 50-hour EMAs, but the 200-hour is still below price. The short-term averages have rolled over, but the longer intraday trend is not fully broken yet.
What it implies: this is a short-term pullback within a broader intraday range. Sellers have the upper hand on the hourly chart, but until price convincingly loses the 200-hour EMA around $66.7K, it is more of a corrective drift than a new, impulsive breakdown.
RSI 14 (H1): 41.4 Hourly RSI is in bearish territory, but far from oversold.
What it implies: intraday momentum is negative and supports the daily bearish bias, yet there is capacity for both further grinding down and sharp squeeze rallies. It is a “do not chase late” zone rather than a fresh high-conviction short area.
The MACD values are slightly positive but the histogram is negative, meaning the MACD line is crossing down under the signal line while both sit above zero.
What it implies: the prior intraday bounce has stalled, and momentum is shifting back to the downside, but the overall hourly trend has not flipped deeply bearish. Think of this as a market that tried to rebound, failed to sustain it, and is now drifting lower rather than cascading.
Price is trading in the lower half of the band range, closer to the lower band but not hugging it.
What it implies: bears are in control intraday, but volatility is contained. There is no sign yet of a volatility expansion move; instead, the market is bleeding lower within an established envelope.
ATR 14 (H1): $581 The average hourly range is around $580.
What it implies: $400–800 swings on an hourly basis are standard noise here. For execution, it means entries that are too tight to the pivot or recent swing can get shaken out quickly.
Price is trading slightly below the hourly pivot and above S1.
What it implies: the market is leaning bearish within today’s intraday structure, but has not yet broken the key $66.7K–$66.8K zone that aligns with both S1 and the 200-hour EMA. That confluence is the immediate short-term battleground.
15-minute timeframe (M15): execution layer, stretched on the downside
On the 15-minute chart, the regime is tagged as neutral, but here the details matter more for timing entries and exits than for bias.
Trend and EMAs (M15) – Price: $67,107 – EMA 20: $68,013 – EMA 50: $68,241 – EMA 200: $67,428
Price is below all the intraday EMAs, including the 200 on the 15-minute chart.
What it implies: short-term structure is clearly weak; any quick bounce into $67.4K–$68K is, initially, just a retest of broken supports and short-term moving averages. Fast money will be looking to fade those bounces unless higher timeframes start to confirm a reversal.
RSI 14 (M15): 22.3 This is deeply oversold on the very short timeframe.
What it implies: the 15-minute chart is ripe for a bounce or at least a pause. That does not change the daily bias, but it warns that pressing fresh shorts here on the smallest timeframe offers poor immediate reward-to-risk; a squeeze back toward the 20- or 50-EMA on M15 would be entirely normal.
Both MACD and signal are below zero, and the histogram is negative.
What it implies: short-term momentum is still to the downside, consistent with the oversold RSI. The market is weak, but because it is already stretched, this is where you often start to see jagged, two-way price action: sharp little rallies inside a broader intraday downtrend.
$BTC is trading below the lower band on this timeframe.
What it implies: price is extended to the downside on the micro view. That often leads to snap-back moves toward the midline, even if the larger trend is down. It is a poor spot to initiate new aggressive shorts, but not yet a clear reversal area on its own.
ATR 14 (M15): $266 Average 15-minute range is about $266.
What it implies: for scalpers, this is a wide tape; intrabar moves of $150–$300 are routine. Tight stops around obvious levels will be hunted; more thoughtful placement away from the noise is crucial.
Price is slightly below the 15-minute pivot and hovering near S1.
What it implies: the very short-term tape is leaning bearish but trying to stabilize near the first support. It is exactly the kind of area where you expect either a minor intraday bounce or an acceleration if S1 breaks on volume.
Sentiment and broader market context
The crypto-wide Fear & Greed Index sits at 14 (Extreme Fear). $BTC dominance around 56.5% alongside a modestly rising total market cap points to capital rotating into Bitcoin and stables while the market de-risks elsewhere.
