Bilal_With_Crypto

Washington state has joined a growing list of jurisdictions cracking down on prediction market platforms, filing a civil lawsuit against Kalshi accusing the company of operating an illegal online gambling service under the guise of “prediction markets.”
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown announced the lawsuit on March 27, 2026, claiming that Kalshi’s platform allows users to place bets on sports, elections, entertainment events, and thousands of other outcomes — activities that allegedly violate the state’s strict Gambling Act and Consumer Protection Act.
“Kalshi really is just a bookie with a fancy name,” Brown said in a statement. “Kalshi attempts to skirt state law by branding its betting platform as a ‘prediction market,’ but whatever Kalshi chooses to call it, Kalshi’s operations clearly fall under the definition of illegal gambling in Washington.”
The lawsuit, filed in King County Superior Court, seeks to shut down Kalshi’s operations in the state, recover money lost by Washington residents on the platform, and impose civil penalties.
### How Kalshi Works — and Why Washington Says It’s Gambling
Kalshi’s mobile app and website let users trade contracts on real-world events, where the payout depends on whether a specific outcome occurs. The state argues this structure mirrors traditional sportsbooks: users see events, odds, and potential payouts, which is “exactly how sportsbooks and other gambling operations function.”
The complaint highlights Kalshi’s own marketing, including an advertisement suggesting users could “bet on the NFL even though we live in Washington,” as evidence that the company knowingly targets residents in states with strict anti-gambling laws.
Kalshi has positioned itself as a financial innovation platform rather than a betting site, allowing users to “bet on anything” from election results to sports outcomes and even broader events. However, Washington officials reject this framing.
“Kalshi wants people betting on almost everything possible in life — the outcome of elections, Supreme Court cases, even wars,” Brown added. “It’s a lie, and it’s illegal.”
### Broader Context: Rising Regulatory Scrutiny
Washington’s action is the latest in a series of legal challenges facing prediction market operators in the United States. Several states have begun treating these platforms as unlicensed gambling operations, even as the industry argues it provides valuable information markets and hedging tools.
Kalshi, which has gained popularity for its election and sports contracts, has previously faced regulatory hurdles at both state and federal levels. The company maintains that its products are distinct from traditional gambling because they function more like event-based financial contracts.
In response to the lawsuit, Kalshi has pushed back, noting that the suit was filed just before a scheduled meeting with the Attorney General’s office. The company has disputed some characterizations, such as claims of offering “war markets.”
### What’s Next?
The civil suit emphasizes consumer protection. Under Washington law, individuals who lose money on illegal gambling activities may be entitled to recover their losses.
This case could have significant implications for the future of prediction markets in the U.S., especially as more states examine whether these platforms cross the line into regulated gambling territory.
The CoinDesk app screenshot in the story’s imagery highlights Kalshi’s presence on mobile devices, showing its “Trade the Big Game” branding and focus on sports, NFL, NBA, crypto, and tech events — precisely the type of offerings now under legal fire.
As the lawsuit progresses, the crypto and fintech communities will be watching closely to see whether prediction markets can survive increasing state-level pushback or if tighter regulations will reshape the industry.

The average public miner spent $79,995 to produce one bitcoin in Q4 2025. Bitcoin is currently trading around $66,000–$70,000. The math doesn’t work, so the industry is pivoting hard to AI, taking on more than $70 billion in contracts, and liquidating bitcoin treasuries to finance the shift.
Bitcoin mining has always been a high-stakes, capital-intensive business powered by cheap electricity, massive scale, and the belief that holding mined BTC would pay off in the long run. But in early 2026, the economics have turned decisively against pure-play mining.
According to CoinShares’ latest Bitcoin mining report for Q1 2026, the weighted average cash cost for publicly listed miners to produce one bitcoin reached approximately $79,995 in the previous quarter. With BTC trading near $70,000 (and dipping lower in recent sessions), many operations are running at a loss or barely breaking even. Hashprice has collapsed, older rigs are being powered down, and margins have shrunk to razor-thin levels—sometimes as low as a few hundred dollars per bitcoin mined.
