Cryptopolitan

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (NYSE: TSM), Samsung Electronics (KRX: 005930) and SK Hynix (KRX: 000660) now make up more than 30% of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.
Their combined share is close to the Magnificent Seven’s weight in the S&P 500. Technology now covers about 45% of the emerging-market gauge. These three chipmakers are worth $4.4 trillion, giving a very small group enormous influence over emerging-market stock returns.
Some funds are spreading money beyond AI. JPMorgan Asset Management and Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo are studying gaming, energy and consumer companies, including a Vietnamese dairy producer. JPMorgan is also searching across India and China to rely less on one Taiwanese company and two South Korean giants.
Fund managers broaden their bets as Samsung and chip shares lose steam
Chip stocks have been falling because investors think cloud companies may have built more AI systems than the market needs right now. Some AI firms are also working on their own chips, which could reduce future orders for outside suppliers. Spending could keep climbing even if real demand does not grow at the same pace.
Samsung posted strong earnings last week, but its shares did not take off. Investors were more worried that companies are spending too much on AI before usage catches up. South Korea’s Kospi is now down 20% from its June high. Selling became so intense that circuit breakers stopped trading several times.
GMO still owns SK Hynix, but the stock is also one of the biggest positions the firm holds below the index level in its $1.9 billion Emerging Markets Equity Strategy. Portfolio manager Tom Chiang said the fund owns less SK Hynix than the benchmark does. The memory-chip company is now worth close to $1 trillion, and its share price has climbed about thirteen times since the start of 2025. Tom said that rise is much bigger than the company’s business results support.
SK Hynix depositary receipts began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on Friday. They climbed 14% above the sale price after the company raised $26.5 billion, the largest US listing ever completed by a foreign company.
Retail cash is still entering emerging-market funds. The Avantis Emerging Markets Equity ETF (NYSE Arca: AVEM), which manages about $25.4 billion, recorded its biggest weekly inflow in four months. It is the largest actively managed ETF tracking emerging-market shares. In Hong Kong, Alibaba Group (HKEX: 9988; NYSE: BABA) gained more than 13%, while Tencent Holdings (HKEX: 0700) rose over 4%.
Chinese shares rise while Zhipu trades on a very small public float
Regional rankings have flipped. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index is the top performer this month, while the Kospi sits last. The Korean gauge had gained about 116% this year at its peak, but that increase has now narrowed to roughly 72%.
Hong Kong spent much of the year under pressure. Worries about China’s economy and weak e-commerce earnings pushed several indexes into bear markets. Lower prices left Chinese shares cheaper. The Hang Seng China Enterprises Index trades at about 8.9 times expected earnings, compared with 13 times for the MSCI Asia benchmark. Tencent earlier traded at a record-low multiple of 11.
Despite the fact that the Kospi continues to appear cheap from certain perspectives due to revised upward earnings forecasts for chip makers, investor caution was heightened following the 200%-plus runs made by Samsung and SK Hynix at their respective peak levels this year.
The problem with Zhipu lies in its own area. The Chinese artificial intelligence firm, officially called Knowledge Atlas Technology JSC Ltd., aims to generate $4 billion by offering its shares on the stock exchange, but this offering won’t add much to the available shares to trade.
Zhipu announced 19.8 million shares on Thursday, after almost 26 million locked shares had also became available last week, though only about 13.5% of issued stock will trade freely.
The shares rallied as much as 20% on Friday and closed 19% higherm cinching a 1,650% surge since January, the biggest gain in the entire Hang Seng Composite Index.
Now this rally depends on few available shares while global doubts grow over whether AI companies can turn their products into lasting profit.
Only about 4% of Zhipu’s shares could be traded before its six-month IPO lockup ended. More shares usually become available once that restriction expires, but major early investors said they would keep what they own.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) still has not said whether Americans trading World Cup contracts on prediction platforms should pay tax as gamblers or investors. The lack of such an answer means that two people who supported a specific match will end up paying vastly different amounts of tax on it.
A gambler is expected to report his winnings to a sportsbook. The user of the prediction markets can claim that he won money via a financial transaction.
The US federal tax laws are more favorable towards many types of investments as opposed to betting. The classification of an investment will allow the bettor to claim the total loss incurred and in a more assertive approach to tax, he can ask for a reduced tax rate on some portion of his gains. The classification of a gamble will limit the deductions.
Prediction platforms use financial contracts while tax law still looks at the actual bet
As you may be aware, companies offering such prediction markets have claimed that their services are not typical bets. Instead, the users are buying and selling pre-set contracts relating to an outcome in the future. The deal goes through the channels designed for financial trading. This way, the person placing the money does not just make a bet with the bookmaker until he gets the result.
The opponents, on the other hand, emphasize the customer’s actions. The money is spent on something that cannot be known ahead of time, and the client wants more if his bet is correct. This type of analysis has been done many times in courts and by the IRS; they do not necessarily accept the name of the activity but its essence.
White & Case has said gambling proceeds fall under IRC Section 61 as ordinary taxable income. The firm also noted that IRC Section 165(d) limits gambling-loss deductions to the amount of gambling winnings. A foreign person who places a U.S. wager can also create American-source income, with a 30% withholding charge applied under the relevant rules.
The rules become harsher for U.S. taxpayers from the 2026 tax year. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act allows people reporting gambling income to use only 90% of their losses against their winnings. That means someone who wins and loses the same total could still owe tax on part of the activity.
Regulators leave traders with three possible tax paths and no direct IRS answer
Kalshi rejects the casino label and says its products are futures contracts overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Its contracts settle at fixed values based on whether the listed event ultimately happens. BRC has said the final tax result may depend on the contract itself. A filing could fall under gambling rules, capital-gain rules, or IRC Section 1256.
Section 1256 uses yearly mark-to-market accounting. It treats 60% of a net gain as long-term and the remaining 40% as short-term, even when the position lasted only a brief period. That split can produce a lower bill than ordinary income treatment for some taxpayers.
Still, a CFTC connection does not guarantee access to Section 1256. Monaco CPA has said a contract must trade on a qualified board or exchange before that section can apply. Registration with the regulator, by itself, is not enough.
Such products have been called “binary options,” which constitute swaps by the CFTC, a phrase that might allow these products to fall within the exemption provided under Section 1256(b)(2)(B). Congress included this exemption to ensure that certain swap contracts did not qualify for the 60/40 rule.
The absence of any guidance on the prediction market issue is not similar to what has been issued regarding the tax instructions on other individuals who participated in the tournament. As of April 1, the IRS issued instructions on withholding agents on the 30 percent withholding requirement on compensation earned from U.S. sources by foreign athletes and foreign entities.
An agreement was later concluded between the agency and Canada Revenue Agency on June 10th. The two authorities agreed that the revenue earned by players and teams be split among host countries according to where the game is taking place. There has not been any comparable statement regarding prediction agreements for the World Cup matches.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