What it implies: fear is real, but it is already heavily priced in. Historically, extreme fear readings during a corrective phase often precede strong relief rallies, though they do not pinpoint timing. As long as dominance stays elevated and altcoins underperform, Bitcoin remains the relative safe asset within crypto, even if its own price is under pressure.
Scenarios for Bitcoin prezzo: where do we go from here?
Main bias from D1: bearish, but late-stage and vulnerable to a squeeze.
There is a clear tension across timeframes:
Daily chart: downtrend structure, negative but easing momentum.
Hourly chart: neutral-to-bearish drift, no capitulation.
15-minute chart: oversold and stretched, due for a bounce.
That mix usually resolves either into a relief rally inside a downtrend or a final flush that resets the shorter timeframes before a more meaningful reversal.
Bullish scenario (countertrend, then potentially more)
In the bullish path, the current oversold intraday setup turns into a rebound that gains traction on higher timeframes.
Key steps for this scenario:
1. Short-term stabilization above $66.5K The $66.3K–$66.8K zone is critical: it combines daily S1, hourly S1, and the H1 200 EMA. Holding above this area and putting in higher lows on the 15-minute and hourly charts would signal sellers are losing control intraday.
2. Reclaim of intraday moving averages Price needs to retake the 15-minute 200 EMA near $67.4K and then the 20- and 50-hour EMAs around $67.5K–$68.1K. That would turn the current bleed into a short-term trend reversal.
3. Break back above the daily pivot and 20-day EMA A daily close above the pivot at $67.8K and, more importantly, above the 20-day EMA near $68.3K would be the first serious sign that the correction is maturing. From there, a move toward the upper daily Bollinger Band and the $70K–$71K region becomes realistic.
4. Extension toward $72K–$74K If momentum improves and volume expands on the way up, the next logical magnet would be the prior supply area in the low–$70Ks, with the 50-day EMA at $74.5K as a stretch target for a full mean-reversion swing.
What invalidates the bullish scenario? A clean break and daily close below $64.4K (the lower daily Bollinger Band) would strongly argue that the market is not ready to base yet. That would put the focus back on lower supports and delay any sustained upside for weeks, not days.
Bearish scenario (trend continuation, potentially one more leg down)
In the bearish path, the daily downtrend re-asserts itself, and the short-term oversold conditions on the 15-minute chart are worked off via a shallow bounce that fails quickly.
Key steps for this scenario:
1. Failure to reclaim $68K If every small rally gets sold before $BTC can regain the hourly EMAs and the daily pivot, it signals strong supply overhead. Repeated rejections around $67.5K–$68.0K would confirm this.
2. Break of $66.5K and $66.3K supports Losing the $66.7K 200-hour EMA and the clustered S1 levels would open the door to a test of the daily lower band around $64.4K. In that move, 15-minute oversold conditions could persist as price grinds lower.
3. Daily close near or below the lower Bollinger Band ($64.4K) A decisive daily candle closing at or beneath the lower band would mark a volatility expansion to the downside, likely driven by renewed fear, liquidations, or macro headlines. From there, traders would start discussing deeper retracement zones below $60K.
4. Momentum rollover on D1 indicators If the MACD histogram on D1 turns back down toward zero or negative while RSI sinks into the 30s, it would confirm that the early signs of momentum easing were a false dawn and that the trend is accelerating again.
What invalidates the bearish scenario? A sustained move and daily close above $70K, accompanied by rising volume and a firm MACD histogram on the daily chart, would severely weaken the bearish narrative. In that case, the recent leg would be better framed as a correction in a larger bull market, with the path of least resistance shifting back upward.
Positioning, risk, and how to think about Bitcoin prezzo here
This is a tricky part of the cycle. The daily chart says downtrend, the intraday chart says tired but not reversed, and sentiment says everyone is scared. Those conditions often deliver sharp, counterintuitive moves in both directions.
A few practical takeaways for traders analyzing Bitcoin prezzo in this environment:
Respect the daily downtrend. Unless and until $BTC can reclaim the 20-day EMA and hold it, rallies are guilty until proven innocent. That argues against blindly buying every dip.
Do not ignore extreme fear. With sentiment this depressed and the daily MACD starting to turn, the risk of a violent short-covering rally is real. Shorts added late into intraday oversold conditions can be painful.