This profitability crunch is accelerating a transformation that has been building for over a year: Bitcoin miners are repositioning themselves as AI and high-performance computing (HPC) infrastructure providers. Their data centers, power contracts, cooling systems, and land holdings—originally built for ASIC miners—are being repurposed or expanded to host GPUs and AI workloads for hyperscalers like Microsoft, Google, and others.
### Why the Pivot Makes Sense (For Now)
AI infrastructure offers operating margins of 80–90%, far more stable and predictable than the volatile revenue from Bitcoin block rewards and transaction fees. Miners already possess key advantages: access to low-cost or stranded energy, industrial-scale facilities, and expertise in managing dense computing environments with heavy power demands.
Cumulative AI and HPC contracts announced across the public mining sector now exceed $70 billion. Notable deals include:
- Core Scientific’s expanded partnership with CoreWeave, valued at over $10 billion.
- TeraWulf’s $12.8 billion in contracted HPC revenue.
- Hut 8’s $7 billion, 15-year lease for AI infrastructure.
- Multiple multi-billion-dollar agreements involving IREN, Cipher Digital (rebranded to emphasize HPC), and others.
Analysts at CoinShares project that AI could account for up to 70% of revenue for many listed miners by the end of 2026, up sharply from around 30% today. Some companies, like Bitfarms (now leaning heavily into AI and even rebranding elements of its identity), have publicly stated they are no longer purely Bitcoin companies.
### Selling the Treasury to Fund the Future
To bankroll this transition, miners are breaking from the long-held “HODL” ethos. Publicly listed miners collectively hold around 121,000 BTC (worth roughly $8–9 billion at current prices), but they have become net sellers.
- Over 15,000 BTC have been liquidated from peak treasury levels in recent months.
- Core Scientific sold ~1,900 BTC in January 2026 for about $175 million and plans to monetize substantially all of its remaining holdings in Q1.
- MARA Holdings sold 15,133 BTC in March for ~$1.1 billion, using proceeds to repurchase debt and gain flexibility for AI/HPC expansion.
- Other examples include Riot Platforms, Cango (which sold thousands of BTC to fund its pivot and even rebranded), Bitdeer (which emptied its treasury), and more.
This selling creates additional supply pressure on Bitcoin markets at a time when prices are already soft, but for the companies involved, it’s a strategic reallocation from a volatile asset to building higher-margin businesses.
### Risks and the Long-Term Outlook
The pivot is not without controversy. Critics argue that miners are trading Bitcoin’s long-term upside and network security contribution for short-term AI hype. If Bitcoin’s price recovers strongly, those who sold heavily may regret it. There are also execution risks: AI contracts depend on timely delivery of power capacity, GPU availability, and demand from big tech, which can be lumpy.
The industry is bifurcating. Some efficient, low-cost miners may stick closer to pure Bitcoin plays. Others are becoming hybrid data center operators. Debt loads are rising for many as they fund expansions via convertibles and notes, adding refinancing risk.
Yet the direction is clear: the infrastructure built for Bitcoin’s proof-of-work is proving highly adaptable to the AI boom. Miners that execute well could evolve from volatile crypto proxies into more stable infrastructure stocks with diversified revenue.
Whether this is a temporary survival tactic or a permanent identity shift will ultimately depend on Bitcoin’s price trajectory and the realized profitability of their AI ambitions. For now, the industry is voting with its capital—and its bitcoin sales—that the future looks brighter in AI data centers than in pure mining alone.
The image attached to the original post captures the essence perfectly: rows of humming ASIC miners in a dimly lit facility, with a technician maintaining the hardware. Soon, many of those racks may house GPUs instead, powering the next wave of artificial intelligence.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.

White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks said Thursday he was joining the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and leaving the czar role.