The liquidity pools behind quite a number of tokens in the Sui ecosystem were emptied on Saturday, July 11. The liquidity pools are tied to BlueMove, a decentralized exchange on the Sui blockchain, and onchain observers are now accusing the DEX of pulling the funds through a planted backdoor.
One of the voices that has been active in calling out BlueMove and Sui is Tyler Simpson, founder of Quantum Void Labs, who posts as @quantumvoidlabs.
Simpson wrote that BlueMove “pulled all of the TVL in every single pool” and put the loss at more than 700,000 SUI, adding that “charts are destroyed pools drained entirely.”
In the late hours of July 11, Simpson had called out BlueMove for draining their “locked” liquidity pools.
The Quantum Void Labs founder later wrote, “All tokens on BlueMove DEX — aka, any token launched on MovePump Launchpad. All pools were drained to $0.”
What are other observers saying about the BlueMove liquidity pool drain?
Defimon Alerts, another onchain monitoring account on X, referenced an onchain message that mentioned a drained BlueMove pool of about 400,000 dollars. The message read like a negotiation aimed at whoever took the funds.
The sender wrote, “You drained the BlueMove DEX pool (~$400k). Keep 30% as a white hat bounty and return 70% within 48h to our Sui address: 0x85bf745a737a34bf73f360c22d5c8aea1f1767f3c458f5269a7c2f821b9d3781.”
The sender stated that they will consider treating the matter as resolved if the funds are returned, but they would pursue all available legal and recovery actions if the account fails to return the funds.
The tokens hit were those that launched and bonded through the MovePump curve, a bonding-curve launchpad used by smaller and older meme projects on Sui.
An X user with the account @saksidasaksi stated that BlueMove was removing the liquidity pools on its app and that the Beeg Blue Whale project held its primary liquidity in the MovePump contract, and it has seen its liquidity drop significantly.
In a follow-up, the same account stated BlueMove “stopped development a long time ago” and was now stripping out pools that projects had treated as locked.
Did BlueMove know about the backdoor that drained LPs?
Simpson wrote on X, “BlueMove team shipped the backdoor themselves.” He added that “they upgraded the package on May 31 (by the upgrade cap holder)” and also shared the transaction block address.
According to Simpson’s account, a version he labeled v12 added a function for returning added liquidity along with a double-mint mechanism that inflated LP tokens, and the package was made immutable immediately afterward.
Defimon Alerts also noted that a backdoor had been reported. However, the figures cited here come from the observers and range from about 400,000 to 550,000 dollars, alongside the separate 700,000 SUI estimate.
BlueMove has form for winding down without much runway. In August 2023, the project announced it would cease operations on Sei Network within 72 hours, citing trading volume below expectations and asking users to delist their NFTs first.
The BlueMove incident also adds fuel to the ongoing complaint about Sui itself. Two days before the drain, Simpson wrote that Mysten Labs and the Sui Foundation had “pushed away” most of the projects built on the chain, sparing only a handful such as WAL and DEEP.
He said in his Saturday thread that he had warned the network about BlueMove “three times.”
As of publication, BlueMove had not posted a public response to the accusations.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

