A Coinbase shareholder has filed a derivative lawsuit against several top executives and board members of the crypto exchange, alleging compliance and disclosure failures by the company’s leadership. 

 

On Tuesday, Kevin Meehan, one of Coinbase’s shareholders, filed a complaint in a U.S. district court in New Jersey. The court filing cited several of Coinbase’s top directors, including CEO Brian Armstrong, co-founder Fred Ehrsam, Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal, and Chief Financial Officer Alesia Haas, among other executives.

 

Image credit: PACER

 

 

According to the filing, the plaintiff accused the defendants of making false and misleading statements between April 2021, when the exchange became a publicly traded company, and June 2023. The complainant alleged that a compliance failure by the exchange's leadership exposed the company to several stringent regulatory actions.

 

On behalf of Coinbase, the complainant, Kevin, is seeking damages, requesting that the court implement corporate governance reforms, and requesting recovery of any profits the exchange's leadership may have obtained during the period when the exchange faced these compliance cases.

 

However, since this is a shareholder derivative lawsuit, any financial recovery from Coinbase's directors will go to Coinbase rather than directly to the shareholders.

 

 

Coinbase Battle With Compliance

Over the past few years, Coinbase has faced several legal and compliance challenges, paying millions of dollars in damages and penalties. 

 

In January 2023, the New York State Department of Financial Services sued the exchange for major failures in its Anti-Money Laundering (AML) program. The regulator accused Coinbase of having weak Know-Your-Customer (KYC) checks and failing to properly review suspicious transactions.

 

As part of the settlement, Coinbase agreed to pay $100 million: $50 million in penalties and $50 million to improve its compliance checks and systems.

 

In June 2023, Coinbase was hit with a $5 million penalty by the New Jersey Bureau of Securities. The regulator accused the exchange of allowing the trading of unregistered securities on its platform, prompting several other states to impose restrictions on its staking services at the time.

 

Coinbase has also faced legal challenges from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In 2023, the SEC filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging it operated an unregistered exchange. Following the announcement, Coinbase’s stock dropped sharply, falling from over $60 to under $50 within minutes of the news breaking.

 

 

After nearly three years of legal battle, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission officially dismissed its civil fraud claims against Tron founder Justin Sun, the Tron Foundation, and the BitTorrent Foundation on Thursday. The resolution, entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, comes with one notable condition: Rainberry Inc., the entity that developed the BitTorrent protocol and the BTT cryptocurrency token under Sun's direction, agreed to pay a $10 million civil penalty to the agency.

 

The final judgment still requires approval from a federal judge, but the terms represent a clean exit from what had been one of the higher-profile enforcement actions of the Gensler-era SEC. Rainberry, previously known as BitTorrent Inc. and acquired by Sun in June 2018, will also be permanently barred from engaging in deceptive market practices for securities, though it did not admit guilt as part of the agreement. Critically, the dismissal against Sun himself and the two foundations was entered "with prejudice," meaning the SEC cannot refile the same allegations in this federal court.

 

 

A Case History

The commission first filed the lawsuit in March 2023, during former Chairman Gary Gensler's tenure. The charges were sweeping. The SEC accused Sun and his related entities of orchestrating the unregistered offer and sale of two crypto assets, Tronix (TRX) and BitTorrent (BTT), which it classified as securities. Beyond that, regulators alleged Sun personally directed employees to execute hundreds of thousands of coordinated wash trades in TRX, generating roughly $31 million in artificial trading proceeds and inflating the appearance of legitimate market activity. The complaint also alleged Sun paid celebrity endorsers to promote his tokens without publicly disclosing those payments — a violation of securities laws that require such arrangements to be made transparent to investors.

 

The SEC argued that Sun had tight personal control over each of the entities involved, calling Tron Foundation, BitTorrent Foundation, and Rainberry his "alter egos" and noting that he had spent significant time on U.S. soil during the relevant period, including approximately 180 days in 2019 alone. The agency said a reasonable investor would have seen Sun as the unified face of the entire TRX and BTT ecosystem.

 

Sun's legal team did not take the charges quietly. In early 2024, Tron Foundation and Sun's lawyers moved to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the SEC had no authority over Sun as a foreign national residing abroad and that the agency had failed to prove Sun exercised meaningful control over the Tron and BitTorrent networks. Rainberry, incorporated in California, did not contest jurisdiction but sought dismissal on different grounds — primarily that the company had no fair notice that its activities could be subject to securities claims.

 

The SEC pushed back on those arguments aggressively in an amended complaint filed in April 2024, countering that Sun's physical presence in the United States over multiple years was extensive and well-documented, and that his dominance over each entity was impossible to dispute given his public profile and behavior at industry events.

 

By late 2024 and early 2025, the political climate had shifted dramatically. Donald Trump's return to the White House brought with it a sharp reversal in the SEC's posture toward crypto enforcement. Gary Gensler stepped down, and the commission came under the acting leadership of Commissioner Mark Uyeda before Paul Atkins, a Washington lawyer widely seen as supportive of the digital asset industry, was confirmed as chairman. In February 2025, the SEC and Sun's legal team jointly asked Judge Edgardo Ramos in Manhattan to put the case on hold while both sides explored a potential resolution, citing the interests of both parties and the public.

 

 

What Comes Next For Tron and Sun

The resolution closes a legal chapter, but Sun's year has not been without turbulence. The relationship with World Liberty Financial grew complicated in September 2025 when, days after WLFI tokens became publicly tradable, blockchain data revealed that Sun's wallet address holding roughly 595 million unlocked WLFI tokens was blacklisted by the project's smart contracts. WLFI had fallen sharply from its debut price, and on-chain data showed Sun had made several outbound transfers, including one worth approximately $9 million, to addresses associated with exchanges. The WLFI team cited concerns about suspicious activity. Sun denied any manipulation, publicly appealing to the team to restore his access and invoking the decentralization principles the project claimed to champion. As of late 2025, his tokens reportedly remained frozen and had declined significantly in value.

 

For the Tron and BitTorrent ecosystems themselves, the dismissal removes a substantial legal overhang. TRX and BTT holders had long operated under uncertainty about whether the tokens could ultimately be classified as securities in federal court. While the settlement does not resolve broader policy debates in Washington about how digital tokens should be classified, it does remove the specific threat of a federal court ruling in this case.