WASHINGTON — David Sacks, the White House’s AI and Crypto Czar, announced Thursday that he is stepping down from his high-profile “czar” position to take on a new role on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
In a statement, Sacks said the move aligns with the administration’s priorities to integrate cutting-edge technology policy directly into high-level advisory channels.
“I’m honored to have served as the White House AI and Crypto Czar,” Sacks wrote. “I look forward to continuing my service to the country by contributing to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, where I can help shape long-term strategy on AI, blockchain, and emerging technologies.”
### A Shift in Role, Not Influence
Sacks was appointed early in President Donald Trump’s second term as the administration’s point person on artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency policy. His role involved coordinating across agencies on issues ranging from crypto regulation to U.S. competitiveness in AI.
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology is a prestigious, non-partisan body that provides independent advice to the president on matters involving science, technology, and innovation. Members are typically leading experts from academia, industry, and research institutions.
By transitioning to PCAST, Sacks moves from an operational “czar” position — often criticized as lacking formal authority — to a more formal advisory role with direct access to the president on science and tech policy.
### Background on David Sacks
David Sacks is a prominent technology investor and entrepreneur. He co-founded PayPal alongside Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and others, and later founded Yammer, which was acquired by Microsoft. He has been a vocal advocate for cryptocurrency and blockchain innovation, as well as a critic of overly burdensome regulation in the tech sector.
His appointment as Crypto Czar was widely celebrated in the crypto industry, which saw it as a signal that the Trump administration was serious about making the United States a global leader in digital assets.
### What This Means for Crypto and AI Policy
Industry observers suggest the move could signal a maturation of the administration’s approach to tech policy. While the “czar” role brought high visibility, embedding Sacks within PCAST may allow for more sustained, expert-driven influence on policy recommendations that reach the Oval Office.
Crypto market reaction was muted in early trading Friday, with Bitcoin holding steady near recent highs. However, several industry leaders took to social media to praise Sacks’ continued involvement.
“David Sacks has been a tireless advocate for innovation,” said one prominent venture capitalist. “His voice on PCAST will ensure that pro-innovation voices are heard at the highest levels.”
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on who might replace Sacks in the AI and Crypto Czar role, or whether the position will continue in its current form.
CoinDesk is making this article its preferred story on Google for readers interested in White House crypto developments.

The yield agreement, seen as a step toward finally advancing the stalled market structure bill, hasn't yet fully won industry support.
WASHINGTON — A hard-fought compromise on the long-awaited cryptocurrency market structure legislation has elicited a sharply divided response across the digital asset industry, with key players voicing everything from cautious optimism to outright skepticism.
The agreement, which aims to resolve sticking points around the classification of digital assets as securities or commodities, is being viewed by some as a critical breakthrough that could finally push the stalled bill forward in Congress. However, it has yet to secure broad-based endorsement from the crypto sector, highlighting the deep fractures within what has often been portrayed as a unified industry.
### Mixed Reactions from Industry Leaders
Prominent voices in the crypto space have taken to social media and public statements to weigh in on the development. Supporters argue that the compromise represents a pragmatic step toward regulatory clarity, which many believe is essential for institutional adoption and long-term growth of the sector.
"This is progress, even if imperfect," said one industry executive who requested anonymity due to ongoing negotiations. "We've been waiting years for clear rules of the road. This gets us closer to a framework that distinguishes between decentralized protocols and centralized intermediaries."
Critics, however, contend that the yield agreement concedes too much ground on issues such as decentralized finance (DeFi) oversight and stablecoin regulation. Some fear it could impose burdensome compliance requirements that might stifle innovation, particularly for smaller projects and decentralized applications.
A notable segment of the community has expressed frustration over what they see as a "watered-down" version of earlier proposals. "This isn't the comprehensive market structure bill we needed," tweeted one influential crypto commentator. "It's a patchwork that protects incumbents while leaving retail users and innovators exposed."
