Tag: CRYPTOS FoxBusiness.

  • Bitcoin options signal extreme fear as downside protection premium hits new all-time high, says VanEck

    Bitcoin options signal extreme fear as downside protection premium hits new all-time high, says VanEck

    Bitcoin traders are paying record prices for downside protection, according to VanEck’s mid-March 2026 Bitcoin ChainCheck, a sign that investors remain defensive even as spot prices begin to stabilize.

    In the report, senior VanEck analysts said bitcoin’s 30-day average price fell 19% from the prior period, while realized volatility dropped from about 80 to just above 50.

    Futures funding rates also eased to 2.7% from 4.1%, suggesting leveraged speculation has cooled.

    Options markets show investors are as cautious as it gets. VanEck said the put/call open interest ratio averaged 0.77 and peaked at 0.84, the highest level since June 2021, when China cracked down on bitcoin mining.

    Traders spent about $685 million on put options over the past 30 days, while call premiums fell 12% to about $562 million, the report adds. Relative to spot volume, put premiums reached roughly 4 basis points, an all-time high in VanEck’s data.

    “Relative to spot volume, put premiums reached an all-time high of roughly 4 basis points, roughly 3x the levels seen in mid-2022 following the Terra/Luna stablecoin collapse and the Ethereum staking liquidity crisis,” the report reads.

    That means investors are paying up for insurance against further losses.

    VanEck said that kind of fear has often marked turning points rather than fresh breakdowns. The firm found that, in the past six years, similar options that skewed readings were followed by average bitcoin gains of 13% over 90 days and 133% over 360 days.

    The report also points out onchain activity has remained weak while miner selling remains contained.

  • XRP Ledger Addresses With 100,000 XRP Hit 32,054

    XRP Ledger Addresses With 100,000 XRP Hit 32,054

    $XRP Ledger adoption continues to grow in the cryptocurrency space as addresses with 100,000 $XRP and above have hit a new high. As highlighted by market intelligence platform Santiment, 32,054 wallets contain over 100,000 $XRP, which signals active utility on the ledger by institutional holders.

    Retail $XRP wallets expand to 5.66 million as institutional interest grows

    Notably, holders with over 100,000 $XRP are whales, large investors or early adopters of $XRP.

    While the 32,054 wallets might appear small, these holders likely control a huge percentage of the $XRP supply. The growth in the number of wallets with over 100,000 $XRP indicates capital concentration among whales and institutional holders.

    📈 $XRP Ledger is continuing to see its network grow. Based on wallet size, here are the amount of addresses under each tier:

    🦐🐟 Less Than 100 $XRP: 5.66M Wallets
    🐡🐬 100 to 100K $XRP: 2.01M Wallets
    🦈🐳 More Than 100K $XRP: 32,054 Wallets pic.twitter.com/QN1AWIhYBJ

    — Santiment (@santimentfeed) March 21, 2026

    Besides this category of holders, Santiment observed that retail users have expanded further from their 4.7 million wallets in early 2025. These small holders have less than 100 $XRP in their wallets. Currently, the wallet address count of retail holders has hit 5.66 million $XRP wallets.

    These comprise small-time investors in the asset, people just testing the network to understand how things work and new users. The almost 1 million addition reveals broad adoption of the coin at the grassroots level.

    These new users appear to have confidence in $XRP despite its price volatility. The growth is likely due to positive developments in the Ripple ecosystem, like strategic collaborations with traditional institutions and the firm’s legal battle with the U.S. regulatory body.

    The long legal battle between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over $XRP as a “security” or not finally ended in 2025. The SEC has now officially recognized $XRP as a non-security, categorizing it as a commodity.

    Regulatory clarity and Ripple developments boost $XRP adoption

    Ripple’s win provided legal clarity and opened the path to more adoption, both for institutional and retail holders.

    Meanwhile, wallet distribution shows that mid-tier addresses, which contain between 100 and 100,000 $XRP, now stand at 2.01 million. Although these investors hold a sizable amount of the coin, they are not classified as whales.

    Overall, the total number of wallets across all tiers indicates that the $XRP ecosystem is expanding. The massive concentration of capital within the over 32,000 wallets can influence the asset’s price direction in the crypto market.

    On the other hand, the large base of retail wallets and mid-tier holders shows increased participation among these categories. The development is largely due to the post-2025 regulatory clarity with the asset.

    In a related development, $XRP Ledger recently set a new 13-year milestone. Over 7.7 million wallets have at least one $XRP and not a zero balance. The interesting part is that the users are not leaving the coin dormant but actively trading with it.

  • How DeFi is quietly rebuilding the fixed-income stack for institutional capital

    How DeFi is quietly rebuilding the fixed-income stack for institutional capital

    For years, tokenization has been framed as crypto’s bridge to Wall Street. Put Treasuries onchain. Issue tokenized money market funds. Represent equities digitally. The assumption was simple: if assets move onchain, institutions will follow.