 

The $10 million Rainberry penalty is notable primarily for what it is not. Given the scale of what was alleged, including hundreds of millions of dollars in token distributions and deliberate wash trading to manipulate market prices, the fine is modest. Critics are likely to point to the figure as further evidence that the current SEC has little appetite for meaningful accountability in the crypto space, while supporters of the settlement structure will argue it brings resolution without years of additional litigation that may have yielded uncertain outcomes anyway.

 

For Sun, the outcome is a practical victory, even if the legal-ese technically routes the penalty through Rainberry rather than through him directly. He emerged without personal liability in a case where the SEC had once described him as the singular controlling force behind everything. Whether the political dynamics that contributed to that outcome constitute a coincidence or something more transactional is a question that Senate and House oversight committees appear intent on pressing in the months ahead

 

 

 

Fintech giant Revolut announced Thursday that it had officially filed for a U.S. banking license.

 

Revolut filed its application with both the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, seeking to operate across all 50 states under the name Revolut Bank US, N.A. The filing represents what the company is calling a "de novo" charter, meaning it's building a new banking entity from scratch rather than acquiring an existing institution.

 

As recently as January, Revolut had reportedly been exploring the acquisition of an existing U.S. bank, which would have been a faster path to full banking status. The company scrapped those plans in favor of the de novo route, a decision that likely reflects the OCC's growing willingness under the current administration to greenlight new entrants. The OCC has already granted conditional approval to several stablecoin issuers seeking bank charters, signaling a more permissive stance toward crypto-adjacent financial firms.

 

Approval of a charter would mark one of Revolut's biggest regulatory milestones outside Europe. The company already holds banking licenses across parts of Europe and secured a restricted U.K. banking license from the Prudential Regulation Authority in 2024, though it is still working through the mobilization phase required before that becomes a full license. The U.S. is a different beast entirely.

 

Right now, Revolut operates in the United States through a partnership with Lead Bank, a Kansas City-based institution. That arrangement gets the job done for basic accounts and payments, but it's a ceiling, not a foundation. A license would give Revolut direct access to payment networks such as Fedwire and the Automated Clearing House, systems that move trillions of dollars between banks each year.

 

More importantly, the charter would let Revolut shed its dependency on third-party partners entirely and start acting like a real bank. Customer deposits would be insured by the FDIC, strengthening trust and regulatory protection for users, and the company could begin offering credit cards and personal loans directly to consumers.

 

For a company that has built its reputation around being a financial super-app, the inability to offer federally insured deposits or extend credit in America has been a glaring gap. Revolut's European customers can access a full stack of financial products. U.S. customers get a stripped-down version. The charter is meant to fix that.

 

By securing a federal charter, Revolut aims to bypass the fragmented state-by-state regulatory landscape in favor of a single national framework, providing the infrastructure necessary to scale its suite of retail and business services.

 

 

The Crypto Angle

Revolut isn't just a digital bank. It's one of the more crypto-integrated financial platforms in the world, offering trading for dozens of digital assets, and it has been selected by the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority as one of four companies to test stablecoin services under proposed regulations.

 

In that context, the timing of Thursday's filing is striking. It came just one day after Kraken became the first crypto-native firm to secure a Federal Reserve master account, a development that sent a loud signal about where U.S. regulators are headed.

 

Kraken's approval lets its banking arm speed up deposits and withdrawals for large traders and institutional clients, though the account is limited, with Kraken not earning interest on reserves or accessing the Fed's emergency lending. Still, the symbolic weight of a crypto exchange plugging directly into Fed payment rails cannot be overstated.

 

Securing a full banking license would position Revolut to more deeply embed crypto services within a regulated framework, potentially easing concerns for both users and policymakers about the safety and soundness of hybrid platforms.

 

That's the broader story here. We're watching the lines between traditional banking, fintech, and crypto blur in real time, and it's happening faster than most observers expected even a year ago.

 

Revolut's U.S. chief executive at the time of the filing, Sid Jajodia, was blunt about the timing in comments to the Financial Times. Jajodia said the timing of the application had been boosted by the White House's willingness to back new entrants to the regulated banking system, welcoming greater regulatory clarity, including around crypto.

 

That's a diplomatic way of saying what much of the fintech industry has been saying privately for months: the Biden-era posture toward crypto and non-traditional banking entrants was a significant deterrent, and the current administration's approach has opened a window that may not stay open forever.

 

Revolut isn't the only one moving through it. Firms like PayPal and Coinbase are pursuing similar charters following regulatory changes introduced under Donald Trump. ZeroHash, a Chicago-based crypto infrastructure company, has applied for a National Trust Bank Charter from the OCC as well, seeking a federal framework for its stablecoin and digital asset services.

 

 

New Leadership, New Commitment

Alongside the charter filing, Revolut announced a significant leadership shuffle for its American operation. Cetin Duransoy has been named the new U.S. CEO, stepping in as Jajodia moves into a global chief banking officer role. Duransoy previously served as the U.S. CEO of fintech marketplace Raisin and held senior leadership roles at both Capital One and Visa.

 

The hire is deliberate. Getting a de novo bank charter through the OCC is a long and grinding process, requiring extensive scrutiny of capital adequacy, risk management frameworks, and compliance programs. Having someone with deep institutional banking experience at the helm of the U.S. operation sends a message to regulators that Revolut is not approaching this casually.

 

Revolut plans to invest $500 million in the U.S. market over the next three to five years. That's a serious number, and a significant commitment for a company that has had to walk away from a U.S. banking effort before.

 

 

Why Past Attempts Failed, and Why This One Might Stick

Revolut's first U.S. banking license attempt, which began with California regulators in 2021, unraveled by 2023 amid concerns about the company's internal controls and compliance infrastructure. Those issues have since been widely characterized as growing pains typical of a fast-scaling startup that had not yet built the back-office rigor expected of a regulated bank.

 

The company's trajectory since then, the UK banking license milestone, the dramatic financial turnaround, the global licensing push, suggests that those structural weaknesses have largely been addressed. Experts note that while European digital banks like N26 and Monzo have previously struggled to crack the U.S. market, Revolut's massive 70-million global customer base gives it a level of power and self-confidence that its predecessors lacked.