### Background on the Market Structure Bill
The cryptocurrency market structure bill has been in development for several years, with multiple iterations failing to gain sufficient traction in Congress. The legislation seeks to establish a clear regulatory regime for digital assets, addressing key areas such as:
- Asset Classification: Clear guidelines on when a digital token qualifies as a security versus a commodity.
- Decentralized Finance (DeFi): Rules governing lending protocols, decentralized exchanges, and yield-generating products.
- Stablecoins: Oversight and reserve requirements for dollar-pegged tokens.
- Market Integrity: Measures to prevent manipulation, fraud, and ensure fair trading practices.
Proponents of the bill argue that without such a framework, the United States risks falling behind global competitors like the European Union (which has implemented MiCA) and Singapore in attracting crypto businesses and talent.
### Path Forward Uncertain
While the yield agreement marks a potential thawing of the legislative stalemate, significant hurdles remain. Lawmakers from both parties continue to debate the scope of the bill, with concerns ranging from investor protection to national security implications of crypto.
Industry groups are expected to ramp up lobbying efforts in the coming weeks as the bill moves through committee stages. Some analysts predict that further amendments may be necessary to bridge the divide between pro-innovation factions and those prioritizing stricter consumer safeguards.
The fractured response underscores a broader reality in the crypto industry: while there is near-universal agreement on the need for regulatory clarity, consensus on the specifics remains elusive.
As one veteran observer put it: "The crypto crowd isn't a monolith. This compromise is a mirror reflecting our own divisions — between maximalists and pragmatists, between those building infrastructure and those focused on financial freedom."
The article will continue to evolve as more details emerge from Capitol Hill and as reactions from major players like Coinbase, Binance.US, and decentralized protocol developers continue to pour in.
Stay tuned for updates as this story develops.

Riding the crypto boom to become one of 2025's hottest stocks, HOOD has shed more than 50% of its value since Bitcoin topped in early October.
Robinhood Markets (NASDAQ: HOOD) announced on March 24 that its board of directors has approved a new $1.5 billion share repurchase program, significantly expanding the company's capacity to buy back its own stock amid a sharp pullback in its share price.
The new authorization replaces prior programs and adds more than $1.1 billion in incremental buyback capacity. Management expects to execute the repurchases over approximately three years, beginning in the first quarter of 2026, though the company is not obligated to purchase any specific number of shares or complete the program within a set timeframe.
The move comes as Robinhood's stock has faced intense pressure in 2026. After more than tripling in value during 2025—fueled by surging cryptocurrency trading volumes and record company performance—HOOD shares have dropped roughly 39% year-to-date and over 50% from their peak since Bitcoin hit its high in early October 2025.
### Strong 2025 Backdrop Meets 2026 Reality
Robinhood rode the 2025 crypto bull run to post record results. The company reported full-year 2025 net revenues of $4.5 billion (up 52% year-over-year) and net income of $1.9 billion, with crypto transaction revenue playing a major role in the surge. Assets under custody reached new highs, and the platform added millions of users drawn to its user-friendly trading experience for stocks, options, and digital assets.
However, the broader crypto market cooled sharply toward the end of 2025 and into 2026. Bitcoin's decline from its early-October peak triggered a broader sell-off in crypto-related stocks, including Robinhood, whose fortunes remain closely tied to retail trading enthusiasm and digital asset volatility.
### Confidence from the Board and Management
In a statement accompanying the 8-K filing, Robinhood CFO Shiv Verma emphasized long-term optimism:
> “Robinhood is a generational company with a massive long-term opportunity. This authorization reflects the confidence of our management team and board in our ability to continue delivering innovative products for customers and creating value for shareholders while returning capital over time.”
The buyback program signals that Robinhood views its current valuation as attractive and believes repurchasing shares will enhance shareholder value by reducing the outstanding share count and potentially boosting earnings per share over time.