    But tokenization alone was never the endgame. As we recently argued in our institutional outlook, the real institutional unlock isn’t digitizing assets – it’s financializing yield.

    Following the regulatory clarity that emerged in 2025, institutional interest in digital assets has shifted from exploratory exposure to infrastructure-level participation. Surveys increasingly suggest that institutional engagement with DeFi could rise sharply over the next couple of years, while a meaningful share of allocators are exploring tokenized assets. Yet large allocators are not entering crypto solely to hold tokenized wrappers. They are entering for yield, capital efficiency, and programmable collateral. That requires a different kind of DeFi than the retail-built one in 2021.

    In traditional finance, fixed-income instruments are rarely held in isolation. They are repo’d, pledged, rehypothecated, stripped, hedged and embedded into structured products. Yield is traded independently of principal, and collateral moves fluidly across markets. The plumbing matters as much as the product.

    DeFi is now beginning to replicate those core functions.

    A tokenized Treasury or equity is only marginally useful if it behaves like a static certificate. Institutions want tokenized assets to become functioning, working financial instruments: collateral that can be deployed, financed and risk-managed; yield that can be isolated, priced and traded; and positions that can be integrated into broader strategies without breaking compliance constraints.

    That is the shift from first-order tokenization to second-order yield markets.

    Early design patterns already point in this direction. Hybrid market structures are emerging in which permissioned, regulated assets can be used as collateral while borrowing is facilitated by using permissionless stablecoins. At the same time, yield trading architectures are expanding the range of activities investors can undertake with tokenized assets by separating principal exposure from the yield stream. Once the yield component of an onchain asset can be priced, traded, and composed, tokenized instruments become usable in strategies that are much closer to what allocators already run in traditional markets.

    For institutions, this matters because it turns real-world assets (RWAs) from passive exposure into active portfolio tools. If yield can be traded independently, then hedging and duration management become more feasible, and structured exposures become possible without rebuilding the entire stack off-chain. Tokenization stops being a narrative and starts becoming market infrastructure.

    However, yield infrastructure alone will not bring institutional scale. Institutional constraints that shaped traditional markets have not disappeared; they are being translated into code.

    One of the most important constraints is confidentiality. Public blockchains expose balances, positions, and transaction flows in ways that conflict with how professional capital operates. Visible liquidation levels invite predatory strategies, public trade history reveals positioning, and treasury management becomes transparent to competitors. For institutions accustomed to controlled disclosure and information asymmetry, these are not philosophical objections – they are operational risks.

    Historically, privacy in crypto has been treated as a regulatory liability. What is emerging instead is privacy as compliance-enabling infrastructure.

    Zero-knowledge systems can prove transactions are valid without revealing sensitive details. Selective disclosure mechanisms can enable institutions to share limited visibility with auditors, regulators, or tax authorities without disclosing the entire balance sheet. Proof systems can demonstrate that funds are not linked to sanctioned or illicit sources without disclosing broader transaction history. Even approaches such as fully homomorphic encryption point toward a future in which certain kinds of computation can occur on encrypted data, widening the set of financial actions that can be performed privately while retaining verifiability where required.

    This is not ‘privacy as opacity’. It is programmable confidentiality, and it more closely resembles established market structures, such as confidential brokerage workflows or regulated dark pools, than it does anonymous shadow finance. For institutions, that distinction is the difference between a system that is unusable and one that can be deployed at scale.

    A second constraint is compliance. Regulatory clarity has reduced existential uncertainty, but it has also raised expectations. Institutional capital demands eligibility controls, identity verification, sanctions screening, auditability and clear operational regimes. If the next phase of DeFi is going to intermediate real-world value at scale, compliance cannot remain an afterthought bolted onto a permissionless system. It has to be embedded into market design.

    That is why one of the most important patterns emerging in institutional DeFi is a hybrid architecture combining permissioned collateral with permissionless liquidity. Tokenized RWAs can be restricted at the smart contract level to approved participants, while borrowing can occur via widely used stablecoins and open liquidity pools. Identity and eligibility checks can be automated. Asset provenance and valuation constraints can be enforced. Audit trails can be produced without forcing every operational detail into public view.

    This approach resolves a long-standing tension. Institutions can deploy regulated assets into DeFi without compromising core requirements around custody, investor protection and sanctions compliance, while still benefiting from the liquidity and composability that made DeFi powerful in the first place.

    Taken together, these shifts point to a broader reality where DeFi is not simply attracting institutional capital; it is, in fact, being reshaped by institutional constraints. The dominant narrative in crypto still centers on retail cycles and token volatility, but beneath that surface, protocol design is evolving toward a more familiar destination – a fixed-income stack where collateral moves, yield trades and compliance is operationalized.