 

There's also the multi-currency angle. Revolut's strong brand recognition and product breadth, including support for multi-currency services, will appeal to digital, mobile, and globally-minded customers, filling a gap in North America where domestic neobanks still offer a limited range of private banking products.

 

That said, skeptics remain. Some analysts have warned that the current rush to acquire U.S. banking licenses is partly a function of regulatory optimism that may not translate into sustained approval rates once the OCC and FDIC begin their detailed reviews. The regulatory process for a de novo bank charter typically takes years, not months, and the political environment in Washington can shift.

 

The OCC's review process will be comprehensive. Revolut will need to demonstrate adequate capital levels, a robust compliance program, a credible business plan, and a management team capable of running a federally regulated bank. Given its prior withdrawal, the company will almost certainly face additional scrutiny around its internal controls and audit functions.

 

If approved, the broader implications reach well beyond Revolut's bottom line. For U.S. regulators, granting or denying the application will send an important signal about how open the system is to globally active, crypto-friendly fintechs seeking full bank status. The decision will likely take into account not only Revolut's financial strength and compliance track record, but also broader debates about innovation, competition and consumer protection.

 

The fact that a crypto exchange now sits on the Fed's payment rails, and that a $75 billion crypto-integrated neobank is simultaneously knocking on the OCC's door, suggests we are entering a genuinely new phase in the relationship between digital finance and the traditional banking system.

 

Whether the regulators are ready for that, or whether the window closes before the paperwork clears, is the question that will define the next chapter for Revolut, and for the broader industry watching closely behind it.

 

 

 

There was a surge in crypto withdrawals minutes after the U.S. and Israel launched targeted military airstrikes in Tehran, Iran’s capital, last Saturday.

 

In a recent post, London-based blockchain analytics company Elliptic gave a report on the aftermath of the airstrikes in Iran. Elliptic reported a significant increase in crypto withdrawals from Nobitex, Iran's largest cryptocurrency exchange.

 

According to the firm, outgoing transaction volume from Nobitex spiked by over 700% within minutes after the first airstrike hit Tehran on Saturday, with crypto outflows reaching nearly $3 million in a single hour that same day.

 

Image credit: elliptic.co

 

 

Further tracing these funds, Elliptic reported that most of the withdrawals were sent to foreign crypto exchanges, potentially indicating intense capital flight amid uncertainty in the region.

 

"Nobitex allows rials to be converted to cryptoassets, which can then be withdrawn to any external wallet…initial tracing of recent outflows from Nobitex suggests that the funds are being sent to overseas cryptoasset exchanges," Elliptic stated.

 

Although this outflow persisted for most of that day, it fell sharply afterward, an event attributed to the nation's widespread internet outage. Yes, there was a 99% decline in internet connectivity in the country.

 

However, contrary to the "capital flight" situation being reported by Elliptic, blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs seems to hold a different view and cautions against drawing a "capital flight" conclusion.

 

"It appears that the country's crypto ecosystem is not showing signs of acceleration or capital flight, but instead is experiencing a downturn in both transactions and volume as the regime enforces strict internet blackouts," TRM Labs said.

 

 

The State of Crypto in Iran

Despite ongoing unrest, the Iranian cryptocurrency economy appears to be among the largest crypto markets in the world. In 2025, over $10 billion in volume was processed, with Nobitex processing over $5 billion.

 

Iranian crypto exchanges have had to deal with massive crypto outflows, the largest of which occurred on January 9 of this year, after the nationwide demonstrations in the country.

Image credit: elliptic.co

 

To adapt to changing events, cryptocurrency exchanges in the country have had to make operational adjustments and move to risk-containment modes.

 

Wallex, a domestic crypto exchange, suspended crypto withdrawals until further notice, citing infrastructure instability. Nobitex, Aban Tether, and Ramzinex, which are all Iranian-based cryptocurrency exchanges, have also had to suspend deposits and withdrawals.

 

However, despite these challenges, cryptocurrencies and digital assets have come to the rescue of many who have had to cope with the several economic sanctions plaguing the country.

 

 

The cryptocurrency industry crossed an important milestone this week after Kraken Financial secured access to a Federal Reserve master account. The approval allows the crypto company to connect directly to the U.S. central bank’s payment infrastructure, something that has historically been reserved for traditional banks.

 

For years, crypto firms have operated on the edges of the banking system, often relying on partner banks to move dollars between trading platforms and the broader financial network. Kraken’s approval changes that dynamic in a meaningful way. By gaining direct access to the Fed’s core payment rails, the company can settle transactions without depending on intermediaries.

 

While the decision does not give Kraken every privilege a commercial bank receives, it still marks one of the clearest signals yet that digital asset firms are beginning to integrate more deeply into the traditional financial system.

 

 

A Breakthrough for Crypto and Banking

Kraken’s banking subsidiary, Kraken Financial, reportedly received approval for a Federal Reserve master account that allows the firm to participate directly in the U.S. central bank’s payment infrastructure. That includes systems such as Fedwire, which processes large value payments between financial institutions across the country.

 

The ability to connect directly to Fedwire is significant. It means Kraken can move dollars through the same infrastructure used by banks, rather than relying on external banking partners to process deposits, withdrawals, or settlements.

 

For crypto exchanges, this has long been a major operational hurdle. Most platforms depend on third party banks to handle dollar transactions, which introduces additional delays, costs, and risk if banking relationships change.

 

Direct access removes several of those obstacles.

 

 

What a Federal Reserve Master Account Actually Means

A master account is essentially an institution’s primary account with the Federal Reserve. Banks use these accounts to settle payments with one another and to interact with the central bank’s financial infrastructure.

 

Institutions that hold master accounts can send and receive funds through the Federal Reserve’s payment networks. In practice, this allows them to move money across the financial system with high speed and reliability.

 

For traditional banks, this setup is standard. For crypto companies, it has historically been out of reach.

 

That gap has forced exchanges to rely on sponsor banks, which act as intermediaries between the crypto industry and the Federal Reserve’s systems.

 

Kraken’s approval suggests that the line separating digital asset firms from traditional financial institutions may be starting to blur.

 

Despite the milestone, Kraken’s access appears to be somewhat restricted compared with a typical bank’s relationship with the Federal Reserve.

 

Reports suggest the account functions as a limited or “skinny” master account. This type of account provides access to payment rails but does not necessarily include all the privileges commercial banks receive.