A São Paulo court has ordered Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) to return roughly $100,000 to a customer whose crypto disappeared from a Coinbase Wallet.
The court rejected the exchange’s argument that self-custody shields it from liability when user funds are stolen.
Court throws out Coinbase defense
Brazilian courts may begin holding wallet software makers responsible for user security after the São Paulo State Court (TJSP) told Coinbase to repay about 507,000 reais ($100,000) to an investor called Joubert.
Joubert moved his crypto from other exchanges into Coinbase’s app, and the funds later vanished with no prior authorization from him.
Coinbase’s defense was that it didn’t have the private keys to the wallet and that it had no power over transactions recorded on the blockchain.
Magistrate Ju Hyeon Lee applied Brazil’s Consumer Protection Code, under which Coinbase had to prove that Joubert had actually authorized the transfer; it could not.
The company also couldn’t prove that the drained wallet had basic security measures like blocking tools and two-factor authentication.
The judge further criticized the company for submitting complicated technical records without translating them into terms the court could understand.
Coinbase was ordered to repay the full sum along with legal. It also has to pay court costs equal to 10% of the claim.
Could Coinbase’s case set a precedent?
Raphael Souza, a lawyer who focuses on digital law, said the court’s ruling destroys two arguments crypto platforms often use in court.
The first argument is that self-custody products carry no liability for the maker.
“Anyone who develops and puts a product on the market is responsible for its security, regardless of how the technical architecture works behind it,” Souza said.
The second argument is that companies can bury judges in technical documents submitted as case files and expect them to figure it out alone.
Brazil’s legal system has been moving toward stronger consumer protection. The country’s Superior Court of Justice already has cases holding crypto platforms responsible for fraud if they cannot prove proper security.
Brazil’s central bank also reclassified virtual asset service providers as Type 3 institutions under Resolution 580/2026, placing them under the same rules as securities brokerages starting January 1, 2027, Cryptopolitan reported. The country processed about $318 billion in crypto transactions from mid-2024 to mid-2025.
What other security problems has Coinbase faced?
Apart from the Joubert case, the exchange has been having security-related problems involving fraud. Cryptopolitan reported in December 2025 that on-chain investigator ZachXBT traced roughly $2 million in thefts to a single scammer posing as Coinbase support.
Separately, Brooklyn prosecutors charged a 23-year-old man with stealing $16 million from about 100 Coinbase users through impersonation calls.
Many of those scams were a result of a May 2025 breach in which bribed overseas support agents leaked customer data. Coinbase disclosed that attackers demanded a $20 million ransom and threatened to publish records on nearly 70,000 customers.
The company’s CEO Brian Armstrong said the company put that same $20 million toward a bounty instead.
Now, Coinbase could either appeal the court’s decision or pay the assigned fees.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

LAB fiel etwa 56%, nachdem eine von dem LAB-Team zuerst finanzierte Wallet 18,4 Millionen Token im Wert von rund 18,3 Millionen US-Dollar über Aster verkauft hatte. Der On-Chain-Ermittler ZachXBT sagte, die Verkäufe hätten sich über 48 Stunden erstreckt und LAB von etwa 1,20 US-Dollar auf 0,55 US-Dollar gedrückt.
Der Crash ereignete sich kurz bevor die Token-Abgaben eigentlich beginnen sollten, und obwohl das Team „große Marktteilnehmer“ dafür verantwortlich machte, verband Zach die Verkaufs-Wallet mit einer älteren Gruppe von Token, die vom Projekt ausgegeben worden war.
Die Wallet hält 81,5 Millionen LAB. Zach verfolgte ihre Aktivitäten bis in den April 2026 zurück und brachte sie mit seinem Mai-Bericht über privates Lending, Rabattverkäufe, Supply-Kontrolle, geänderte Sperrfristen und ungewöhnliche Aktivitäten von Market Makern in Verbindung.