    Tokenization was phase one because it proved assets could live onchain. Phase two is about making those assets behave like real financial instruments, with yield markets and risk controls that institutions recognize. When that transition matures, the conversation shifts from crypto adoption to capital markets migration.

    That shift is already underway.

  • Grayscale wants to bring the world’s hottest crypto trading frenzy to your brokerage account

    Grayscale has filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to launch a new exchange-traded fund for the $HYPE token, amid the surging popularity of decentralized exchange Hyperliquid.

    The Crypto asset manager’s proposed fund would hold the $HYPE token and be listed on Nasdaq under the ticker GHYP, according to the S-1 registration statement.

    Grayscale said it may stake some holdings in the future, though it cannot do so now. The filing doesn’t disclose a proposed fee. Other asset managers that have also filed for $HYPE ETFs include Bitwise and 21Shares, which already operate a $HYPE exchange-traded product in Europe with a 2.5% total expense ratio.

    $HYPE is the native token of the Hyperliquid network, which is home to the leading decentralized exchange of the same name. Its core layer handles perpetual futures and spot markets, while a second layer supports Ethereum-style smart contracts.

    Perpetual futures contracts, or “perps,” are derivative instruments without expiration dates that allow investors to place bets on an asset’s price without owning it. Their infinite duration (perpetual futures contracts never expire, unlike traditional contracts), high-leverage options, and round-the-clock access have made them extremely popular in the crypto space.

    The filing comes as Hyperliquid sees growing interest from traders betting on traditional financial assets, including oil and gold, while war rages in the Middle East. The platform has also recently added an S&P 500 perpetual contract.

    In simple terms, the platform’s value proposition is not just crypto trading, but also the ability to bet on traditional assets around the clock, even when most markets are closed.

    The trading frenzy has seen Hyperliquid’s weekly derivatives trading volume top $50 billion, with more than $6.5 billion being traded in the past 24 hours alone, according to DeFiLlama data.

    That has helped the Hyperliquid chain dominate in revenue, which stands at $1.6 million over the last 24 hours, compared to $335,000 for BNB Chain and $192,000 for the Bitcoin blockchain, according to Artemis data.

    Hyperliquid fees in the last 24 hours (Artemis)

    This increased activity has captured many bullish takes from crypto investors and market observers. Recently, Arthur Hayes, the co-founder of BitMEX and CIO of Maelstrom, said the platform’s strong revenue, real trading activity, and disciplined token supply could take its native token, $HYPE, to $150.

    The token currently trades around $40 and has risen by 57% this year, while bitcoin fell about 20% and Ethereum’s native token, ether, fell about 28%.

  • Tom Lee-backed Eightco doubles down on OpenAI as total stake hits $90 million

    Tom Lee-backed Eightco doubles down on OpenAI as total stake hits $90 million

    Eightco Holdings ($ORBS), a Nasdaq-listed company backed by Bitmine Chairman Tom Lee, is deepening its bet on OpenAI. The company said Friday it had made an additional $40 million commitment, taking its total stake to $90 million.

    Eightco (NASDAQ: $ORBS) Invests Additional $40 Million into OpenAI, Bringing Total OpenAI Investment to $90 Millionhttps://t.co/0oJC0E71gx pic.twitter.com/5MKbhM6k7K

    — Eightco Holdings, Inc. (@Eightcoholdings) March 20, 2026

    The stake now makes up about 30% of Eightco’s total treasury. The company also backs Beast Industries, the media enterprise led by YouTube creator MrBeast.

    Eightco CEO Kevin O’Donnell called the OpenAI investment “a transformative opportunity” for both the company and its shareholders, adding that it gives retail investors access to one of the world’s most important AI companies.

    “This investment highlights our continued belief in the long-term impact of artificial intelligence and positions $ORBS at the forefront of innovation as this technology reshapes industries globally,” O’Donnell stated.

    OpenAI recently closed a record $110 billion private funding round, with participation from Amazon, NVIDIA, and a group of sovereign wealth funds. That round pushed its implied valuation to $730 billion.

    The company surpassed $20 billion in annual revenue as of January 2026, more than tripling the roughly $6 billion it generated in 2024.

    Eightco’s investment was disclosed alongside two board-level appointments.

    Lee will join Eightco’s board of directors, while Brett Winton, chief futurist at Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest, has been named an advisor to the board.

    In addition to its OpenAI position, Eightco maintains holdings of 277 million $WLD, 11,068 ETH, and $76 million in cash and stablecoins.

    The $WLD position makes Eightco by far the largest publicly traded holder in the Worldcoin ecosystem, a digital identity and crypto project co-founded by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

    The token has lost approximately 97% of its value from an all-time high of $11.7, per CoinGecko.