 

For example, Kraken would not be able to earn interest on reserves held at the Fed or access certain emergency lending facilities.

 

Still, the ability to connect directly to the payment system is what many crypto firms have been seeking. Even with limitations, the operational advantages are substantial.

 

 

Why Crypto Firms Have Been Pursuing Fed Access

The push for direct Federal Reserve connectivity has been building for several years.

 

Crypto companies have often struggled with inconsistent banking relationships. Some exchanges have seen partners abruptly end services during periods of regulatory pressure or market volatility.

 

These disruptions can cause delays in deposits and withdrawals, which frustrates users and creates liquidity challenges.

 

By securing a master account, a firm can remove much of that dependency on partner banks.

 

There are also practical benefits. Direct access can improve settlement speed, reduce transaction costs, and provide greater reliability when moving dollars between crypto markets and traditional finance.

 

Kraken has been positioning itself for this type of approval for years.

 

The company established Kraken Financial as a Wyoming chartered special purpose depository institution, a type of bank designed specifically for digital asset businesses. Wyoming created the SPDI framework to give crypto firms a regulated pathway into banking.

 

Unlike traditional banks, SPDIs are structured to hold customer deposits at full reserve while providing services tailored to digital assets.

 

Kraken’s banking subsidiary was among the earliest institutions to pursue this model, which helped place it in a stronger position to seek Federal Reserve access.

 

The company has also expanded its services well beyond basic crypto trading. Kraken now operates across multiple markets including derivatives, institutional trading, custody services, and tokenized assets.

 

That broader financial footprint likely helped support its case for deeper integration with the traditional financial system.

 

 

What This Could Mean For Crypto

Kraken’s approval may open the door for other crypto companies to pursue the same path.

 

If additional firms gain access to Federal Reserve payment systems, the impact could extend across several areas of the crypto market.

 

Institutional trading could become more efficient as dollars move faster between exchanges and financial institutions.

 

Crypto platforms may also become more attractive to large investors who require reliable settlement infrastructure before committing capital.

 

There could also be broader competitive effects. Exchanges that secure direct payment access may gain operational advantages over those still dependent on partner banks.

 

In the long term, these developments could accelerate the merging of crypto infrastructure with traditional financial systems.

 

For much of its history, the crypto industry operated largely outside the traditional banking system.

 

Exchanges often struggled to maintain stable banking relationships, and many financial institutions were reluctant to engage directly with digital asset businesses.

 

Kraken’s new level of access suggests that the landscape may be changing.

 

Direct connectivity to the Federal Reserve’s payment infrastructure represents one of the clearest signs yet that cryptocurrency companies are moving closer to the core of the financial system.

 

Whether other firms follow Kraken’s path remains to be seen, but the precedent has now been set.

 

 

Uniswap Labs has secured a decisive courtroom victory that could ripple across decentralized finance for years.

 

On March 2, a federal judge in New York dismissed, with prejudice, a long-running class action lawsuit accusing the company of facilitating crypto rug pulls on its decentralized exchange. The ruling closes the door on a case first filed in 2022 and underscores a principle that courts are becoming increasingly comfortable with: writing open-source software is not the same as committing securities fraud.

 

 

The Lawsuit That Would Not Go Away

The case began in April 2022, when a group of investors led by Nessa Risley sued Uniswap Labs, founder Hayden Adams, and several high-profile venture capital backers. The plaintiffs alleged that scam tokens traded on Uniswap had caused substantial losses and argued that the protocol’s creators should bear responsibility.

 

At its core, the lawsuit tried to stretch traditional securities law into a decentralized environment. The argument was relatively straightforward. If fraudulent tokens were being created and traded on Uniswap, and if Uniswap’s infrastructure made that trading possible, then perhaps the developers and investors behind the protocol were on the hook.

 

The problem for the plaintiffs was always going to be causation and knowledge.

 

But Uniswap is a permissionless protocol built on Ethereum. Anyone can deploy a token. Anyone can create a liquidity pool. Smart contracts execute swaps automatically. There is no listing committee. No approval process. No centralized trading desk.

 

Over the past four years, the case wound through motions to dismiss, amendments to complaints, and an appeal to the Second Circuit. Federal securities claims were largely thrown out earlier in the process. What remained were state law claims, including allegations that Uniswap had aided and abetted fraudulent conduct.

 

This week, those claims fell too. Manhattan federal judge Katherin Polk Failla dismissed the suit with prejudice on Monday.

 

Why the Court Said No

Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot bring the same claims again.

 

The reasoning was technical but important. To establish aiding and abetting liability, plaintiffs generally must show that a defendant had actual knowledge of wrongdoing and substantially assisted it. The court found that the complaint failed on both fronts.

 

There were no plausible allegations that Uniswap Labs knew about specific rug pulls before they happened. Nor was there evidence that the company took affirmative steps to advance fraudulent schemes. Providing a neutral, automated protocol that others can use, even if some use it badly, was not enough.

 

The court drew comparisons to other neutral infrastructure. Payment networks process transactions that later turn out to be illicit. Messaging apps are used for scams. Internet service providers transmit fraudulent communications. Yet courts have historically hesitated to hold those intermediaries liable absent clear knowledge and participation.

 

The same logic, at least here, applied to DeFi.

 

The dismissal with prejudice sends a strong signal. 

 

 

A Win for Protocol Neutrality

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams described the outcome as sensible. Company lawyers called it precedent-setting. That may not be an exaggeration.

 

The Second Circuit had already affirmed dismissal of the core securities claims last year, reinforcing the notion that decentralized trading protocols are not automatically securities exchanges under existing law. This final ruling on the remaining state claims sharpens the boundary further.

 

Developers who publish autonomous smart contracts are not, by default, guarantors of every token that trades through them.

 

If courts had ruled the other way, it would have opened the door to expansive liability for developers across DeFi. Automated market makers, lending protocols, even wallet providers could have found themselves exposed whenever bad actors exploited open systems.

 

Instead, the judiciary appears to be drawing a line between building infrastructure and orchestrating fraud.

 

 

Venture Capital Backers Breathe Easier

The case also named major venture capital firms that invested in Uniswap Labs. While those firms were not accused of directly launching scam tokens, plaintiffs argued that by funding and promoting the protocol, they shared responsibility.

 

Those claims have now effectively collapsed alongside the broader case.