Size for volatility. With a ~$3K daily ATR and $500+ hourly ranges, levels will be overshot routinely. If your positioning cannot tolerate a few thousand dollars of noise against you, your sizing is probably too large for this tape.
Use confluence, not single signals. The more alignment you see between key supports (pivot levels, EMAs, Bollinger Bands) across timeframes, the more meaningful the area. Right now, $66.3K–$66.8K is one such zone on the downside; $68K–$70K is shaping up as the equivalent on the upside.
Overall, $BTC is in a corrective downtrend dominated by fear, but the internal momentum picture is no longer one-sided. For traders, this is a phase to stay nimble, respect both tails, and let the levels, not emotions, dictate whether the next big move is a breakdown or a squeeze higher.
Bitcoin traded near $68,000 on Tuesday as U.S. spot ETFs pulled in $458 million, according to data curated by SoSoValue, marking one of the quarter’s strongest inflow days despite the ongoing conflict with Iran.
The inflows suggest institutional investors are treating bitcoin’s recent volatility stemming from the war as contained rather than systemic.
Singapore-based trading firm QCP Capital said in a recent note that the roughly $300 million in long liquidations triggered by the weekend headlines were “notable but contained,” arguing that positioning had already been materially lightened in recent weeks.
Options markets told a similar story, QCP wrote, with one-day implied volatility briefly spiking to 93% before quickly retracing, a sign traders were hedging event risk rather than bracing for prolonged escalation.
Meanwhile, U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs added $1.1 billion over three consecutive sessions last week, according to SoSoValue data previously reported by CoinDesk, with BlackRock’s IBIT accounting for roughly half.
OpenAI signed an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy AI in classified environments.
The firm said it imposed “red lines,” but the contract allows “all lawful purposes,” a standard that ultimately depends on the government’s own interpretation.
The controversy sparked the QuitGPT movement and drove a surge in Claude downloads.
OpenAI said this weekend that it reached an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy advanced AI systems in classified environments, marking a significant expansion of the company’s work with the U.S. military.
The announcement came less than 24 hours after the Trump administration blacklisted Anthropic, designating the rival AI firm a “supply chain risk to national security” following a dispute over contract language related to surveillance and autonomous weapons.
President Donald Trump also directed federal agencies to immediately cease using Anthropic’s technology, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent writing Monday on X that the agency “is terminating all use of Anthropic products, including the use of its Claude platform, within our department.”
“THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NEVER ALLOW A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY TO DICTATE HOW OUR GREAT MILITARY FIGHTS AND WINS WARS! That decision belongs to YOUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, and the tremendous leaders I appoint to run our Military.
The timing of the AI announcements placed OpenAI’s deal under intense scrutiny. In a detailed blog post, the company outlined what it described as firm “red lines” and layered safeguards governing its Pentagon partnership.
The agreement, as presented by OpenAI, raises broader questions about how AI systems will be governed in national security settings, and how the company’s stated restrictions will be interpreted and enforced in practice.
When “lawful” isn’t enough
OpenAI’s blog post opens with three commitments framed as non-negotiable: no use of its technology for mass domestic surveillance, to independently direct autonomous weapons systems, or for high-stakes automated decisions like social credit scoring.
Then comes the actual contract language—which OpenAI notably calls “the relevant language,” not “the full agreement.”
“The Department of War may use the AI system for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols,” OpenAI said.
That is the exact phrase Anthropic said the government had been demanding throughout negotiations. The exact phrase that Anthropic refused to go along with. OpenAI signed it, yet argues its red lines remain fully intact.
However, “lawful” in national security contexts isn’t a fixed boundary—it lives inside a patchwork of statutes, executive orders, internal directives, and often classified legal interpretations. When a contract grants “all lawful purposes,” the practical limit becomes the government’s current legal envelope, not an independent standard set by the vendor.
A cluster of clauses
The weapons provision reads that the AI system “will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or department policy requires human control.”
The prohibition only applies where some other authority already requires human control—it borrows its teeth entirely from existing policy, specifically DoD Directive 3000.09. That directive requires autonomous systems to allow commanders to exercise “appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force.”