    $ORBS shares fell 4% to $0.90 intraday, according to Yahoo Finance, and are down about 46% year-to-date. The decline comes despite a surge in trading volumes following multiple funding announcements.

    OpenAI readies IPO

    OpenAI is preparing for a potential IPO as early as the fourth quarter, while sharpening its focus on enterprise growth and high-productivity use cases for ChatGPT.

    At a recent all-hands meeting, Applications CEO Fidji Simo told employees the company is “orienting aggressively” toward business use, aiming to convert its 900 million weekly users into more intensive, high-compute customers.

    The company is also building out its finance team and refining spending plans, targeting about $600 billion in compute investment by 2030 alongside projected revenue of more than $280 billion.

    Disclosure: This article was edited by Vivian Nguyen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

  • Will the XRP Price Drop Further From Here? Here’s the Forecast

    Will the XRP Price Drop Further From Here? Here’s the Forecast

    Crypto analyst Joao Wedson, in his assessment of $XRP price movements, indicated that the market may not have fully bottomed out yet. According to Wedson, current data suggests that a further short-term pullback for $XRP is possible.

    In his analysis, Wedson particularly highlighted the “number of days in profit” metric. This indicator provides important clues about the market’s maturity level by measuring when the current price was last compared to higher levels in the past.

    According to the analyst, historically, this metric reaches much higher levels during periods when market bottoms are formed. However, currently, $XRP appears to be remaining below these critical thresholds. This indicates that the market has not yet reached a level of maturity similar to the bottom structure seen in previous cycles.

    Based on this data, Wedson states that $XRP either needs to spend more time or experience a further decline to form a healthier bottom structure. The analyst adds that the current outlook does not yet fully confirm classic bottom signals.

    *This is not investment advice.

  • The 5-cent contract that debunked a wartime death conspiracy

    The 5-cent contract that debunked a wartime death conspiracy

    The rumor followed a familiar wartime script. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed it had struck Benjamin Netanyahu’s office. Then came the forged screenshots — fake posts from the Israeli prime minister’s official account announcing he was dead. Then came the AI furore over a low-resolution freeze-frame from a press conference that, at the right angle, appeared to show Netanyahu’s right hand sporting six fingers, leading contrarian commentators to take victory laps.

    Conservative influencer Candace Owens amplified the claims loudly on X, demanding to know where Netanyahu was and why his office was “releasing and deleting fake AI videos.” Iran’s Tasnim News Agency — run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — published an article titled “New Video of Netanyahu Proves Fake,” cataloguing alleged clear signs that a subsequent coffee shop clip, posted by Netanyahu’s own account to debunk the rumors, was itself generated by artificial intelligence. The conspiracy had become self-sealing; every refutation was recast as fresh evidence.

    But while the fact-checkers scrambled and the podcasters speculated, one data source offered a clean, immediate signal. On Polymarket, the world’s largest crypto prediction market, the contract for “Netanyahu out by March 31” was trading at around 4 to 5 cents, implying a roughly 4 to 5% probability of him leaving office before the end of the month. The market didn’t move. For anyone paying attention to that number, the entire conspiracy theory collapsed in a single glance.

    Polymarket volume (Dune Analytics)

    A record-breaking backdrop

    To understand why the Netanyahu conspiracy took hold when it did, you need to understand the information environment it emerged from.

    Since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Iran on Feb. 28, Polymarket has been transformed into something closer to a real-time geopolitical intelligence terminal. In the week ending March 1, bettors placed $425 million in geopolitics wagers on the platform alone — up from $163 million the prior week — with total platform wagering hitting a record $2.4 billion. The “US strikes Iran by…?” contract accumulated $529 million in total volume, making it one of the largest single markets Polymarket has ever hosted and the fourth-largest in its entire “Politics” category.

    It is a remarkable trajectory for a platform that processed $73 million in total trading volume in 2023 and was pushed offshore by a CFTC settlement a year later. By 2025, Polymarket had processed approximately $22 billion in notional trading volume across the year — a figure that underscores how quickly the platform has moved from crypto curiosity to mainstream financial infrastructure.

    This is no longer a crypto curiosity. In October 2025, the Intercontinental Exchange, parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, invested $2 billion into Polymarket at a $9 billion valuation, and launched a “Polymarket Signals and Sentiment” tool that feeds real-time prediction market data directly to Wall Street trading desks. When the Iran war began, equity and oil futures markets were closed for the weekend. Polymarket was not.

    The market as instant truth machine

    Prediction markets don’t have death contracts in the conventional sense. What Polymarket offers instead are “politician out by X date” markets, which resolve “Yes” if a leader resigns, is removed, or steps down. They don’t directly price the probability of death. But in a context where the conspiracy theory is that Netanyahu has been killed and the government is conducting a cover-up, these contracts function as a powerful proxy.