 

For crypto VCs, the ruling reduces a specific litigation risk. Investing in a protocol that later hosts fraudulent activity does not automatically translate into liability, at least under the theories tested here.

 

Still, risk has not disappeared. Regulators continue to scrutinize token listings, governance structures, and revenue models. And courts have not issued a blanket immunity for DeFi projects.

 

What this case does suggest is that stretching traditional intermediary liability to decentralized software will be an uphill battle.

 

 

A Move in the Right Direction

The broader regulatory environment for crypto remains unsettled. Lawmakers are still debating market structure legislation. Agencies continue to spar over jurisdiction. Courts are gradually filling in gaps.

 

Uniswap’s victory does not settle whether certain tokens are securities. It does not resolve how decentralized autonomous organizations should be treated under U.S. law. And it certainly does not eliminate fraud in DeFi.

 

But it does clarify one thing.

 

Writing code that others misuse is not, without more, a securities violation.

 

For an industry that has spent years arguing that decentralized protocols are more like public infrastructure than traditional financial institutions, this ruling is validation. It also places pressure back where many judges seem to believe it belongs, on the individuals who design and execute scams.

 

As DeFi matures, that distinction between neutral tools and active misconduct will likely remain central. The Uniswap case may not be the final word, but it is an important chapter in defining how far platform liability extends in crypto’s open markets.

• Hayden Adams, CEO, Uniswap Labs
• Brian Armstrong, CEO, Coinbase
• Shayne Coplan, CEO, Polymarket
• Brad Garlinghouse, CEO, Ripple
• Luke Hoersten, CEO, Bitnomial
• Tarek Mansour, CEO, Kalshi
• Kris Marszalek, CEO, Crypto.com
• Nathan McCauley, CEO, Anchorage Digital
• Peter Mintzberg, CEO, Grayscale
• Sergey Nazarov, CEO, Chainlink Labs
• Arjun Sethi, Co CEO, Kraken
• Peter Smith, CEO, Blockchain.com
• Tyler Winklevoss, CEO, Gemini
• Anatoly Yakovenko, CEO, Solana Labs
• Andrej Bolkovic, CEO, Options Clearing Corporation
• Thomas Chippas, CEO, Rothera Markets
• Professor Harry Crane, Representative
• Chris Dixon, General Partner, a16z Crypto
• Craig Donohue, CEO, Cboe Global Markets
• Terry Duffy, Chair and CEO, CME Group
• Tom Farley, CEO, Bullish
• Adena Friedman, Chair and CEO, Nasdaq
• Christian Genetski, President, FanDuel
• Frank LaSalla, President and CEO, Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation
• Walt Lukken, CEO, FIA
• Scott D. O’Malia, CEO, ISDA
• Alana Palmedo, Managing Partner, Paradigm
• Vivek Raman, CEO, Etherealize
• Professor Carla Reyes, Representative
• Jason Robins, CEO, DraftKings
• David Schwimmer, CEO, LSEG
• Vance Spencer, Co founder, Framework Ventures
• Jeff Sprecher, CEO, Intercontinental Exchange
• Vlad Tenev, CEO, Robinhood
• Don Wilson, CEO, DRW

 

 

 

Washington has spent the past several months talking about crypto clarity. What it got this week was something closer to a standoff.

 

At the center of the latest White House meeting between crypto executives and banking lobbyists was a surprisingly narrow issue that has turned into a major fault line: stablecoin yield.

 

On paper, the CLARITY Act is supposed to settle jurisdictional turf wars between regulators and create a workable framework for digital assets in the United States. In practice, negotiations have slowed to a crawl over whether stablecoin holders should be allowed to earn rewards.

 

Crypto companies came to the table expecting to negotiate. Bank representatives arrived with something closer to a red line.

 

 

The Yield Problem

Stablecoin yield sounds simple. Platforms offer incentives, rewards, or returns to users who hold dollar-backed tokens. Sometimes that comes from lending activity. Sometimes it comes from promotional programs. Structurally, it does not always look like a bank deposit.

 

Banks are not buying that distinction.

 

From their perspective, if consumers can hold tokenized dollars and earn a return without stepping inside the banking system, that looks a lot like deposit competition. And not just competition, but competition without the same regulatory burden.

 

Banks operate under capital requirements, liquidity ratios, deposit insurance rules, stress testing frameworks, and layers of federal oversight. Stablecoin issuers, even under proposed legislation, would not be subject to the same regime.

 

So the banking lobby’s position has been blunt. No yield. Not from issuers, not indirectly through affiliated programs, not in ways that replicate interest-bearing accounts.

 

The crypto side sees that as overreach.

 

 

Is This About Risk or About Control?

Publicly, banks frame their opposition as a financial stability issue. If large amounts of capital flow out of insured deposits and into stablecoins offering yield, that could shrink the deposit base that supports lending. In a stress scenario, they argue, the dynamic could amplify volatility.

 

There is logic there. Deposits are the backbone of bank balance sheets. Disintermediation is not a trivial concern.

 

But crypto executives are asking a quieter question. If the issue is really about safety, why push for a blanket prohibition rather than tighter guardrails? Why not cap yield structures, restrict how they are funded, or impose disclosure standards?

 

Why eliminate them entirely?

 

Some in the industry suspect the answer is competitive pressure. Stablecoins have already become critical plumbing for crypto markets, facilitating trading, settlement, and cross-border transfers. Add yield into the equation and they start to look even more like digital savings instruments.

 

That begins to encroach on traditional banking territory.

 

 

The Competitive Threat

Banks have historically tolerated crypto in its speculative corners. Trading tokens is volatile, niche, and largely outside the core consumer banking relationship.

 

Stablecoins are different. They are dollar-denominated. They are increasingly integrated into payment systems. They can move across borders faster than traditional rails. And they are programmable.

 

Now imagine those same tokens offering yield, even modest incentives. The psychological shift for consumers could be meaningful. Why leave idle cash in a checking account earning almost nothing if a tokenized version offers some return and similar liquidity?

 

To bankers, that is not innovation. That is deposit leakage.

 

And in a higher rate environment, where funding costs matter, deposit competition becomes more acute.

 

 

The Legislative Bottleneck

The CLARITY Act was supposed to resolve long-running disputes between regulators and provide certainty for digital asset firms operating in the United States. Instead, stablecoin yield has turned into the sticking point holding up broader progress.