Bei einem Interview mit dem Ripple-CEO Brad Garlinghouse sagte er, das Unternehmen habe darüber gesprochen, den Betrieb einzustellen, nachdem die US-Börsenaufsicht SEC das Unternehmen im Jahr 2020 verklagt hatte.
Brad sagte, Ripple hätte seine XRP-Vorräte unter den Aktionären aufteilen können, erklärt, dass es keine Tokens halte, und so die Auseinandersetzung beenden können, aber sie hätten sich dagegen entschieden, weil möglicherweise Hunderte von Mitarbeitern ihre Jobs hätten verlieren können.
Stattdessen verbrachte Ripple vier Jahre vor Gericht und etwa 150 Millionen Dollar für Anwälte. Das US-Geschäft stockte etwa fünf Jahre. Die SEC ging außerdem gegen Brad wegen des XRP vor, das er verkauft hatte. Die Aufsichtsbehörden boten an, seinen Fall gegen eine Geldbuße fallen zu lassen, während sie gegen Ripple weiter vorgehen. Er lehnte ab.

Elon Musk ist vor drei Tagen sehr glücklich aufgewacht, als Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) OpenAI wegen der Behauptung verklagte, der KI-Riese habe sich private Hardware-Kenntnisse für neue Consumer-Geräte angeeignet.
Seitdem zeigt Elon in der Öffentlichkeit seine Unterstützung für Apple in dem Fall – auf X, wie man es eben so macht. Wie Cryptopolitan zuvor berichtete, sagt Apple, dass später mehr als 400 ehemalige Mitarbeiter OpenAI beigetreten sind und dabei den ehemaligen Design-Manager Tang Tan als Schlüsselfigur benannten.
Apple erklärte, Tang habe Mitarbeiter, die sich um Stellen bei OpenAI beworben hätten, gebeten, echte Bauteile, Prototypen und Hardware mit zu Terminen zu bringen, bei denen sie anderen vorgeführt werden können. Apple ist der Ansicht, dass die beteiligten Komponenten Schaltkreise und Entwürfe für verschiedene Hardware-Bauteile umfassen, die mit KI-Produkten zusammenhängen und den Verbrauchern derzeit noch nicht zur Verfügung stehen.

Kevin Warsh wird sich zum ersten Mal dem Kongress stellen, seit er als Vorsitzender der Federal Reserve im Amt ist, während Abgeordnete ihn zu Zinsen, Preisen und der Unabhängigkeit der Zentralbank drängen. Sein erster Monat im Amt war ruhig. Kevin hat wenig über die Wirtschaft gesagt.
Der Ausschuss für Finanzdienstleistungen des Repräsentantenhauses wird Kevin am Dienstag um 10 Uhr in Washington befragen, nachdem das Bureau of Labor Statistics die Inflationszahlen der Verbraucher für Juni veröffentlicht hat. Am Mittwoch wird er vor einem Senatsausschuss erscheinen, nachdem die Behörde Produktionspreisdaten bekanntgegeben hat; bei beiden planmäßigen Auftritten in dieser Woche wird er befragt.

Polymarket hat eine Sportfunktion hinzugefügt, mit der Trader mehrere Vorhersagen in einer kombinierten Position platzieren können. Das Produkt heißt Combo-Trading und wurde etwa um den 10. Juni verfügbar.
Jede Auswahl innerhalb des Pakets muss im Sinne des Traders enden. Ein falsches Ergebnis löscht das ganze Ticket aus. Dieses Setup gibt Nutzern die Möglichkeit auf eine höhere Rendite, als wenn man jeden Markt einzeln ansteuert.
Die erste Version deckt nur Sport ab. Trader können Combos aus Moneyline-, Spread- und Total-Märkten zusammenstellen. Polymarket hat die Veröffentlichung auf X mit dem Satz „combos are now live“ angekündigt. Das Unternehmen hat noch kein Datum für politische Wettbewerbe, Verträge zu Breaking News oder andere Ereignismärkte genannt, die dem Produkt beitreten sollen. Diese Kategorien bleiben außerhalb des Systems.