And “appropriate” is as subjective as can be.
Human judgment is not human control. This distinction was not accidental. Defense scholars have noted that omitting “human-in-the-loop” language was deliberate, precisely to preserve operational flexibility.
OpenAI’s strongest counterargument is its cloud-only deployment architecture—fully autonomous lethal decision loops would require edge deployment on battlefield devices, which this contract doesn’t permit. That’s a real technical constraint.
But cloud-based AI can still perform target identification, pattern-of-life analysis, and mission planning. Those are kill-chain activities regardless of where the final trigger sits. The outcome for a target doesn’t differ based on which server the model runs on.
The surveillance clause follows a similar pattern. OpenAI’s stated red line: no mass domestic surveillance. The contract language: The system “shall not be used for unconstrained monitoring of U.S. persons’ private information as consistent with these authorities”—then lists the Fourth Amendment, FISA, and Executive Order 12333.
The word “unconstrained” implies a constrained version of mass surveillance would be permissible. And EO 12333 is the executive order the NSA has used to justify intercepting Americans’ communications when done outside U.S. borders.
And this is where Anthropic’s concerns about wording throughout the negotiations becomes noticeable. Anthropic’s argument was that current law hasn’t caught up with what AI makes possible. The government can legally purchase vast amounts of aggregated commercial data about Americans without a warrant—and has already done so.
OpenAI’s contract language, by anchoring its protections to existing legal frameworks, may not close the gap Anthropic was actually worried about.
Altman responds
On Saturday night, Altman held an AMA responding to thousands of questions about the deal. When asked what would cause OpenAI to walk away from a government partnership, he answered: “If we were asked to do something unconstitutional or illegal, we will walk away.”
If we were asked to do something unconstitutional or illegal, we will walk away. Please come visit me in jail if necessary.
That framing places OpenAI’s limit at legality—not at an independent ethical judgment about what the company will or won’t enable if it happens to be legal, which is what Anthropic defends. Asked whether he worried about future disputes over what counts as “legal,” he acknowledged the risk: “If we have to take on that fight we will, but it clearly exposes us to some risk.”
On why OpenAI reached a deal where Anthropic could not, Altman offered this: “Anthropic seemed more focused on specific prohibitions in the contract, rather than citing applicable laws, which we felt comfortable with. I’d clearly rather rely on technical safeguards if I only had to pick one. I think Anthropic may have wanted more operational control than we did.”
That’s a substantive philosophical difference. Anthropic argued that because frontier models can be repurposed for intelligence and military workflows in ways that are hard to anticipate, the limits need to be explicit and binding in writing, even at the cost of the deal. OpenAI’s position is that technical architecture, embedded personnel, and existing law together constitute a stronger safeguard than contractual text alone.
The public picked a side
The backlash was immediate. By Monday, the “QuitGPT” movement claimed that over 1.5 million people had taken action—canceling subscriptions, sharing boycott posts, or signing up at quitgpt.org.
The campaign framed OpenAI’s move as prioritizing military contracts over user safety, accusing the company of agreeing to let the Pentagon use its technology for “any lawful purpose, including killer robots and mass surveillance.”
OpenAI might contest that characterization. But the market moved regardless.
Anthropic’s Claude surged past ChatGPT to become the most downloaded free app in the United States on Apple’s App Store, with the company telling Decrypt that it saw record daily signups over the weekend.
Pop star Katy Perry shared a screenshot of Claude’s pricing page on X. Hundreds of users documented their subscription cancellations publicly on Reddit. Graffiti praising Anthropic appeared outside its San Francisco offices, while chalk attacks covered OpenAI’s sidewalks. Even hundreds of OpenAI’s own employees had previously signed an open letter supporting Anthropic’s refusal to accede to Pentagon demands.
The QuitGPT framing is emotionally compelling, but not entirely precise. Anthropic itself has a partnership with Palantir and Amazon Web Services that grants U.S. intelligence agencies and defense departments access to Claude models, and has allegedly been used in military operations to overthrow the governments of Venezuela and Iran. The ethics of AI and national security contracting were never clean on either side.