 

White House officials have reportedly pressed both sides to find compromise language. So far, that compromise remains elusive.

 

Crypto firms argue that banning yield outright could push innovation offshore. Jurisdictions in Asia and parts of Europe are moving ahead with stablecoin frameworks that do not automatically prohibit reward structures. The fear in Washington’s crypto circles is that overcorrection could hollow out domestic competitiveness.

 

Banking groups counter that allowing yield would create a parallel banking system without equivalent safeguards.

 

The tension is not just technical. It is philosophical.

 

 

A Larger Question About Money

At its core, this debate is about who gets to intermediate digital dollars.

 

If stablecoins become widely used and allowed to offer returns, they could evolve beyond trading tools into mainstream financial instruments. That challenges the traditional hierarchy where banks sit at the center of deposit-taking and credit creation.

 

Banks are not opposed to digital dollars in theory. Many are experimenting with tokenization and blockchain infrastructure themselves. But they want those innovations inside the regulated banking perimeter, not outside of it.

 

Crypto companies, on the other hand, see decentralization and alternative rails as the point.

 

So when banks push to ban stablecoin yield entirely, the crypto industry reads it as more than prudence. It looks like an attempt to protect market share.

 

 

The Bottom Line

For now, negotiations continue. There is still political appetite in Washington to pass comprehensive crypto legislation, especially as digital asset markets remain a significant part of the financial system.

 

But unless lawmakers can thread the needle between stability concerns and competitive fairness, stablecoin yield could remain the issue that stalls everything else.

 

And that leaves an uncomfortable reality.

 

If the United States cannot decide whether digital dollars are allowed to earn a return, the market may decide elsewhere.

 

Polymarket has gone on the offensive.

 

The crypto-powered prediction market has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Massachusetts, arguing that state regulators are overstepping their authority as they move to block sports-related prediction markets. The case puts Polymarket on a collision course with state gambling laws and could determine how far U.S. states can go in policing a fast-growing corner of crypto-finance.

 

At stake is a much bigger question than one company’s business model. The lawsuit tests whether prediction markets should be treated as federally regulated financial instruments or as another form of sports betting that states can license, restrict, or ban outright.

 

 

A Growing Clash Between States and Prediction Markets

Prediction markets allow users to trade on the probability of future events. Elections, economic data releases, interest rate decisions, and increasingly, sports outcomes. Traders buy and sell contracts that pay out based on what actually happens, with prices shifting in real time as sentiment changes.

 

Supporters argue these markets are closer to financial derivatives than gambling. Critics, especially state regulators, say sports-based contracts look and feel like wagers, regardless of how they are structured.

 

That tension has been simmering for years, but it boiled over recently when Massachusetts moved to shut down Kalshi’s sports-related markets. Kalshi operates as a federally regulated exchange under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, yet a Massachusetts court sided with the state, granting regulators the power to block those contracts locally.

 

For Polymarket, that ruling was a warning shot.

 

 

Why Massachusetts Matters

Massachusetts has become ground zero for the state-level pushback. The state’s attorney general has argued that sports prediction contracts violate local gambling laws and should not be allowed without a state-issued license. Courts have so far been receptive to that argument, at least on an interim basis.

 

The implications extend far beyond one state. Regulators in Nevada and other jurisdictions have cited the Massachusetts case as justification for their own enforcement actions. If one state can successfully reclassify prediction markets as gambling, others are likely to follow.

 

Polymarket’s lawsuit is designed to stop that domino effect.

 

 

Polymarket’s Core Argument

Polymarket’s legal case is straightforward and ambitious.

 

The company argues that event-based contracts fall squarely under federal commodities law and that the CFTC has exclusive authority to regulate them. If that view holds, states would be barred from using gambling statutes to restrict or ban prediction markets, even when those markets involve sports.

 

In other words, Polymarket is asking the court to draw a hard line between federally regulated markets and state gambling oversight.

 

The lawsuit also reflects a strategic shift. Rather than waiting for a cease-and-desist or injunction, Polymarket is preemptively seeking judicial clarity before Massachusetts or other states can formally block its offerings.

 

 

Sports Markets Are the Flashpoint

Sports contracts sit at the center of the controversy for a reason. Unlike political or economic forecasts, sports betting is already heavily regulated at the state level, with billions in tax revenue flowing through licensed sportsbooks.

 

State officials argue that prediction markets offering contracts on game outcomes undermine that system and create an unlicensed alternative to traditional betting.

 

Prediction market operators counter that their products are fundamentally different. Prices are set by traders, not oddsmakers. Positions can be bought and sold before outcomes are known. Risk is distributed across a market, not absorbed by a house.

 

Courts have not yet settled which interpretation carries more weight.

 

 

The Broader Stakes for Crypto and Finance

The outcome of Polymarket’s lawsuit could shape the future of prediction markets in the U.S. If states prevail, platforms may be forced to geo-block large portions of the country or abandon sports contracts entirely. That would likely slow growth and limit mainstream adoption.

 

If Polymarket wins, it could establish a powerful precedent. Federal preemption would give prediction markets a clearer regulatory runway and could encourage more institutional participation in event-based trading.

 

There is also a competitive angle. Traditional sportsbooks operate under state licenses and strict compliance regimes. Prediction markets that fall outside those systems could disrupt the sports betting industry, which has expanded rapidly since the repeal of PASPA.

 

 

The Bottom Line

The case is still in its early stages, but the direction is clear. Prediction markets are no longer operating in a gray area that regulators are willing to ignore.

 

As states push back and platforms respond with federal lawsuits, the U.S. is heading toward a defining legal moment for event-based markets. Whether they end up regulated like derivatives or treated like gambling will determine not just where these platforms can operate, but what kind of products they can offer at all.

 

For now, Polymarket has drawn its line. The courts will decide how far states can go in crossing it.

 

The White House is preparing to bring crypto executives and banking leaders into the same room again, a sign that Washington’s long running fight over how to regulate digital assets has reached another pressure point.

 

According to reporting citing Reuters, senior figures from the crypto industry and the banking sector are expected to meet with White House officials in early February to discuss a market structure bill that has recently hit a wall in Congress. The meeting comes at a moment when lawmakers have already locked in a stablecoin framework, but cannot seem to agree on the bigger question of who regulates crypto markets and how.