Nigeria führt inzwischen die globale Aktienrangliste in diesem Jahr an, nachdem der wichtigste Aktienindex des Landes in Dollar gerechnet eine Rendite von 67% geliefert hat. Das liegt nur knapp vor dem Kospi in Südkorea, der 66% gewann. Bloomberg verglich 92 Börsenplätze und machte Nigeria damit zum stärksten Performer.
Südkorea hatte die Führung übernommen, weil Anleger hinter Aktien zur Künstlichen Intelligenz herliefen. Dieser Handel wurde später jedoch ruhiger und drückte den Markt in ein Bärengebiet. Nigeria holte die Spitzenposition, weil sich die Kursrallye der lokalen Aktien fortsetzte: Der Naira gewann seit Januar 4%, die Rohölpreise blieben stabil, und der Zugang zu Fremdwährungen wurde leichter.

Das Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI), eine gemeinnützige Forschungsgruppe, ist offiziell eingeschritten, um sich gegen eine Klage zu wehren, die die Eigentümerschaft an etwa 3,7 Millionen Bitcoin für sich beansprucht.
Der Fall, eingereicht am Obersten Gerichtshof des Bezirks New York, argumentiert, dass Bitcoin, das seit Jahren unangetastet geblieben ist, nach Landesrecht als „herrenloses Eigentum“ behandelt werden sollte. Die Kläger, angeführt von einer Person namens Noah Doe, nutzen das New Yorker Gesetz zu Fundsachen, Artikel 7-B des Gesetzes über persönliches Eigentum, um einen Richter dazu zu bringen, ihnen den Status als Eigentümer von ungefähr 39.000 Wallets zuzusprechen, die seit Jahren keine Geldbewegungen mehr vorgenommen haben.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin argues that a lot of the public argument over advanced AI comes from both sides holding assumptions they never actually share.
Buterin’s kill switch proposal for all AI applications has been met with criticism as the tech community engages in yet another debate regarding how fast AI will progress and what that means for the workforce.
What is driving the AI debate?
In a post on X, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin said the clash between supporters of the “AI 2040” scenario and its critics comes down to how fast and how significant AI progress will be.
The AI 2040 framing assumes superintelligence of some kind will appear by 2040 unless strong measures stop it. Meanwhile, the critics believe that AI 2040 supporters are underestimating the capacity of human coordination and threatening freedom, but they do not see superintelligence itself as a power concentration risk.
Buterin admitted he does not know which scenario is closer to reality. “If I was confident that (present-day-style) AI is normal technology, I would be in the detractor camp. If I was confident that superintelligence is coming in 2030 by default, I would be closer to the AI 2040 camp,” he wrote.
But the cofounder remains open to slowing or pausing AI development if risks become significant.
The debate pulled in AI researcher Yann LeCun, author Daniel Jeffries, and policy analyst Adam Thierer.
Yann LeCun, Meta’s (NASDAQ: META) chief AI scientist, argues that AI safety is fundamentally an engineering problem that can be solved through careful iterative design, much like jet engines were made reliable.
LeCun pointed out that “it took 50 years” to make aircraft truly safe, and that the fear of AI is premature when we are yet to create a system capable of human-level intelligence. He has consistently argued that large language models are limited “autocomplete machines” that lack reasoning and causal understanding.
Harry Hawk, posting as @hhawk, said he aligns with Yann LeCun and believes future AI systems would be engineered for safety like aircraft are. He also said he does not believe AI and robots will do everything, leaving no work or jobs.
Buterin replied that that perspective denied the existence of an “AI so powerful that AI alone can perform any task,” which he calls ASI.
How can powerful AI systems be controlled?
Buterin suggested a “plan A,” which proposes a wide-reaching rule that forces everyone to be open about what they are building, plus an emergency off-switch that can slow down or stop large AI training if things get dangerous.
He added that “naive well-meaning intellectuals” who think they can pick and choose which AI uses are okay and which are not will push back against this plan.
Romeo Dean, who prompted part of Buterin’s thread, called the approach “pretty reasonable” but said its triggers would arrive too late under his worldview. He added that he does not grasp the “massive downsides” critics attach to plan A.
Buterin admitted there is no perfect solution. “I see zero plans for how to deal with an ASI transition that are not naive,” he wrote. “Perhaps humanity is stuck with a choice between naive and naive squared.”
The AI 2040: Plan A report came from former OpenAI employee Daniel Kokotajlo’s AI Futures Project.
The report says the US and China should work together to push back superintelligence until 2040. Both countries would have to share all their research openly. It also includes a system based on nuclear war logic, where both sides can destroy each other’s computing power if needed. They call this “mutually assured compute destruction.”
Richard Ngo, an AI researcher, said the report is too worried about AI arriving soon. He also said it does not think enough about how much political trouble AI could cause inside each country.
Are open source models the solution?
Running underneath the whole debate is the status of open source models. LeCun wrote on July 9 that AI’s biggest risk is the “concentration of power” in a few dominant companies. He also wrote that “the only solution to AI sovereignty is open source foundation models.” His post drew more than 2,900 likes and over 430 reposts.
Author Daniel Jeffries, writing the same day, said open source models underpin American technology and warned against “short-sighted safetyists and hawks” seeking to restrict it.
Policy analyst Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the R Street Institute and author of a prominent House AI Task Force report submission, has warned that US AI governance is at a “critical crossroads.”
He pointed out that Congress currently employs a messy, random, and secretive process for reviewing AI. He warned that if this informal system grows and progress is blocked behind special approvals, it will destroy open source AI.
Instead of heavy rules, Thierer proposes a “permissionless innovation” approach, where people will be allowed to build and release AI freely. He suggests that existing laws should be used to punish harm when necessary, and also supports things like testing zones for new AI, requiring some models to stay open, and putting more money into AI research.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