    The logic is simple. A leader who has died or been incapacitated cannot indefinitely run a country from office. Eventually, a resignation, a removal or a credible leak would surface. And if any of that happened, the payout on a “Yes” share at 5 cents would be enormous: a $1 payout on a 5-cent share is a 20-to-1 return.

    One trader was willing to make that bet at scale. A single Polymarket account placed $151,000 on Netanyahu being out before March 31, accumulating nearly 3.8 million shares at 4.7 cents each. If correct, the position would pay out $3.8 million. It is currently underwater by roughly $26,000.

    That number is the ceiling of rational conviction in the conspiracy. At the height of the online hysteria, the most aggressive speculator on record was willing to stake $150,000 on the theory — implying he knew the odds were long. The market as a whole put the probability at around 5%. Social media said it was certain. The money said otherwise.

    “Whether a politician is in or out of office is a very economically meaningful outcome for a lot of people,” said Aaron Brogan, a managing attorney at Brogan Law who has advised on prediction market regulation. “These are exactly the kinds of markets that event contract rules were designed to accommodate.”

    Why the odds are hard to fake

    The 2024 US election cycle offered a masterclass in prediction market efficiency — and the limits of efforts to dismiss its signals. When Polymarket showed Donald Trump trading at a substantial premium over Kamala Harris, critics cried manipulation. A French trader, they alleged, had artificially pumped Trump’s odds using multiple accounts for political purposes.

    The experts weren’t buying it. As Flip Pidot, co-founder of American Civics Exchange, told CoinDesk at the time: a true manipulator trying to move the price would simply pile in blindly and let themselves get filled at worsening prices. The French trader did the opposite — splitting orders strategically across accounts to minimize slippage. That is what profit-seeking looks like, not propaganda.

    The deeper reason manipulation struggles to stick is expected value arbitrage. If a price is artificially depressed or inflated, profit-hungry traders pile in to exploit the gap until it closes. Cross-market arbitrage reinforces this: Polymarket prices in real time against Kalshi, Betfair, and others. If odds drift meaningfully out of line across platforms, traders immediately sell the higher price and buy the lower one, synchronizing markets toward a consensus.

    Harry Crane, a statistics professor at Rutgers University who studies prediction markets, sees the Netanyahu episode as a near-perfect illustration of this dynamic. “These markets are an antidote to propaganda precisely because their resolution rules anchor outcomes to verifiable sources rather than narrative,” he told CoinDesk. “I understand why governments want to limit them — not because of concerns over leaking classified information, but because verifiable price signals are harder to control.”

    That framing maps directly onto the Netanyahu conspiracy. The people claiming he was dead were doing structurally the same thing as those who cried Polymarket was rigged in 2024: attacking the signal rather than engaging with it.

    What the market is actually pricing — and what it isn’t

    Crane is careful about the limits of the signal, and his caveat is worth sitting with.

    “The market is only pricing the probability that Netanyahu is verifiably out of office under these rules,” he said. The resolution criteria state that the contract resolves “Yes” if Netanyahu announces his resignation or is otherwise removed from office, confirmed by official sources or a consensus of credible reporting. If a government concealed a leader’s death so completely that no credible source ever confirmed it, the market could resolve “No” — faithfully, correctly under its own rules, and yet without capturing the underlying reality.

    That dynamic was playing out in real time. Domer — a well-known prediction market trader who goes by ImJustKen online — was publicly holding a No position on Netanyahu leaving office before March 31. Not because he was certain Netanyahu was alive, but because he didn’t believe a departure would ever be confirmed under the market’s resolution criteria, even if it occurred. He was pricing the verification gap, not the conspiracy itself.

    But that caveat reveals something important about the conspiracy itself. The Netanyahu death rumor only holds together if you believe in a cover-up so total — encompassing Israeli officials, international media, independent fact-checkers, and Netanyahu’s own social media accounts simultaneously — that no verifiable evidence would ever surface. At that point, the conspiracy has become unfalsifiable by design. An unfalsifiable claim is one no rational actor should stake capital on.

    This is the key distinction from traditional fact-checking. A fact-checker requires institutional credibility, research time, and editorial process — all of which conspiracy theories are engineered to preemptively undermine. A Polymarket price requires none of that. It requires only that someone, somewhere, believes the opposite enough to put real money on it. When no one does, that is its own kind of proof.

    The contrast case: Khamenei

    The clearest evidence that these markets work as a truth signal — and not merely as a null result — is what happened with the Khamenei contract.

    When Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed in the February 28 strikes, the “Khamenei out as Supreme Leader by March 31” contract on Polymarket behaved exactly as you would expect from an efficient market. It had hovered between 25% and 50% through January and February as tensions built, pricing genuine uncertainty about an escalating conflict. Then, when Iranian state TV confirmed his death, it spiked vertically to 100%. The contract drew $45 million in volume. The top trader made $757,000 on a yes bet. Four others cleared six figures.