Simultaneously, Robinhood expanded its short-term credit facility to $3.25 billion (with the potential to increase to $4.875 billion), further strengthening its financial flexibility.
### Market Reaction
Following the announcement, HOOD shares rose modestly in extended trading, reflecting investor appreciation for the capital return signal even as the broader downtrend persists.
Analysts note that while the buyback provides a floor of support, Robinhood's stock remains highly sensitive to crypto market movements. A sustained recovery in Bitcoin and renewed retail trading activity could help the company regain momentum in the second half of 2026.
Robinhood previously authorized a $1 billion buyback in May 2024 and added $500 million in April 2025, during which it repurchased over 25 million shares at an average price of approximately $45.

The crypto industry got a first look at legislative language that won't allow rewards on stablecoin balances, and the approach is seen as restrictive.
WASHINGTON — The long-stalled Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (commonly known as the Clarity Act) has taken a significant step forward with new language on stablecoin rewards that explicitly prohibits payments for simply holding balances, according to sources familiar with the latest draft text.
The compromise, reached in principle last week by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) with White House backing, draws a clear line: passive yield on idle stablecoin holdings is banned, while activity-based rewards tied to actual usage — such as payments, transfers, platform activity, or loyalty programs — remain permitted.
This distinction aims to prevent stablecoins from functioning like unregulated bank deposits that could pull funds out of the traditional banking system, a major concern raised by banking industry lobbyists. However, the restrictive approach on balance-based rewards has left many in the crypto sector disappointed, with insiders describing the language as "cringe-worthy" and overly cautious.
### Background on the Compromise
Negotiations over stablecoin yield had been the primary roadblock preventing the Clarity Act from advancing in the Senate. The bill, which seeks to provide comprehensive regulatory clarity for digital assets, including market structure rules for exchanges, DeFi protections, and stablecoin oversight, had been bogged down for months.
Earlier versions of related legislation, including the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act signed into law in 2025, already prohibited direct interest payments by stablecoin issuers. The latest Clarity Act draft builds on that by targeting "rewards" that resemble interest on holdings.
Section 404 of the evolving Senate draft reportedly states that digital asset service providers may not pay interest or yield "solely in connection with the holding of a payment stablecoin." At the same time, it carves out allowances for rewards linked to transactions, remittances, wallet or platform usage, liquidity provision, and certain ecosystem participation.
The compromise is viewed as a win for traditional banks worried about deposit flight, but a potential setback for crypto platforms that have relied on yield-bearing stablecoins to attract and retain users in decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols.
### Industry Reaction and Implications
The Blockchain Association and other crypto advocates have pushed hard for more flexibility, arguing that banning passive rewards would stifle innovation and make U.S.-based stablecoins less competitive globally. Platforms like Coinbase have explored rewards programs as a key part of their stablecoin strategy, though analysts note such incentives are not central to their overall revenue.
"This language reflects a heavy-handed attempt to protect legacy banking at the expense of consumer choice," one industry source said on condition of anonymity. "It treats holding a stablecoin like a savings account — which regulators clearly want to avoid — while allowing some workarounds through activity-based incentives."
Critics within crypto warn that the restrictions could reduce demand for dollar-pegged stablecoins issued or held in the U.S., potentially driving activity offshore. Supporters of the compromise, including banking interests, counter that unregulated yield on stablecoins poses systemic risks and blurs the line between crypto and traditional finance.
A similar version of the Clarity Act passed the House of Representatives last year, and a parallel draft cleared a markup in the Senate Agriculture Committee. With the yield issue now largely resolved (described by some as "99% done"), attention is shifting to remaining details around DeFi regulation, token classification, and political packaging.
### What's Next?
Senate leadership is eyeing a potential markup or floor vote as early as April or May 2026, though a crowded legislative calendar and midterm considerations could push timelines further. The White House has signaled support for the framework, which could help unblock broader crypto market structure legislation.