Ein Angreifer hat mehr als 5 Millionen US-Dollar aus dem Hedera-Netzwerk in einem Exploit abgezogen, der am 11. Juli stattgefunden hat; die gestohlenen Gelder waren bereits an Ethereum weitergeleitet worden.
Der Onchain-Ermittler Specter wies auf X zunächst auf einen Hack hin, den er als aktiv bezeichnete, der Hedera betreffe.
Specter stellte die frühe Auszählung über 3,7 Millionen US-Dollar und meldete innerhalb weniger Stunden, dass die Zahl bereits die Marke von 4 Millionen US-Dollar überschritten habe, und schrieb dann schließlich: „Gesamtverlust jetzt 5M+.“
Der Angreifer habe laut Specter die Erlöse mithilfe von LayerZero an Ethereum weitergeleitet und Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC) in Ether (ETH) umgewandelt.

Apple reichte am Freitag eine Klage gegen OpenAI vor einem Bundesgericht in Nordkalifornien ein und wirft dem Unternehmen für Künstliche Intelligenz vor, seine Geschäftsgeheimnisse zu stehlen, um daraus die eigene Produktlinie für Konsumgütergeräte zu entwickeln. Die Klage fällt nur wenige Tage, bevor OpenAI am 15. Juli ein neues Hardware-Produkt in einer eigenen Präsentation vorstellen will.
In ihrer Klageschrift ließ Apple nichts unversucht. „Eines ist jedoch klar: Auf jeder Ebene – von Mitgliedern seines Technical Staff bis hin zu seinem Chief Hardware Officer – und in Abstimmung mit Geschäftspartnern hat OpenAI Apples Geschäftsgeheimnisse und vertrauliche Informationen gestohlen“, schrieb das Unternehmen.