    The Netanyahu market did not do this. It stubbornly remained below 5 cents throughout the conspiracy cycle. The crowd that correctly priced Khamenei’s death — and got paid for it — looked at the Netanyahu claims and declined to move.

    Price movements on Polymarket (Polymarket)

    The regulatory storm gathering overhead

    The informational value of these markets is being stress-tested at exactly the moment when political pressure against them is reaching its peak.

    When Khamenei was killed, Kalshi — Polymarket’s CFTC-regulated rival — invoked a “death carveout” buried in its contract terms, settling its Khamenei positions at the last traded price before his death: roughly 39.5 cents rather than the full dollar. Polymarket, which carries no such carveout, paid out in full. A $54 million class action lawsuit against Kalshi followed.

    The inconsistency in Kalshi’s approach has been pointed out sharply. In late 2024, Kalshi had run a market on whether a 100-year-old Jimmy Carter would attend Trump’s inauguration. When Carter died before it took place, Kalshi settled that contract to “No” — resolving a market directly via death, without invoking any carveout. As Crane has noted, the application of its death carveout appears to have been selective: they settle on death, just not when it’s expensive.

    Kalshi disputes the characterization. “Our rules were clear from the beginning, we never changed them, and we settled based on the rules,” a spokesperson said. The company added that it reimbursed all fees and net losses out of pocket following the Khamenei settlement — “to the tune of millions of dollars” — ensuring no user lost money on the market. “Kalshi is a peer-to-peer exchange and does not profit from user losses. We have no incentive not to pay out our users, but we need to follow the rules of the exchange and the rule of law.”

    On the legislative push, the company struck a conciliatory tone. “Kalshi already bans insider trading and markets directly tied to death and war,” a spokesperson said. “As a US-based exchange, we support regulators and policymakers from both sides of the aisle in their efforts to keep these markets safe and responsible in America.”

    Kalshi declined to comment on record about the consistency of the death carveout as applied to the Khamenei contract versus the Carter market, or on the current status of the class action lawsuit.

    Six Democratic senators, led by Adam Schiff, have written to the CFTC demanding a categorical ban on contracts that “resolve upon or closely correlate to an individual’s death.” Separately, senators Merkley and Klobuchar have introduced the End Prediction Market Corruption Act, which would bar the president, vice president, members of Congress, and their immediate families from trading event contracts, and impose fines and profit clawbacks for violations — citing the well-timed wagers on US strikes and Iranian leadership changes that netted some traders hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Blockchain analytics firm Bubblemaps identified six newly created wallets that collectively netted $1.2 million betting on the timing of US strikes on Iran, with accounts funded within 24 hours of the attack. One trader turned roughly $60,000 into nearly $500,000.

    Brogan is skeptical that the legislative push has the momentum to land. “This is largely Democratic senators using the legislative process to generate political capital,” he said. “The conditions under which that legislation actually passes are where something really calamitous happens — some kind of market collapse or scandal that forces politicians to make an example of the industry. Without that, I don’t think there’s sufficient political capital to move it.”

    He also draws a clear distinction between Polymarket’s legal exposure and Kalshi’s. “The restrictions Kalshi faces are not directly applicable to Polymarket,” Brogan said. Polymarket is not a CFTC-regulated US exchange — a status that stems from a 2021 settlement that pushed it offshore and barred US users from accessing it directly. That remains its largest single legal exposure, Brogan noted, though he pointed out that the Trump administration has shown little appetite for pursuing the kind of action the Biden administration explored against Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan in early 2025.

    Crane, for his part, is unambiguous about what would be lost if the legislative push succeeded. “These markets have genuine informational value and can counter propaganda,” he said. “That’s the case study here — a market involving war and the fate of a political leader doing exactly what its critics say it shouldn’t exist to do.”

    There is also a state-level front opening up. Arizona recently charged Kalshi with operating an illegal gambling operation — part of a broader conflict between states that regulate and tax traditional gambling markets and federally-overseen prediction markets that sit outside their control. “The question that ultimately matters is whether federal law will preempt state law on this,” Brogan said. “There are courts hearing that question right now.”

    What the crowd gets right — and what it can’t fix

    None of this is to say prediction markets are infallible. Crane notes that nearly 25% of Polymarket’s historical volume has been attributed to wash trading — artificial activity generated by users trying to position themselves for a potential token airdrop — a figure that Columbia University researchers found peaked at around 60% in December 2024 before falling sharply. Wash trading inflates headline volume without necessarily biasing prices, but it is a legitimate caveat to the “wisdom of crowds” narrative.

    The more fundamental limitation is what Crane identified in his answer to the manipulation question: a sufficiently coordinated disinformation campaign could, in theory, move a market — especially a smaller one. The Netanyahu “out by March 31” contract had enough liquidity to make that expensive, but not impossible.