For the crypto industry, the coming weeks will be critical. While the bill offers much-needed regulatory certainty in many areas, the stablecoin yield restrictions may force platforms to rethink incentives and pivot toward transaction-based or usage-driven rewards models.
As one observer put it: "The industry got a framework. Banks got their yield ceiling. Now everyone has to figure out how to live with it."

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (**SEC**), in collaboration with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (**CFTC**), has released landmark joint interpretive guidance clarifying how federal securities laws apply to cryptocurrencies and related assets. This development, announced on March 17, 2026, and covered in recent reporting (including a CoinDesk article dated March 22, 2026), aims to end years of regulatory uncertainty in the crypto space by providing a clearer framework for determining whether a cryptocurrency qualifies as a security.
### Background and Significance
For over a decade, the crypto industry has grappled with ambiguity around the application of securities laws, particularly the Howey test (from the 1946 Supreme Court case SEC v. W.J. Howey Co.), which defines an investment contract as involving an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits primarily from the efforts of others.
The new guidance—formally titled "Application of the Federal Securities Laws to Certain Types of Crypto Assets and Certain Transactions Involving Crypto Assets"—supersedes prior staff frameworks (like the 2019 digital asset analysis) and offers a prospective, binding interpretation. It reflects coordinated efforts following a March 11, 2026, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the SEC and CFTC to harmonize oversight, support innovation, and protect markets.
SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins emphasized in accompanying remarks that this marks a shift away from "regulation by enforcement," stating the agency is "not the Securities and Everything Commission anymore." The guidance acknowledges that most crypto assets are not securities themselves, while providing clarity on when they might fall under securities laws (e.g., when sold as part of an investment contract).
### Key Elements: The Token Taxonomy
The core of the guidance is a five-category "token taxonomy" that classifies crypto assets based on their function, design, and use:
1. Digital Commodities — Not securities. These are assets intrinsically linked to the operation of a functional crypto network (e.g., via proof-of-work or proof-of-stake mechanisms). Their value derives from supply-demand dynamics and network utility, not managerial efforts. Examples explicitly or impliedly covered include Bitcoin, Ether, Solana, Cardano, XRP, and others. Protocol mining (on proof-of-work networks) and protocol staking (on proof-of-stake networks) are generally not treated as securities offerings when conducted in line with the guidance.
2. Digital Collectibles — Not securities. Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) or similar assets valued primarily for rarity, aesthetics, or collectibility rather than investment returns.
3. Digital Tools — Not securities. Assets designed for consumptive or utility purposes within a network, such as access tokens or governance tools without profit expectations tied to others' efforts.
4. Stablecoins (specifically payment stablecoins under frameworks like the GENIUS Act) — Not securities, when functioning as payment instruments with stable value.
5. Digital Securities (or tokenized securities) — Remain securities. These are traditional financial instruments (e.g., stocks, bonds) represented or recorded on blockchain/distributed ledger technology. They stay subject to full securities laws regardless of format.
A key nuance: Even a non-security crypto asset can become subject to securities laws if offered/sold as an investment contract—e.g., through promises of future managerial efforts leading to expected profits. Conversely, such obligations can end, removing the securities classification.
### Additional Clarifications
- Airdrops, wrapping of non-security assets (e.g., via bridges), and certain programmatic distributions are addressed, often falling outside securities rules if not tied to investment-like promises.
- The CFTC endorsed the interpretation, confirming it will administer the Commodity Exchange Act consistently, treating many non-security crypto assets as commodities.
- This is a bridge toward potential future rulemaking, including "Regulation Crypto Assets" with tailored exemptions or safe harbors (echoing prior proposals like Commissioner Hester Peirce's Token Safe Harbor).
### Implications for the Industry
This joint guidance provides much-needed clarity, reducing enforcement risks for compliant projects and fostering innovation. Major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ether gain reaffirmed non-security status, while tokenized traditional assets remain regulated. Market participants are encouraged to review the full 68-page document (available on SEC.gov) and align practices accordingly, as the interpretation applies prospectively and invites public comments.