OpenAI has once again reset the usage limits for its Codex coding agent and the newly launched ChatGPT Work, which reflects the growing strain that AI agents have been creating on the computing infrastructure.
On July 11, Codex engineering lead Thibault Sottiaux took to X and announced that usage limits for both products would be restored completely to all users within about 30 minutes. He thanked the community for “pushing our systems to the absolute limit,” adding that OpenAI had “never seen traffic increase so quickly.”
Repetitive resets indicate a larger challenge that goes beyond momentary service issues. While OpenAI, Anthropic, and Microsoft deliver advanced workplace agents, they are also facing the high processing demand posed by such systems. These agents are much costlier to operate because they also conduct lengthier and more complex tasks compared to conventional chatbots.
On Friday, another reset was recorded just a day prior. On July 10, Sottiaux stated that OpenAI had already increased the limits of usage of Codex and ChatGPT Work while assuring of another reset related to the company’s rollout updates.
Hello beautiful people! We have reset usage limits across Codex and ChatGPT Work. And another one will come later in the day. Rejoice.
Now that I have your attention, a quick update on ChatGPT Work, Codex and all the updates we shared yesterday.
We’ve spent the last 24 hours…
— Tibo (@thsottiaux) July 10, 2026
The timing is worth mentioning since ChatGPT Work has only been recently launched. According to Fox Business, OpenAI launched ChatGPT Work on July 9, a GPT-5.6-based enterprise-focused agent that works in conjunction with workplace apps to generate reports, spreadsheets, presentations, and other business materials. The release of such a compute-intensive product at a time when the existing infrastructure is already under stress can help explain why users are facing repeated quota resets.
Inside the Codex bug
The new series of resets comes in the wake of troubles that came to light in the last week of June, when many paying users of Codex noticed that their credits were disappearing much faster than anticipated.
As Cryptopolitan reported, OpenAI attributed the problem to a malfunction in its fraud-prevention system that erroneously applied rate limits to certain accounts while using up developer credits. Some users claimed that the rate of credit consumption climbed by a factor of 10 to 20 times, while those on the $200-per-month Pro plan claimed that they watched about $40 in credits vanish in a few hours.
Sottiaux went on to explain that his team worked through the weekend in what he called a “war room” where they combed through the logs and found the problem. OpenAI made three resets of quotas from June 28-29 before making one more reset to clients who were affected.
As it turned out, there was no single reason for the incident. Business Insider noted that Codex was doing a lot more than anticipated. Automated code reviews, helper subagents, and retry mechanisms may have run several times after an error, consuming excess resources each time. At the same time, the usage dashboard showed an activity that was never even charged, thus adding to the mess.
“All fixes are now deployed,” Sottiaux said after the occurrence, adding that OpenAI has established monitoring systems in order to inform the company if there are any issues in the future. However, July’s latest resets suggest that while the bug has been fixed, capacity issues are persisting.
The whole sector is metering harder
OpenAI is not the only AI firm that has restricted access in recent times due to increased demand.
Earlier in the year, Anthropic lowered Claude usage caps while service was in high demand, and one issue with Claude back in March interrupted developers who had begun to rely on the assistant for programming tasks. The trend now across the industry is that companies are avoiding unlimited access to their services as demand for such has outgrown available computing power.
The study sheds light on the matter. In an April study authored by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab, researchers found that agentic coding jobs require approximately 1,000 times more tokens than conventional coding conversations, with input tokens being largely responsible for that cost. They also found that performing the same task several times can result in significant variation in token usage of up to 30 times despite the fact that the increased amount of tokens did not necessarily improve the result.
Those findings highlight why it remains problematic to charge for AI agents. Since the cost of computing different tasks can be so variable, providers have very few alternative ways other than usage caps, quotas, or periodic resets to control usage.
For developers, however, those measures bring a different set of problems. Many of them are now organizing their work based on quotas instead of deadlines. OpenAI says it will continue monitoring usage and provide further updates if needed, but the repeated resets underscore a challenge facing the entire industry: today’s AI agents are becoming more capable faster than companies can build the infrastructure required to support them.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

A bipartisan measure relating to housing that includes a ban on a US central bank digital currency (CBDC) was enacted into law on Friday (July 10) after US President Donald Trump refrained from signing it. This brings a significant victory for supporters of cryptocurrency and advocates of privacy, who have been pushing for it for more than a year already.
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act reached the White House after passing Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support in votes of 358-32 in the House and 85-5 in the Senate. Those margins proved decisive. Under the Constitution, a bill becomes law without any signature or veto from the President after 10 days while Congress is still in session, and that’s exactly what happened here.
Why Trump didn’t sign
On Thursday, Trump said he would not put his name on the Housing Bill, saying the refusal was tied to another election proposal and not to the legislation itself.
“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT,” he said on Truth Social.
Trump has consistently pleaded with Congress to approve the SAVE America Act, requiring proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.
Trump’s only chance to prevent the act would have been to use a veto before Friday’s deadline, but even then, it was impossible to shift the results since everyone had already voted for it in both the Houses with margins large enough to override a presidential veto.
What the ban actually does
Although the legislation is centered on housing affordability, one provision has drawn particular attention from the crypto industry.
The law bars the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the regional Federal Reserve banks from issuing or creating a central bank digital currency, either directly or indirectly through an intermediary. At the same time, it makes clear that nothing in the legislation should prevent an “open, permissionless, and private United States dollar-denominated currency” designed to preserve privacy protections similar to those of physical cash.
The restriction will continue until the end of 2030. This ban is not permanent; however, it is the first time that Congress has made it illegal for the Federal Reserve to issue a retail digital currency. If policymakers are keen to pursue a digital dollar before the ban comes to an end, the law must first be amended or repealed.
This considerably alters the political scenario. For many years, the Federal Reserve has held the position that it will not issue a CBDC unless it is authorized by Congress. Now, Congress has taken the matter a step further by completely taking that option away from them. This means that the lawmakers–not the Fed–will be the source of any future discussions regarding a digital dollar.
In fact, the Federal Reserve was not even close to introducing a retail CBDC. The discussion paper released by the Fed in 2022 covered the pros and cons of a digital dollar, and their officials have repeatedly said that no decision would be made without first securing the backing of both Congress and the executive branch. According to PYMNTS, neither the Fed nor Congress had made any real progress in advancing a CBDC before the lawmakers added the limitation to the housing package.
The road to the CBDC ban
The idea of a CBDC provision did not arise from housing legislation.
For over a year, Republican lawmakers pushed for laws that would stop the Federal Reserve from adopting a digital version of the dollar. The debate gained traction during deliberations over the GENIUS Act, which would create a regulatory environment for payment stablecoins. Several of the Republican legislators argued that encouraging the use of privately issued dollar-backed stablecoins while allowing the federal government to issue its own version creates contradictory policy incentives.
The difference of opinion succeeded in bringing those negotiations to a halt, but it did not bring that matter to a close. Legislators were able to find other terrain in which they could work by passing the CBDC provision in the bipartisan housing bill. In this way, we can say that one of the most important decisions of Congress in relation to cryptocurrencies took place via legislation that was primarily intended to facilitate affordable housing.
Besides the crypto provision, the ROAD to Housing Act aims to reduce regulatory hurdles for home construction, improve access to financing, and limit large-scale institutional ownership of residential real estate.
Industry groups welcomed the inclusion of the CBDC language. After the Senate approved the measure in March, Digital Chamber CEO Cody Carbone said any decision to authorize a central bank digital currency should remain with Congress and the American people because of the implications for financial privacy.
The backing of legislation reached far beyond the digital asset space. Senate Banking Committee chair Tim Scott called the package a product of negotiations undertaken by bipartisan teams involving both Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren and House members, while organizations involved in housing, banking and community development commended the bill as an important step in dealing with many existing problems of affordability.
The CBDC restriction will be void after 2030 unless action is taken by Congress. Nevertheless, the housing bill changes the discourse regarding a digital dollar in the USA. Any US administration or Federal Reserve leadership that wants to discuss the topic of a digital dollar before Congress lifts the ban must convince Congress to reopen the issue.
The case shows how intertwined the issues of regulation of stablecoins and usage of CBDCs are now in Washington. An argument about the regulation of stablecoins resulted in the adoption of the first law of the country that prohibits the use of CBDCs, which indicates that the questions of CBDC and stablecoin regulation will be increasingly discussed together.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