    What prediction markets cannot do is replace the underlying information infrastructure they depend on. They resolve against credible sources. If those sources are corrupted or silent — as Iranian state media clearly was throughout this episode — the market’s signal is only as good as the resolution criteria it is anchored to.

    But in the Netanyahu case, that is precisely where the conspiracy fell apart. The rumor required a cover-up so comprehensive that no Israeli official, no international journalist, no independent fact-checker, and no market trader with real money on the line would ever find confirmation. The market priced that scenario at 5 cents. It was right.

    When Candace Owens was demanding to know where Bibi was, Polymarket already had an answer. It just costs a few pennies to read it.

  • Divergence Amid the Flames: Institutions Buy Bitcoin Frenetically While Retail Traders Short – How Investors Can Hedge? FTMining Cloud Mining Becomes “Safe Haven”

    Divergence Amid the Flames: Institutions Buy Bitcoin Frenetically While Retail Traders Short – How Investors Can Hedge? FTMining Cloud Mining Becomes “Safe Haven”

    Amid escalating tensions in the Middle East, a rare scene has emerged in the cryptocurrency market: institutions bought $1.06 billion in Bitcoin ETFs in a single week, while retail investors were taking short positions. In this game of hedging versus speculation, how should ordinary investors position themselves?

    As the flames of conflict spread across the Middle East, the crypto market is witnessing an unprecedented “divergence moment.”

    On one side, institutional investors view Bitcoin as a geopolitical hedge. During the week ending March 21, digital asset investment products recorded $1.06 billion in inflows, with Bitcoin funds alone accounting for $793 million, primarily driven by U.S. spot ETFs.

    On the other side, in response to escalating conflict, retail traders fell into panic—$8.1 million flowed into products shorting Bitcoin, highlighting a sharp contrast with institutional sentiment.

    “Institutions Buying, Retail Selling” – Behind this tug-of-war lies a structural divergence among crypto market participants. While traditional safe-haven assets like gold are rising and U.S. equities are under pressure, is Bitcoin truly “digital gold” or a “high-risk speculative asset”? The answer is being tested vigorously in the market.

    How Can Investors Hedge? Cloud Mining Emerges as a New Choice In this environment of intertwined geopolitical and market sentiment volatility, ordinary investors face a dilemma: following institutions into Bitcoin exposes them to short-term fluctuations; following retail shorts risks missing long-term trends.

    Increasingly, investors are seeking a third path—stable cash flow independent of price movements.

    This is precisely the context in which FTMining’s cloud mining platform has come into focus. According to the latest 2026 strategic plan, this UK-based compliant cloud mining platform is offering its “zero-threshold, stable-yield” mining model to ordinary investors worldwide.

    What is Cloud Mining? Why Can It Serve as a Hedge? Traditional Bitcoin mining requires purchasing expensive ASIC miners, covering high electricity costs, and managing maintenance and noise issues. For ordinary investors, this is nearly an insurmountable barrier.

    Cloud mining works differently: users rent hash power through the platform, which manages all aspects including miner procurement, electricity supply, and maintenance. Users only purchase hash power contracts and receive stable daily mining rewards.

    Core advantages include:

    · Low correlation with price fluctuations: Mining generates revenue as long as the network operates, regardless of short-term Bitcoin price changes.

    · Zero technical barrier: No hardware or technical expertise required; registration is sufficient to start.

    · Daily automatic settlement: Rewards are credited daily and can be withdrawn or reinvested at any time.

    · Compliant and transparent: Regulated by the UK FCA and U.S. MSB, with funds held by HSBC.

    FTMining Platform Overview: Compliance and Scale According to public information, FTMining was established in 2021, headquartered in the UK, and currently operates over 100 large-scale mining farms in 12 countries, contributing more than 7% of Bitcoin’s global network hash power.

    Key compliance endorsements:

    · Registered with the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)

    · U.S. Money Services Business (MSB) license

    · Funds held by HSBC, using Fireblocks cold wallet technology

    · 100% renewable energy across global mining farms (hydro, wind, solar)

    How to Join FTMining ?

    Step 1: Register an account Visit the official website: ftmining.com Create an account with your email and password. Upon registration, receive a $15 reward, with an additional $0.75 reward for daily logins.

    Step 2: Deposit $XRP or other crypto assets Deposit mainstream digital assets including BTC, USDT, ETH, LTC, USDC, $XRP, BCH.

    Step 3: Choose and purchase a mining contract FTMining offers multiple contracts to suit different budgets and goals. Whether seeking short-term gains or long-term returns, FTMining provides appropriate options.