The move signals greater inter-agency cooperation and a more innovation-friendly stance, though comprehensive crypto market structure legislation from Congress remains the long-term goal for "future-proof" regulation.

The Bitcoin options market is flashing signals of extreme fear among investors, even as spot prices stabilize around the $70,000 level. According to a recent analysis from investment firm VanEck, the premium for downside protection—primarily through put options—has reached a new all-time high, reflecting heightened caution and defensive positioning in the crypto space.
In VanEck's mid-March 2026 Bitcoin ChainCheck report, analysts highlighted that despite Bitcoin's price consolidating near $70,000 following a roughly 19% drawdown in the 30-day average, traders are aggressively hedging against further declines. Realized volatility has notably cooled, dropping from around 80 to just above 50 over the past month, indicating reduced day-to-day price swings and a cooling of leveraged speculation in futures markets. Funding rates in perpetual futures have also declined from 4.1% to 2.7%, pointing to less aggressive bullish leverage.
Yet, this apparent stabilization hasn't eased investor nerves. Put/call open interest ratios (measuring bearish vs. bullish options bets) peaked at 0.84 and averaged 0.77—the highest since June 2021 and placing it in the 91st percentile of observations since mid-2019. This skew shows unusually strong demand for downside hedging relative to upside bets.
Even more telling, premiums paid for put options relative to spot trading volume hit a record ~4 basis points—roughly 3x the elevated levels seen during the mid-2022 market turmoil following the Terra/Luna collapse and Ethereum staking issues. Total premiums for puts over the past 30 days stood at $685 million (down 24% month-over-month but still above 77% of monthly observations since early 2025). Meanwhile, call premiums weakened, falling 12% to around $562 million.
Total Bitcoin options open interest has climbed to over $33 billion, underscoring the scale of institutional and professional activity in derivatives. This "peak defensiveness," as VanEck describes it, suggests many participants are prioritizing protection over speculation, potentially viewing the current price range as vulnerable despite the calmer realized volatility.
Bitcoin's current price hovers in the high $68,000 to low $70,000 range as of late March 2026, remaining about 45% below its all-time high of $126,080 set in October 2025. On-chain activity has also been subdued, with transfer volumes and fees declining amid a shift to off-chain venues like derivatives and ETFs.
Historically, such extreme hedging and fear in options markets—especially when paired with cooling volatility and contained selling pressure from miners and long-term holders—has occasionally marked local bottoms or turning points rather than the start of deeper breakdowns. Whether this defensiveness proves prescient or overly cautious remains to be seen, but it clearly illustrates a market that's stabilized in price but not yet in sentiment.

A mailer from Think Big PAC told voters that the Democratic U.S. House candidate once got $100,000 in support from the former head of failed global exchange FTX.
York's 12th Congressional District, a pro-AI super PAC is weaponizing ties to the disgraced founder of FTX to attack one of the contenders.
A sharply worded mailer distributed by Think Big PAC—an affiliate of the broader pro-AI advocacy group Leading the Future—targets New York State Assemblymember Alex Bores, a Democratic candidate in the race. The mailer highlights that Bores previously received more than $100,000 in independent expenditures and support from entities linked to Sam Bankman-Fried's political network during the 2022 election cycle.
The piece alleges that “Bankman-Fried’s buddies are bankrolling Bores for Congress,” framing the past funding as a liability amid Bankman-Fried's high-profile fraud conviction and 25-year prison sentence for orchestrating massive customer fund misappropriation at FTX. (Bankman-Fried's political spending—much of it routed through super PACs and intermediaries—totaled over $100 million across parties in the lead-up to the 2022 midterms, often aimed at influencing crypto and tech regulation.)