Am 10. Juli verbrannte Lighter 15.638.702 LIT-Token, die es sich im Rahmen seines automatisierten Rückkaufprogramms bis zum Ende des zweiten Quartals 2026 angeeignet hatte.
Die Bedeutung der Maßnahme ergibt sich nicht aus der Menge der Token, die vernichtet werden, sondern daraus, dass sie einen größeren Trend innerhalb der Kryptoindustrie signalisiert. Nachdem solche Modelle in den Jahren regulatorischer Unsicherheit praktisch verschwunden waren, haben Vorlagen für umsatzbasierte Rückkäufe und die Verbrennung von Token 2025 und 2026 wieder an Beliebtheit gewonnen. Ein Bericht von Tiger Research, der im November 2025 veröffentlicht wurde, nennt Hyperliquid und Pump.fun als zwei Beispiele für Akteure, die an ähnlichen Ansätzen arbeiten.

OpenAI hat seinen Top-Manager für Sicherheitssysteme verloren, während das Unternehmen auf eine mögliche spektakuläre Erstnotiz (IPO) zusteuert. Johannes Heidecke, der für diese Arbeit zuständig war, teilte den Mitarbeitenden diese Woche mit, dass er geht. Sein Ausscheiden folgt auf eine interne Neustrukturierung, die Sicherheitsexperten näher an die Forschenden heranführt, die die neuesten Modelle des Unternehmens entwickeln.
Das Ausscheiden erfolgt in einer arbeitsintensiven Phase für OpenAI. Das Unternehmen hat GPT-5.6 veröffentlicht, leitende Positionen neu besetzt und sich in einen Rechtsstreit mit Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) begeben. Zudem treibt es den Einstieg in Konsumhardware voran.

Das Trump-Weiße Haus hat Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) dabei unterstützt, mit Hilfe der größten Namen der Technologiebranche in den USA wieder auf die Beine zu kommen, aber es läuft möglicherweise nicht so gut, wie er es sich wünscht. Zu diesen Namen gehören Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL), Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) und Elons Musks SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX).
Wie Cryptopolitan in den vergangenen eineinhalb Jahren berichtet hat, ist Washington inzwischen Intels größter Anteilseigner geworden. Die Rettung hat den Kurs angehoben, die Ausgaben für Fabriken geschützt und dem Unternehmen Partner verschafft. Bisher hat sie jedoch noch nicht das geliefert, was Intel am dringendsten braucht: große externe Kunden, die dafür bezahlen, seine Fabriken zu nutzen.