 

Market structure may sound abstract, but it is the foundation of everything else. It determines which agency has authority, how tokens are classified, how exchanges register, and whether new products are built in the United States or somewhere else.

 

The fact that the White House is stepping in suggests the administration believes the debate has moved beyond talking points and into the phase where compromises need to be made, especially between banks and crypto firms that see the future very differently.

 

Why this meeting matters now

When the White House convenes both sides of a financial policy fight, it usually means the normal legislative process is struggling. That is exactly what is happening with crypto market structure.

 

Congress made real progress last year by passing a federal stablecoin law. That victory raised expectations across the industry that broader rules for exchanges, tokens, and decentralized finance would be next. Instead, lawmakers have found themselves bogged down in disagreements that are harder to paper over.

 

At a high level, everyone says they want clarity. In practice, clarity means deciding winners and losers.

 

Banks want to make sure crypto products do not look or behave like deposits without being regulated like deposits. Crypto firms want rules that let them list assets, offer yield, and build new protocols without constant fear of enforcement actions. Regulators want authority that actually matches how the market works.

 

Those goals collide most directly in market structure legislation, which is why it has become the most contentious piece of crypto policy in Washington.

 

 

Where the bill stands today

The House has moved, the Senate is stuck

 

The House of Representatives has already passed a sweeping market structure bill that lays out a framework for classifying digital assets and dividing oversight between the SEC and the CFTC. The basic idea is simple. Tokens that function like securities fall under the SEC. Tokens that operate more like commodities fall under the CFTC, including spot market oversight.

 

That approach has strong support in the crypto industry because it offers a path to compliance that does not rely on years of litigation.

 

The Senate, however, is a different story. Jurisdiction is split between the Banking Committee and the Agriculture Committee, which oversees the CFTC. Each committee has released its own drafts, and neither side has a clear path to unifying them.

 

Markups have been delayed. Amendments are piling up. And the clock is ticking as lawmakers turn their attention to other priorities.

 

Stablecoin rewards have become the flashpoint

One of the biggest reasons the bill is stalled is stablecoin yield.

 

Even though stablecoins already have their own law, they still sit at the center of the market structure debate because they touch the banking system directly. The most controversial issue is whether stablecoins should be allowed to offer rewards simply for being held.

 

From the banking perspective, yield bearing stablecoins look uncomfortably close to deposits. Banks argue that if a token offers a return and can be redeemed at par, it competes with insured deposits without being subject to the same rules.

 

From the crypto side, rewards are seen as a feature, not a loophole. Many firms argue that stablecoins backed by cash and short term Treasurys are fundamentally different from bank liabilities, and that banning rewards would freeze innovation and entrench incumbents.

 

Some Senate drafts have tried to split the difference by restricting passive yield while allowing activity based incentives. That compromise has not satisfied everyone, which is why the issue keeps resurfacing.

 

This is also where a White House meeting could make a difference. Any bill that passes will need language banks can accept and crypto firms can actually use.

 

 

DeFi is the second unresolved battle

Decentralized finance is the other major fault line.

 

Lawmakers and regulators agree that DeFi cannot exist entirely outside the law. They disagree on how to draw the boundary. Some Senate proposals push Treasury to define compliance obligations for DeFi platforms, including disclosures and recordkeeping requirements.

 

The challenge is obvious. If the rules treat software like a traditional intermediary, developers will leave or go dark. If the rules are too permissive, lawmakers worry about money laundering, sanctions evasion, and consumer harm.

 

So far, no draft has solved this cleanly. The result is cautious, sometimes vague language that satisfies no one and invites future fights.

 

 

The SEC versus CFTC question is still unresolved

At its core, market structure is about classification.

 

Is a token a security, a commodity, something else, or some hybrid category that does not fit neatly into existing law? That answer determines which regulator takes the lead and how companies design their products.

 

Some Senate drafts introduce concepts like network tokens or ancillary assets to bridge the gap between traditional securities and decentralized systems. These ideas are meant to reduce uncertainty, but they also raise new questions about enforcement and interpretation.

 

For exchanges, custodians, and issuers, this is not academic. Classification determines what can be listed, how staking works, and whether certain products are viable in the US at all.

 

 

The Bottom Line

I am generally positive on the White House holding this meeting. At a minimum, it acknowledges what everyone in the industry already knows, which is that market structure is stuck and normal committee process is not getting it unstuck.

 

Getting banks and crypto firms in the same room matters, even if no one walks out with a breakthrough headline. These conversations tend to shape the edges of legislation more than the core, but in a bill this complex, the edges are often where everything breaks.

 

That said, expectations should stay grounded. A single meeting is not going to magically resolve the stablecoin yield debate, redraw the DeFi compliance perimeter, or settle the SEC versus CFTC turf war. Those fights are structural and political, and they will take time.

 

If anything meaningful comes out of this, it will likely show up quietly in revised draft language weeks from now, not in a press release the next day.

 

Still, the fact that the White House is leaning in is a good sign. It suggests there is real pressure to get something done, and an understanding that half measures or endless delay are no longer acceptable. For an industry that has spent years asking Washington to engage seriously, that alone is progress, even if the final outcome remains very much in flux.

 

U.S. law enforcement is quietly trying to sort through a messy and uncomfortable situation involving seized cryptocurrency, a government contractor, and allegations that tens of millions of dollars were improperly siphoned from wallets controlled by federal authorities.

 

At the center of the case is a claim that more than $40 million in seized crypto was moved out of government-linked wallets without authorization. The U.S. Marshals Service has confirmed it is reviewing the allegations, though no charges have been announced and the investigation remains in its early stages.

 

The claims surfaced publicly after blockchain investigators began flagging unusual on-chain movements tied to wallets believed to be associated with assets seized by the U.S. government in prior criminal cases.

 

Blockchain Trails and a Familiar Name

Much of the attention comes from independent blockchain investigators who traced large transfers from wallets associated with seized funds to addresses allegedly controlled by a single individual. According to multiple blockchain intelligence reports, the individual at the center of this incident is identified as John Daghita, known in crypto circles by the alias “Lick”. Analysts such as ZachXBT, an independent blockchain investigator, publicly tied on-chain movements from government-controlled cryptocurrency addresses to wallets controlled by Daghita.