Think Big PAC, which advocates for lighter-touch approaches to AI governance and has backed efforts opposing stricter AI safety rules, confirmed the funding figures through state election filings. A spokesperson for the PAC told reporters that Bores “raked in over $100,000 from Sam Bankman-Fried’s sordid political network but refuses to acknowledge the connection.”
The attack comes amid a broader battle over AI policy in Congress. Bores, a former tech executive, has sponsored state-level AI safety legislation (including New York's RAISE Act, which mandates disclosure of safety protocols and misuse reporting for major AI developers). This has drawn opposition from industry-backed groups like Leading the Future and its affiliates, which have poured millions into opposing candidates seen as favoring heavier regulation.
Bores has faced sustained ad campaigns from similar PACs, including accusations tied to his past work at Palantir and broader efforts to portray him as out of step with pro-innovation tech interests.
The NY-12 primary remains competitive, with multiple candidates vying to replace outgoing Rep. Jerry Nadler in a district covering parts of Manhattan. The mailer is the latest escalation in a race where AI policy, tech influence, and past political funding networks have become central flashpoints.
Note: This article draws from the original provided headline and excerpt, supplemented with contextual details from public reporting on the candidates, PACs, and Bankman-Fried's documented political activities.

The Crypto Clarity Act (formally the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, or H.R. 3633) is advancing toward a critical milestone in the U.S. Senate, with negotiations heating up and a potential hearing on the horizon amid intense legislative maneuvering.
Introduced in the House and passed there in July 2025 with strong bipartisan support (294-134 vote), the bill aims to establish a clear regulatory framework for digital assets. It divides oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission (**SEC**) for certain tokenized assets and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (**CFTC**) for digital commodities, particularly those tied to mature, decentralized blockchain systems. The legislation seeks to reduce uncertainty that has hampered innovation, while incorporating provisions on disclosures, exemptions for evolving blockchain systems, and safeguards against illicit finance.
After referral to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee in September 2025, progress stalled earlier this year. A planned markup in January 2026 was postponed indefinitely due to disputes, primarily over stablecoin yield—rewards or interest-like payments on stablecoins. Banks, led by groups like the American Bankers Association, have opposed allowing crypto firms to offer such yields, arguing they threaten traditional deposits and financial stability. Crypto industry players, including exchanges like Coinbase and issuers like Circle, contend that restrictions would drive activity offshore to jurisdictions like Hong Kong or Singapore.
Recent developments indicate momentum is rebuilding. As of mid-March 2026, Senate Republicans, including key figures like Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH), have signaled plans for a Senate Banking Committee markup in the second half of April. Sen. Lummis stated the committee aims to advance the bill then, while Sen. Moreno warned that failure to pass by May could doom digital asset legislation for the foreseeable future, given the approaching 2026 midterm elections and limited floor time.
The White House appears actively involved, potentially reviewing updated legislative text. Lawmakers are weighing legislative trades to secure broader support, including offers of unrelated provisions—possibly tied to housing or other banking priorities—to win over community banks and resolve lingering concerns. Negotiations on stablecoin rewards are nearing compromise, with discussions distinguishing between passive yields (on idle holdings, which banks want restricted) and activity-based rewards (e.g., for payments, transfers, or platform use, which could survive in limited form). Senators like Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) have been central to bridging these gaps, with both sides expected to be "a little bit unhappy" in any final deal.
President Trump has publicly urged swift passage, criticizing banks for allegedly holding the bill "hostage" and emphasizing the need to keep the U.S. as the "crypto capital of the world." The administration has pushed for resolution, though earlier deadlines (like March 1) passed without full agreement.
If the bill clears committee in April and reaches the Senate floor by early May, it could head to the President's desk soon after. Failure to advance risks the legislation lapsing in the current Congress, prolonging regulatory uncertainty for the industry.
The coming weeks will be decisive, with stakeholders watching closely for signs of a finalized compromise and committee scheduling. This could mark a turning point for U.S. crypto policy, providing much-needed clarity while balancing innovation, investor protection, and traditional finance interests.