What the campaign captured, accurately, is that a large segment of users believed there was a meaningful difference between how the two companies drew their limits—and voted with their subscriptions.
Whether that difference is as meaningful as it appears requires reading the contract carefully.
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
The Massachusetts District of the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed for the forfeiture of nearly $328K linked to a crypto romance scam.
The victim was tricked into sending funds to a user they communicated with via an online dating application.
U.S. prosecutors recently warned the public about the dangers of romance scams and their crypto ties.
Prosecutors for the Massachusetts District of the U.S. Attorney’s Office are seeking the civil forfeiture of $327,829 in USDT as part of a money laundering scheme that victimized the user of an online dating app.
An individual operating under the guise of “Linda Brown” communicated with the victim—a Massachusetts resident—for a few weeks beginning in November 2024 before offering a purported cryptocurrency investment opportunity to the individual.
The victim then sent funds to wallets controlled by Brown, believing it was a legitimate investment vehicle, only to find out it was a scam when they attempted to withdraw their money later.
The victim’s funds were then transferred between multiple wallets and later converted into USDT—the Tether-issued, dollar-backed stablecoin—from other cryptocurrencies, according to the complaint.
“It is a violation of federal law to conduct a financial transaction knowing that the transaction is designed to conceal the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of criminal proceeds,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Massachusetts wrote in a statement.
“A civil forfeiture action allows third-parties to assert claims to property,” it added, “which must be resolved before the property can be forfeited to the United States and returned to victims.”
At least a portion of the victim’s funds were traced to crypto wallets that were later seized in August 2025. Prior to forfeiture and return to the victim though, the “United States must prove, by a standard of preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture,” the release indicates.
“Unlike traditional scams, which execute quickly, these schemes exploit both emotional and financial vulnerabilities,” an analyst told Decrypt at that time. “Scammers spend weeks or even months building your trust before introducing seemingly lucrative investment opportunities.”
Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice filed to seize a record $225 million tied to similar crypto scams, which play on a victim’s confidence and trust. Such schemes are often called “pig butchering” scams, referring to the method of fattening up a swine before the slaughter.
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
Palantir’s billionaire co-founder Peter Thiel on Monday filed with the SEC to offload 2 million shares in the data analytics firm for $280 million.
Thiel helped establish the company in 2003 alongside Alex Karp, Joe Lonsdale, Stephen Cohen, and Nathan Gettings. He contributed $30 million in seed capital, drawing inspiration from fraud-detection systems he developed at PayPal.
Early backing from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s investment arm, enabled the firm to launch its Gotham platform in 2008, which serves intelligence and defense clients. The company went public in 2020.
Palantir capped 2025 with a strong fourth quarter, reporting revenue of $1.4 billion, up 70% year over year and above expectations. Adjusted earnings per share came in at $0.25, topping projections of $0.23.
The outperformance was fueled by a 137% surge in US commercial revenue and a 66% increase in US government sales. Palantir also guided to $1.5 billion in first-quarter revenue and roughly $7.2 billion for 2026, both above Wall Street expectations.
Pump.fun, a Solana-based token launchpad, announced a significant expansion of its mobile application today, allowing users to trade assets beyond its native ecosystem for the first time.
It’s time to bring the Pump fun app to the next level
For the first time ever, users can trade more than just Pump fun coins
With support for other launchpads, WBTC, $PUMP, USDC & more, the Pump fun app is more versatile than ever 👇 pic.twitter.com/FkKEwJ8zR8
— Pump.fun (@Pumpfun) March 2, 2026
The platform said its app now supports tokens from external launchpads alongside established Solana assets including $PUMP, wrapped Bitcoin and wrapped Ethereum through Wormhole, GIGA, and PENGU.
The shift transforms the interface from a single-launchpad tool into a multi-asset trading environment.
The company reported its mobile application has exceeded 1.5 million downloads over the past year. It characterized the update as an effort to minimize user friction by enabling trading and custody of diverse assets within a single platform.
Promotional material accompanying the announcement displayed mentions of Raydium and Meteora within the interface, suggesting additional protocol integrations may follow.