 

ZachXBT’s investigation reportedly traced back transactions involving tens of millions of dollars to wallet addresses that received $24.9 million from a U.S. government account in March 2024. This particular government account is linked to assets seized after the 2016 Bitfinex hack, one of the largest cryptocurrency thefts in history, where authorities later seized funds connected to that case.

 

“Meet the threat actor John (Lick), who was caught flexing $23M in a wallet address directly tied to $90M+ in suspected thefts from the US Government in 2024 and multiple other unidentified victims from Nov 2025 to Dec 2025”, ZachXBT wrote on X.

 

According to on-chain analysis shared publicly, one wallet received roughly $25 million from a government-controlled address in March 2024. Investigators say the source wallet appears to be tied to cryptocurrency seized in connection with the 2016 Bitfinex hack, a case that has continued to ripple through the crypto industry nearly a decade later.

 

The situation escalated after a dispute in a Telegram group, where the individual allegedly disclosed wallet details that appeared to confirm control over large balances of ether and other digital assets. Once those wallet addresses were public, blockchain analysts quickly began connecting dots.

 

While blockchain data can show where funds move, it cannot on its own establish intent or legality. That distinction has become especially important as the story gains traction.

 

The Contractor Connection

What has made the case particularly sensitive is a reported family link to a government contractor.

 

John Daghita is said to be the son of Dean Daghita, president of Command Services and Support, a Virginia-based firm that holds a federal contract connected to the handling of seized cryptocurrency for the U.S. Marshals Service. The company was awarded that contract in late 2024, following a competitive procurement process that drew objections from rival bidders.

 

The contract reportedly covers the management and liquidation of certain seized digital assets, particularly smaller or less liquid tokens that are not typically handled by large exchanges.

 

There is no public evidence that the contractor itself is under investigation or that the alleged misconduct occurred as part of official company operations. Still, the overlap between government custody, private contractors, and family relationships has raised uncomfortable questions about access controls and oversight.

 

A Broader Problem for Seized Crypto

The allegations land at a time when the U.S. Marshals Service is already under scrutiny for how it manages digital assets. The agency plays a central role in handling property seized in criminal cases, including cryptocurrency tied to fraud, ransomware, darknet markets, and hacking incidents.

 

Over the years, the Marshals Service has accumulated billions of dollars worth of crypto, including large bitcoin holdings seized in high-profile cases. But audits and reporting have repeatedly shown that tracking, accounting, and securing these assets is far from simple.

 

Internal systems were not originally designed for blockchain-based assets, and oversight bodies have previously flagged weaknesses in inventory tracking and custody procedures. In some cases, the agency has struggled to provide a clear accounting of exactly how much crypto it holds at a given time.

 

Those challenges have become more visible as the value of seized crypto has soared and as debates continue in Washington over whether the government should hold, sell, or strategically manage these assets.

 

What Happens Next

For now, the U.S. Marshals Service is keeping its comments limited. Officials have acknowledged the allegations and confirmed that they are being reviewed, but they have not said whether criminal charges are expected or whether any funds have been recovered.

 

Key questions remain unanswered. Investigators will need to determine whether the alleged transfers involved unauthorized access, compromised credentials, or insider misuse of systems tied to crypto custody. Another open issue is whether the case points to individual misconduct or deeper structural weaknesses in how seized digital assets are handled.

 

Until law enforcement provides more clarity, much of the public narrative will continue to be shaped by blockchain analysts and online investigators. As with many crypto-related cases, the transparency of the blockchain offers clues, but not conclusions.

 

What is clear is that the case highlights the growing pains of government agencies adapting to digital assets. As crypto seizures become more common and more valuable, the systems designed to safeguard them are being tested in very real ways.

 

The walls between Wall Street and the "Wild West" of digital assets just got a little thinner.

 

Charles Schwab, the stalwart of retail investing, has officially signaled its intent to join the spot crypto trading fray.

 

CEO Rick Wurster confirmed on Yahoo Finance’s Opening Bid podcast that Schwab plans to roll out spot Bitcoin and Ethereum trading within the next 12 months. The rollout will debut on their high-octane Thinkorswim platform before migrating to the standard Schwab.com and mobile interfaces.

 

The Strategy: Blue Chips Only

While platforms like Robinhood or Coinbase often lean into the viral chaos of "meme coins," Schwab is taking a predictably measured approach. Wurster made it clear that the firm isn't interested in the speculative frenzy of the latest Shiba Inu derivative.

 

"Those are areas we will leave to the side," Wurster stated, emphasizing that Schwab’s focus remains on "everyday investors" looking to integrate crypto into a diversified, long-term portfolio.

 

A Shifting Regulatory Tide

Schwab isn't acting in a vacuum. The move comes as the regulatory environment in Washington undergoes a massive vibe shift. Since the Trump administration took office, the SEC has pivoted from its previously aggressive "regulation by enforcement" stance.

 

With the swearing-in of the pro-crypto Paul Atkins as SEC Chair—replacing the crypto-skeptic Gary Gensler—lawsuits against major exchanges have been dropped, and restrictive accounting rules for banks holding crypto have been scrapped. Morgan Stanley is reportedly following a similar blueprint, with eyes on adding spot trading to E*Trade by 2026.

 

Ty’s Take: The View from the New Guy

As someone who is relatively new to the financial industry, watching this unfold feels like seeing a massive cruise ship finally decide to change course. For years, the "old guard" of finance treated crypto like a radioactive hobby. Now, they're laying out the red carpet.

 

My honest opinion? This is the "Adults in the Room" moment for crypto.

 

I think Schwab’s decision to avoid meme coins is a brilliant move for their brand. It tells their clients: "We aren't here to help you gamble; we're here to help you invest." For a guy like me, seeing these legacy institutions provide a regulated, familiar bridge to Bitcoin makes the space feel less like a casino and more like a legitimate asset class.

 

However, there’s a catch. Part of me wonders if Schwab is a little late to the party. By the time they launch, many retail investors may have already set up shop elsewhere. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned in my short time here, it’s that you never bet against the convenience of having all your money—stocks, bonds, and now crypto—under one roof.

 

The "crypto winter" is officially over, and the thaw is being led by the very people who once told us to stay away. It’s an exciting time to be entering the industry, even if it means I have a lot more homework to do on blockchain tech.