    Common contract examples:

    · Entry-level contract: $100 – 2 days – total payout approx. $108

    · Stable contract: $1,080 – 10 days – total payout approx. $1,236

    · Professional contract: $10,000 – 25 days – total payout approx. $14,250

    · Advanced contract: $50,000 – 32 days – total payout approx. $77,000

    (More details available on the official website.) Once purchased, rewards are calculated every 24 hours. Funds can be withdrawn anytime or reinvested for compounding returns.

    Investor Perspective: Can Cloud Mining Truly Hedge Risks? Spanish financial analyst Carlos Méndez comments: “FTMining represents a new stage of crypto finance—transforming digital assets from static holdings into dynamic, yield-generating assets.”

    Veteran trader David López shares: “I allocated $10,000 of idle Bitcoin into the platform, and within a week, my returns exceeded what I would have earned just holding for price appreciation. Seeing daily cash flow credited to my account is extremely satisfying.”

    From an asset allocation perspective, the advantages of cloud mining include:

    · Reduces volatility anxiety: No need to constantly watch candlestick charts.

    · Generates continuous cash flow: Mining continues even during market downturns.

    · Diversifies investment risk: Moves part of funds from trading to production, reducing single-strategy risk.

    · Low-cost entry: Starting at $100, far below the threshold for owning physical mining hardware.

    Risk Disclaimer: Cloud Mining Is Not “Risk-Free” It is important to note that cloud mining carries risks. Investors should fully understand these before participating.

    Conclusion: Seeking Certainty Amid Divergence When institutions and retail investors diverge amid conflict, and Bitcoin’s “digital gold” narrative faces a geopolitical test, ordinary investors need certainty—a sustainable participation method independent of short-term price movements.

    Cloud mining provides precisely this choice: it shifts investors from “betting on direction” to “earning through production,” from short-term speculation to long-term accumulation. The rise of compliant platforms like FTMining opens this yield model, once reserved for professional miners, to everyone.

    As one FTMining user states: “I no longer worry about whether Bitcoin will go up or down tomorrow. What I know is that my hash power works for me every day, and new Bitcoin enters my account daily.”

    How to Start?

    Official website: https://ftmining.com

    (Click here to download the mobile app)

    Amid flames and divergence, perhaps the true “safe haven” is finding an asset allocation method that consistently generates value, regardless of market volatility.

  • Strategy set for second-biggest bitcoin buying quarter despite BTC price slide

    Strategy set for second-biggest bitcoin buying quarter despite BTC price slide

    Strategy (MSTR), already the world’s biggest corporate holder of bitcoin $BTC$70,749.09, is on track to record its second-largest quarterly accumulation, continuing its aggressive treasury expansion even as the cryptocurrency’s price sank 20%.

    Since January, the company has bought 89,618 $BTC, bringing its total holdings to 761,068 $BTC. With two Mondays still left for potential purchase announcements this quarter, that number could grow even further.

    The only time Strategy has bought more bitcoin was fourth-quarter 2024, when it added 194,180 $BTC. That November alone accounted for three of the company’s five largest purchases, with Strategy buying 27,200 $BTC, 51,780 $BTC, and 55,500 $BTC in quick succession as the price surged to $100,000 from $70,000 following President Donald Trump’s second election victory.

    In contrast, the past three months have seen bitcoin’s price slump to a level that is now more than 40% below October’s record high $126,000. Strategy’s common stock has dropped 15%.

    Recent purchases have been partly funded by sales of the company’s perpetual preferred offering, Stretch (STRC), which accounted for up to 15,000 $BTC over the past two weeks. However, as the STRC price failed to reach its $100 par value this week, the company has been unable to utilise the program for now.

    Strategy’s accumulation is not just price-dependent. It is driven by capital availability.

  • Bitcoin Mining Difficulty Has Dropped Significantly—What Does This Mean?

    Bitcoin Mining Difficulty Has Dropped Significantly—What Does This Mean?

    Bitcoin (BTC) network mining difficulty experienced a significant drop in the latest adjustment. According to CloverPool data, the update, which occurred at block height 941,472, reduced mining difficulty by 7.76% to 133.79 trillion (T). This decrease stands out as the second largest difficulty reduction recorded so far in 2026.

    The network’s current hashrate is approximately 933.51 EH/s, while some measurements show it hovering around 948 EH/s. Experts indicate that this weakening of the network may continue in the short term. Indeed, according to current data, a further decrease of approximately 0.39% is expected in the next difficulty adjustment, and the difficulty is projected to fall to 133.26 T.

    In the latest difficulty adjustment, the average block time was recorded as 9 minutes and 32 seconds. This is close to the 10-minute block time target of the Bitcoin network, indicating that the transaction verification pace on the network is trying to stabilize.

    An examination of previous period data reveals a strong increase in difficulty of up to 14.73% in February, followed by sharp declines. In particular, the 11.16% drop on February 7th and the recent 7.76% decline indicate a volatile period in the mining sector.

    *This is not investment advice.